PDA

View Full Version : Crazy Never Wins GOP Sweepstakes



BonMallari
09-28-2011, 08:54 AM
I dont watch MSNBC or the Morning Joe but found Scarborough's column in Politico quite insightful

article cut/paste from realclearpolitics




Crazy never wins GOP sweepstakes
By: Joe Scarborough
September 26, 2011 11:29 PM EDT

As Rick Perry might say, “It really ain’t that hard.”

If you’re a Northeast elite hoping to crack the code on GOP presidential primaries while impressing your friends at Fifth Avenue dinner parties with insightful political prognostications, always remember one simple rule: Crazy never wins.

You heard right, my Upper West Side friend. Crazy. Never. Wins.

Despite the crop of nutty right-wing candidates that sprout up in GOP presidential fields every four years, despite the gasps and growls that regularly rise from Manhattan cocktail parties aimed at extremists who are hijacking the Republican Party (in ways that past GOP extremists would never have dreamed of hijacking the party), despite the cries from right-wing radio hosts predicting the rise of Ronald Reagan’s ghost and the nomination of an unelectable candidate, in the end this political chatter always proves to be sound and fury signifying nothing.

A few caveats to my rule: (1) Thank you very much for the invitations to your Manhattan cocktail parties. Anything written in the preceding paragraphs should not be interpreted to suggest that I am not delighted by your company or future invitations to said events; and (2) Reagan was never the right-wing tool that talk show hosts claim.

Reagan governed California during its greatest — and most challenging — decade. Running a state of that size required him to compromise on abortion, tax increases and the growth of government in a way that offended the John Birch Society.

Reagan ignored the most extreme elements in his party and governed from the center when compromise was required. That pragmatic streak required the conservative movement’s founder to come to the Gipper’s defense more than once.

William F. Buckley praised Reagan’s pragmatism in a 1967 National Review column that mocked right-wing critics by facetiously asking whether the California governor should “padlock the state treasury and give speeches on the Liberty Amendment.”

Buckley would later criticize George W. Bush’s utopian foreign policy by telling The Wall Street Journal that “conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.”

By that standard, conservatism is in short supply in the 2012 GOP field.

And by following the conservative standard my father used, it’s not so hard to pick out the pretenders in this year’s field.

My dad was comfortably middle class and always too busy putting his kids through school to obsess over politics. But he did know enough to see Reagan speak in 1979 and come home declaring that he had just seen America’s next president — a truth that most commentators would miss until election night a year later.

At just about this time four years ago, Dad gave me one of his last lectures on presidential politics.

John McCain was stuck in single digits, and his once mighty campaign was declared dead on arrival by Republican operatives and political pundits. But Dad’s message to me as I raced toward the airport was as unambiguous as his Reagan declaration 30 years earlier.

“You better watch John McCain. He’s gonna win the nomination.”

Despite my eye rolls and the Arizona senator’s self-inflicted wounds, Dad was right again. Just like he was when he supported Nixon, Goldwater, Ford, Reagan, Dole and Bush.

Guys like my dad do not gamble on candidates like Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich.

Guys like my dad tune out politicians who compare opponents to Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler.

And guys like my dad don’t cozy up to Texas governors who brag about seceding from the Union or call Social Security unconstitutional.

That’s why crazy never wins. It never even comes close.

So regardless of what is written about the Republican Party every four years by Northeast elites or right-wing nuts, guys like my father still hold the GOP’s fate in their conservative hands.

A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.

Franco
09-28-2011, 09:15 AM
I dont watch MSNBC or the Morning Joe but found Scarborough's column in Politico quite insightful

article cut/paste from realclearpolitics

Good article!

He's corrrect that there is a short supply of Conservatism in the GOP field as the ones getting the most coverage represent the extreme right.

As Scarborough eludes to, for the GOP to win we will have to be able to attract voters from all demographics; young, women, moderates, Hispanaics and backs and not just the grumpy old white demographic!;-)

Cowtown
09-28-2011, 09:16 AM
How is this article insightful?

My takeaways are slams on Republican candidates, slams on conservative talk radio, a mischaracterization of Reagan, a slam on Perry and another attempt of the left to choose the Republican nominee for Republicans.

Cowtown
09-28-2011, 09:17 AM
Good article!

He's corrrect that there is a short supply of Conservatism in the GOP field as the ones getting the most coverage represent the extreme right.

As Scarborough eludes to, for the GOP to win we will have to be able to attract voters from all demographics; young, women, moderates, Hispanaics and backs and not just the grumpy old white demographic!;-)

Isn't the "extreme right" conservatism and the "left wing" liberalism?

Are we redefining the terms? So a moderate is now a conservative?

road kill
09-28-2011, 09:19 AM
How is this article insightful?

My takeaways are slams on Republican candidates, slams on conservative talk radio, a mischaracterization of Reagan, a slam on Perry and another attempt of the left to choose the Republican nominee for Republicans.

BAM....Head shot!!

Good call.........

RK

BonMallari
09-28-2011, 09:28 AM
How is this article insightful?

My takeaways are slams on Republican candidates, slams on conservative talk radio, a mischaracterization of Reagan, a slam on Perry and another attempt of the left to choose the Republican nominee for Republicans.

it doesnt mis characterize Reagan...I lived in Calif during the Reagan years as Governor....it was insightful to me, because if you look at Republican political history he is correct...ideology is driving the pre primary Republican race,but the big picture is still making BHO a one termer...ideology may win nominations, but will it win elections

Franco
09-28-2011, 09:28 AM
Isn't the "extreme right" conservatism and the "left wing" liberalism?

Are we redefining the terms? So a moderate is now a conservative?

Nope!

The Conservative movement has been hijacked over the last 25 years mostly by talkshow host and now represents something totally different then what it originally was.

The Conservative movement was born out of the ideals of Libertarianism. Today's so-called Conservative is nothing more than big government, restricted freedom and out-of-contral spending, just a different flavor from Liberalism.

huntinman
09-28-2011, 09:31 AM
If crazy never wins... Ron Paul is dead in the water.

Cowtown
09-28-2011, 09:36 AM
hahaha, and the Democratic party hasn't been hijacked by the extreme left? Puhlease. Have you seen the talk the past two days of suspending elections and needing less democracy?

This is simply another attempt by the left to select/influence the Republican nominee by putting forth another lame candidate like McCain....one which they believe Obama can beat.

This article isn't about Reagan, that's an entirely different conversation about how wrong this tool is. I'm not going to waste my time and anyway, I have to go to work so I can have more skin in the game and pay for some illegal's education and some crack mom sitting at home with 10 babies.

Franco
09-28-2011, 09:49 AM
hahaha, and the Democratic party hasn't been hijacked by the extreme left? Puhlease. Have you seen the talk the past two days of suspending elections and needing less democracy?

This is simply another attempt by the left to select/influence the Republican nominee by putting forth another lame candidate like McCain....one which they believe Obama can beat.

This article isn't about Reagan, that's an entirely different conversation about how wrong this tool is. I'm not going to waste my time and anyway, I have to go to work so I can have more skin in the game and pay for some illegal's education and some crack mom sitting at home with 10 babies.

I never said the Democratic Party wasn't hijacked! Both parties have gravitated to the extremes. That's why government has become so dyfunctional.

But don't tell be that the founder of the Conservative movement, William F Buckley Jr isn't turning in his grave at what the movement is today. Today it is nothing more than fear-mongering and Draconian solutions.

IowaBayDog
09-28-2011, 10:24 AM
I never said the Democratic Party wasn't hijacked! Both parties have gravitated to the extremes. That's why government has become so dyfunctional.

But don't tell be that the founder of the Conservative movement, William F Buckley Jr isn't turning in his grave at what the movement is today. Today it is nothing more than fear-mongering and Draconian solutions.


Hate to break it to ya, but William F. Buckley was very close friends with the Radio Talk Show host you seem to discredit as a conservative. I have a feeling he would disagree with you much more than RL.

Franco
09-28-2011, 12:28 PM
Hate to break it to ya, but William F. Buckley was very close friends with the Radio Talk Show host you seem to discredit as a conservative. I have a feeling he would disagree with you much more than RL.

Need to do your research!;-) Buckley may have been cordial towards Limbaugh. I think the below website is damn accurate about the damage done by the current so-called Conservative yappers.

From The American Conservative dot com...


William F Buckley’s son Christopher retorted, “Rush, I knew William F. Buckley, Jr. William F. Buckley, Jr. was a father of mine. Rush, you’re no William F. Buckley, Jr.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/


more from the same website.........


With reasons for gratitude duly noted, are there some downsides to conservative talk radio? Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs? They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a “massive success,” and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy “phenomenal.”

There was Ron Paul, for example: “Our present course ... is not sustainable. ... Our spendthrift ways are going to come to an end one way or another. Politicians won’t even mention the issue, much less face up to it.”

Buzz
09-28-2011, 02:12 PM
This is simply another attempt by the left to select/influence the Republican nominee by putting forth another lame candidate like McCain....one which they believe Obama can beat.


Yup, that Joe Scarborough is quite the lefty.

cotts135
09-28-2011, 02:41 PM
Why is it we are worrying about Political candidates for President when the election is13 months away. These extended election cycles just serve one purpose and that is diverting us from addressing the real issues that need to be addressed. Time we ask serious questions and hold responsible legislators for a Tax code , Banking system and Foreign trade policy that is sucking the life out of this country. That's what is important not this backround noise about Presidential candidates.
Some of you might be interested in a movement going on now that attempts to prevent politicians from being bought and legislating based on campaign donations. Check it out here http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Don't think it's not important? Read this-------------- http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Franco
09-28-2011, 02:50 PM
Why is it we are worrying about Political candidates for President when the election is13 months away. These extended election cycles just serve one purpose and that is diverting us from addressing the real issues that need to be addressed. Time we ask serious questions and hold responsible legislators for a Tax code , Banking system and Foreign trade policy that is sucking the life out of this country. That's what is important not this backround noise about Presidential candidates.
Some of you might be interested in a movement going on now that attempts to prevent politicians from being bought and legislating based on campaign donations. Check it out here http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Yup!

From Michael Tracey a writer for publications like The Nation and Reason


the corporatists make sure authentic conservatives are vectored in other directions. They’re vectored on the social religious issues, abortion, more recently on raising the debt limit. ‘Keep going after the libs,’ the corporatists say. Because otherwise, authentic conservatives may develop a cooperative effort with the ‘libs’ on other issues, which are our issues,” he concludes. “The big issues.”

BonMallari
09-28-2011, 04:01 PM
Why is it we are worrying about Political candidates for President when the election is13 months away. These extended election cycles just serve one purpose and that is diverting us from addressing the real issues that need to be addressed. Time we ask serious questions and hold responsible legislators for a Tax code , Banking system and Foreign trade policy that is sucking the life out of this country. That's what is important not this backround noise about Presidential candidates.
Some of you might be interested in a movement going on now that attempts to prevent politicians from being bought and legislating based on campaign donations. Check it out here http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Don't think it's not important? Read this-------------- http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/


Tell that to the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...he started campaigning about a month after he took office :p:p

huntinman
09-28-2011, 04:47 PM
Tell that to the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...he started campaigning about a month after he took office :p:p

Did he ever really stop?

Hew
09-28-2011, 06:01 PM
Yup, that Joe Scarborough is quite the lefty.
Please. You don't even consider yourself a lefty so who are you to judge? ;-)

Scarborough's a hypocrite. He campaigned and stood for many of the concepts that he now considers "crazy." He was a proud Newt Girgrich lackey who fought against big govt., wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education and staked out many a pro-life position. Now he's apparently against all that "crazy" stuff. He must like his MSNBC gig alot and I'm sure he'll proudly bask in the glow of admiration for being so moderate from libs like Buzz and whatever-the-heck Franco is. Too bad DNF's not here anymore as I'm sure he'd love to dry hump Scraborough's leg with the rest of the usual POTUS suspects.

caryalsobrook
09-28-2011, 07:02 PM
I never said the Democratic Party wasn't hijacked! Both parties have gravitated to the extremes. That's why government has become so dyfunctional.

But don't tell be that the founder of the Conservative movement, William F Buckley Jr isn't turning in his grave at what the movement is today. Today it is nothing more than fear-mongering and Draconian solutions.

"Fear mongering and draconian solutions". Actually I took Perry's seceding statemant as tongue in cheek and thought it rather funny:) I remember soneone saying devide the country and put the liberals in one half and the conservatives in another half and see which side has the higher standard of living.

But as to your statement would you identify the fear-mongering and draconian solutions. If you look at history you will see that we have never spent our way out of a depression. After 15 years of Keynesean policy, WWII(yes I know it was spending) brought us out because the existance of the country was at stake and people accepted rationing, wage and price freeze with extreme overtime.

But on the other hand in 1920 when the economy tanked far far worse than today, the Fed. budget was cun in half in 2 years and the highest marginal tax rate was cut from 75% tp 25%. The country recovered in almost no time.

So what is the fear mongering and draconian solutions you speak of?

cotts135
09-28-2011, 07:09 PM
Tell that to the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...he started campaigning about a month after he took office :p:p
That is the problem. Do you really believe if it was a Republican in office that he would not do the same. You and I might disagree on many issues but when it comes to Banking, Taxes, and Foreign trade policy I bet we would agree on many things. I have said this before, this government is one wing with two party's and when we focus on these little brush fires that erupt daily we are missing the gigantic firestorm that is the problem. Let's work on the foundation and structure instead of focusing on the painting and room decorations.

Franco
09-28-2011, 07:42 PM
"Fear mongering and draconian solutions". Actually I took Perry's seceding statemant as tongue in cheek and thought it rather funny:) I remember soneone saying devide the country and put the liberals in one half and the conservatives in another half and see which side has the higher standard of living.

But as to your statement would you identify the fear-mongering and draconian solutions. If you look at history you will see that we have never spent our way out of a depression. After 15 years of Keynesean policy, WWII(yes I know it was spending) brought us out because the existance of the country was at stake and people accepted rationing, wage and price freeze with extreme overtime.

But on the other hand in 1920 when the economy tanked far far worse than today, the Fed. budget was cun in half in 2 years and the highest marginal tax rate was cut from 75% tp 25%. The country recovered in almost no time.

So what is the fear mongering and draconian solutions you speak of?

Actually, I think succession is a legitimate way for a state to take care of itself if the government capitulates on its responsibilites as stated in The Constitution. For instance, it our Federal government were to continue on the same policy in regards to our currency and the dollar becomes worthless.

The fear monerging I was speaking of is what you hear on talk radio. I work for a Limbaugh/Hannity affiliate ( we have 6 other good radio stations or I wouldn't stick around) station and the station plays in the halls so I can't avoid listening to the phyco-babble. These two as well as others get thier listeners worked up because thier listeners believe that what they are saying to be true.

As I've said before, they do more damage to the real Conservative movement with thier extreme right views. See the article I posted here on The American Conservative dot com website. That publication just validated what I wrote on RTF back in 07 about them doing more damage to the Conservative movement all the while as they hijacked the lable Conservative.

caryalsobrook
09-28-2011, 07:59 PM
Actually, I think succession is a legitimate way for a state to take care of itself if the government capitulates on its responsibilites as stated in The Constitution. For instance, it our Federal government were to continue on the same policy in regards to our currency and the dollar becomes worthless.

The fear monerging I was speaking of is what you hear on talk radio. I work for a Limbaugh/Hannity affiliate ( we have 6 other good radio stations or I wouldn't stick around) station and the station plays in the halls so I can't avoid listening to the phyco-babble. These two as well as others get thier listeners worked up because thier listeners believe that what they are saying to be true.

As I've said before, they do more damage to the real Conservative movement with thier extreme right views. See the article I posted here on The American Conservative dot com website. That publication just validated what I wrote on RTF back in 07 about them doing more damage to the Conservative movement all the while as they hijacked the lable Conservative.
I really don't listen to radio talk very much other than Phil Valentine and Dave Ramsey here is Nashville. I do agree with you that many so called conservatives left the fiscal consevatism at the door and I blame them for the result, of what we have as president now. If they had maintailned fiscal conservatism, I doubt BHO would be president.
To me Chris Christy is far far ahead of anybody running. I wish he would understand how he sesonates with so many people and he should consider it his duty to run. I am hoping against hope he will realize it.

Cowtown
09-28-2011, 08:13 PM
I really don't listen to radio talk very much other than Phil Valentine and Dave Ramsey here is Nashville. I do agree with you that many so called conservatives left the fiscal consevatism at the door and I blame them for the result, of what we have as president now. If they had maintailned fiscal conservatism, I doubt BHO would be president.
To me Chris Christy is far far ahead of anybody running. I wish he would understand how he sesonates with so many people and he should consider it his duty to run. I am hoping against hope he will realize it.

They aren't true conservatives, they are Rhinos aka moderates....just like Christy & Bush.

Newt supported cap and trade...that's all I need to hear. Free education & no fence (Perry), nope. Amnesty (Christy/Perry), nope.

NEXT!

caryalsobrook
09-28-2011, 11:20 PM
They aren't true conservatives, they are Rhinos aka moderates....just like Christy & Bush.

Newt supported cap and trade...that's all I need to hear. Free education & no fence (Perry), nope. Amnesty (Christy/Perry), nope.

NEXT!
I have been looking at Christy and watched what he has done since he was elected since it is such a blue state with a democrat legislature. I have not heard one word from his about amnesty.

Personally I don't believe there can be any imogration reform until and only until you can control the borders first.

I don't expect to agree with everything he does but he has certainly shown an ability to deal with a state in fiscal chaos under extremely difficult circumstances and has the support of the people of his state, and I have never heard a word from him supporting limiting individual freedoms.

You imply he supports amnesty. Do you say he means amnesty without first securing the border? I would be interested in his record on the subject if you can refer me to a text of such a speech.

Franco
09-28-2011, 11:32 PM
Well, y'all got me curious about Christie's thoughts on immigration and this is all I could find;

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/chris-christie-takes-a-shot-at-rick-perry-on-immigration-policy/

caryalsobrook
09-28-2011, 11:42 PM
Well, y'all got me curious about Christie's thoughts on immigration and this is all I could find;

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/chris-christie-takes-a-shot-at-rick-perry-on-immigration-policy/
Thanks Franco. I've heard Christy called a fat SOB but never a RINO

JDogger
09-29-2011, 02:01 AM
Thanks Franco. I've heard Christy called a fat SOB but never a RINO

The appropriate term Cary is not SOB nor RINO but PACHYDERMATA, the complete list may be found here;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyderm


Sounds to me to me like a discription of the GOP to be sure. :p JD

caryalsobrook
09-29-2011, 05:20 AM
The appropriate term Cary is not SOB nor RINO but PACHYDERMATA, the complete list may be found here;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyderm


Sounds to me to me like a discription of the GOP to be sure. :p JD

Actually, the appropriate term is LEADER, not whiner, liar or one who constantly bllames others for his or her failures.

road kill
09-29-2011, 06:28 AM
Actually, the appropriate term is LEADER, not whiner, liar or one who constantly bllames others for his or her failures.

The definition of a progressive is someone that whines, cries, squeals, bitches, bangs on buckets with wooden spoons and anything else until they get their way, then hate conservatives for allowing that to happen.:p


RK

Cowtown
09-29-2011, 02:07 PM
Chris Christie himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTvMyM1VXTY&feature=player_embedded

So what is Christie hinting at when he tells Jake Tapper in the clip above that we need a “commonsense path to citizenship.” We already have one, and more than a million people a year take advantage of it.

What’s he’s hinting at, of course, is amnesty.

caryalsobrook
09-29-2011, 03:04 PM
Chris Christie himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTvMyM1VXTY&feature=player_embedded

So what is Christie hinting at when he tells Jake Tapper in the clip above that we need a “commonsense path to citizenship.” We already have one, and more than a million people a year take advantage of it.

What’s he’s hinting at, of course, is amnesty.

I listened to the interview. He said that tthe fed. gov. had to deal with the issue, that the states did not have the manpower to deal with it. He went on further to say "FIRST OF ALL THEY HAVE TO SECURE THE BORDER AND THEN SET A REALISTIC PATH TO CITIZENSHIP". I am not familiar with the current path to citizenship so there is nothing I can say about it. I do know that there are children who are legan citizens of this country who have parents here that are illegal. We also have adult citizens who have their parents here who are also illegal. These are issues and I am sure there are probably more that will have to be dealt with. But first and primary is to secure the borders as he said.

Cowtown
09-29-2011, 11:27 PM
I listened to the interview. He said that tthe fed. gov. had to deal with the issue, that the states did not have the manpower to deal with it. He went on further to say "FIRST OF ALL THEY HAVE TO SECURE THE BORDER AND THEN SET A REALISTIC PATH TO CITIZENSHIP". I am not familiar with the current path to citizenship so there is nothing I can say about it. I do know that there are children who are legan citizens of this country who have parents here that are illegal. We also have adult citizens who have their parents here who are also illegal. These are issues and I am sure there are probably more that will have to be dealt with. But first and primary is to secure the borders as he said.

LOL I know what he said, I posted the video.

He's skirting the issue and using code words. As I pointed out, we have a path to citizenship today...a million people each year do it legally. To say we need to set a realistic path to citizenship is code words for amnesty.

I do agree with the fence part...that's not the point of contention. You asked what his position on amnesty was and so I provided you the issue that conservatives have with Christie, directly from his own mouth. He's said similar statements for years.

Here is what you have to do for naturalization (not too tough huh...but Christie says it needs to be a more realistic path?????? Really? Basically live here for 5 years, speak English and take an easy 10 question test and get 6 right):

Requirements. People applying to become citizens must satisfy certain requirements. For example, there have been requirements for applicants to have lived in the nation for five years (three if married to a U.S. citizen,) be of "good moral character" meaning no felony convictions, be of "sound mind" in the judgment of immigration officials, have knowledge of the Constitution, and be able to speak and understand English unless they're elderly or disabled.[48]

Military participation is often a way for immigrant residents to become citizens. Since many people seek citizenship for its financial and social benefits, the promise of citizenship can be seen as a means of motivating persons to do dangerous activities such as fight in wars. For example, one account suggested the United States Military was recruiting "skilled immigrants who are living in this country with temporary visas" by promising an opportunity to become citizens "in as little as six months" in exchange for service in Afghanistan and Iraq where US forces are "stretched thin."[49] The option was not open to illegal immigrants.[49] One estimate was that in 2009 the US military had 29,000 foreign-born people currently serving who were not American citizens.[49] Generally, spouses of citizens, and non-citizens who served in the military, have less difficulty becoming citizens. Generally there is a strong link between military service and citizenship. One analyst noted that "many immigrants, not yet citizens, have volunteered to serve in the United States military forces ... Some have been killed and others wounded ... Perhaps this can be seen as a cynical attempt to qualify more easily for U.S. citizenship ... But I think that service in the U.S. military has to be taken as a pretty serious commitment to the United States."[20] Immigrant soldiers who fight for the US often have an easier and faster path to citizenship.[50] In 2002, President Bush signed an executive order to eliminate the three-year waiting period and made service personnel immediately eligible for citizenship.[50] In 2003, Congress voted to "cut the waiting period to become a citizen from three years down to one year" for immigrants who had served in the armed forces.[50] In 2003, of 1.4 million service members, 37,000 active-duty members were not citizens, and of these, 20 percent had applied for citizenship.[50] By June 2003, 12 non-citizens had died fighting for the United States in the Iraqi war.[50] The military has had a tradition of "filling out its ranks" with aliens living in the U.S.[51] Non-citizens fought in World War II.[51] The military has struggled to "fill its depleted ranks" by recruiting more non-US citizens.[52] But there is considerable anxiety about using foreigners to serve in the U.S. armed forces. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was quoted as saying: "When Rome went out and hired mercenary soldiers, Rome fell."[51]

Grandparent rule. One obscure ruling of section 322 of a 1994 immigration law enabled persons to emigrate to the United States if they could prove that a grandparent was a citizen.[53] In 2006, there were 4,000 applications of citizenship through grandparents. While parents of any nationality can use the law, Israelis comprise 90% of those taking advantage of the clause.[53]

Amnesties have happened in the past in which illegal residents could petition for citizenship if they could prove that they had been living in the nation for a specified number of years.[citation needed]

Citizenship test. Last, applicants must pass a simple citizenship test.[48] Up until recently, a test published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service asked questions such as "How many stars are there in our flag?" and "What is the Constitution?" and "Who is the president of the United States today?"[48] At one point, the Government Printing Office sold flashcards for $8.50 to help test takers prepare for the test.[54] In 2006, the government replaced the former trivia test with a ten-question oral test designed to "shun simple historical facts about America that can be recounted in a few words for more explanation about the principles of American democracy, such as freedom."[44] One reviewer described the new citizenship test as "thoughtful."[45] While some have criticized the new version of the test, officials counter that the new test is a "teachable moment" without making it conceptually more difficult, since the list of possible questions and answers, as before, will be publicly available.[44] Six correct answers constitutes a passing grade.[44] The new test probes for signs that immigrants "understand and share American values."[44]

caryalsobrook
10-02-2011, 09:08 AM
LOL I know what he said, I posted the video.

He's skirting the issue and using code words. As I pointed out, we have a path to citizenship today...a million people each year do it legally. To say we need to set a realistic path to citizenship is code words for amnesty.

I do agree with the fence part...that's not the point of contention. You asked what his position on amnesty was and so I provided you the issue that conservatives have with Christie, directly from his own mouth. He's said similar statements for years.

Here is what you have to do for naturalization (not too tough huh...but Christie says it needs to be a more realistic path?????? Really? Basically live here for 5 years, speak English and take an easy 10 question test and get 6 right):

Requirements. People applying to become citizens must satisfy certain requirements. For example, there have been requirements for applicants to have lived in the nation for five years (three if married to a U.S. citizen,) be of "good moral character" meaning no felony convictions, be of "sound mind" in the judgment of immigration officials, have knowledge of the Constitution, and be able to speak and understand English unless they're elderly or disabled.[48]

Military participation is often a way for immigrant residents to become citizens. Since many people seek citizenship for its financial and social benefits, the promise of citizenship can be seen as a means of motivating persons to do dangerous activities such as fight in wars. For example, one account suggested the United States Military was recruiting "skilled immigrants who are living in this country with temporary visas" by promising an opportunity to become citizens "in as little as six months" in exchange for service in Afghanistan and Iraq where US forces are "stretched thin."[49] The option was not open to illegal immigrants.[49] One estimate was that in 2009 the US military had 29,000 foreign-born people currently serving who were not American citizens.[49] Generally, spouses of citizens, and non-citizens who served in the military, have less difficulty becoming citizens. Generally there is a strong link between military service and citizenship. One analyst noted that "many immigrants, not yet citizens, have volunteered to serve in the United States military forces ... Some have been killed and others wounded ... Perhaps this can be seen as a cynical attempt to qualify more easily for U.S. citizenship ... But I think that service in the U.S. military has to be taken as a pretty serious commitment to the United States."[20] Immigrant soldiers who fight for the US often have an easier and faster path to citizenship.[50] In 2002, President Bush signed an executive order to eliminate the three-year waiting period and made service personnel immediately eligible for citizenship.[50] In 2003, Congress voted to "cut the waiting period to become a citizen from three years down to one year" for immigrants who had served in the armed forces.[50] In 2003, of 1.4 million service members, 37,000 active-duty members were not citizens, and of these, 20 percent had applied for citizenship.[50] By June 2003, 12 non-citizens had died fighting for the United States in the Iraqi war.[50] The military has had a tradition of "filling out its ranks" with aliens living in the U.S.[51] Non-citizens fought in World War II.[51] The military has struggled to "fill its depleted ranks" by recruiting more non-US citizens.[52] But there is considerable anxiety about using foreigners to serve in the U.S. armed forces. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was quoted as saying: "When Rome went out and hired mercenary soldiers, Rome fell."[51]

Grandparent rule. One obscure ruling of section 322 of a 1994 immigration law enabled persons to emigrate to the United States if they could prove that a grandparent was a citizen.[53] In 2006, there were 4,000 applications of citizenship through grandparents. While parents of any nationality can use the law, Israelis comprise 90% of those taking advantage of the clause.[53]

Amnesties have happened in the past in which illegal residents could petition for citizenship if they could prove that they had been living in the nation for a specified number of years.[citation needed]

Citizenship test. Last, applicants must pass a simple citizenship test.[48] Up until recently, a test published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service asked questions such as "How many stars are there in our flag?" and "What is the Constitution?" and "Who is the president of the United States today?"[48] At one point, the Government Printing Office sold flashcards for $8.50 to help test takers prepare for the test.[54] In 2006, the government replaced the former trivia test with a ten-question oral test designed to "shun simple historical facts about America that can be recounted in a few words for more explanation about the principles of American democracy, such as freedom."[44] One reviewer described the new citizenship test as "thoughtful."[45] While some have criticized the new version of the test, officials counter that the new test is a "teachable moment" without making it conceptually more difficult, since the list of possible questions and answers, as before, will be publicly available.[44] Six correct answers constitutes a passing grade.[44] The new test probes for signs that immigrants "understand and share American values."[44]
I will repeat his statement again. "First of all the borders have to be secured." "After that we need to look at the imigration laws." You assume that any change in the immigration lwas could only be amnesty and that I totally dissagree.

Personally after securing the borders, I would change the immigration laws to sentence and illegal allien who did not register, to 6 months at hard labor and then deport them. If caught a second time then 5 years at hard labor. kThis at the very least would stop them from crossing back and forth across the border whithout severe consequences. I don't think anybod would call this amnesty.

There is no way that the current law could be applied to all illegal alliens that are currently here and there would have to be some change. If you call any change amnesty, then I suspect you have your head in the sand. There has to be a solution other than attempting to deport them all and allowing them to remain on a path to citizenship without consequences. Certainly not an easy task but one that would have to be dealt with.