Poll: Will you still watch or listen to Hannity’s show?

November 11, 2012
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

82 Responses to Poll: Will you still watch or listen to Hannity’s show?

  1. artist on November 11, 2012 at 7:49 am


  2. fremont on November 11, 2012 at 8:48 am

    I quit hannity when he took Kobe’s side after Kobe raped the hotel worker.

  3. Dan on November 11, 2012 at 9:02 am

    It’s Rush and Levin for me.

  4. artist on November 11, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Levin is inching closer to red/blue state solution.


  5. artist on November 11, 2012 at 9:08 am

    Charles Schumer says he, GOP colleague Lindsay Graham have a plan that includes path to citizenship.


  6. NEPA Neocon on November 11, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Yes. I will still listen to him. His show will continue to serve a valuable role in my life despite my disagreement with him on this one issue.

    • artist on November 11, 2012 at 9:15 am

      Yes, this one little issue.

      Resulting in 15 million new Democrats. And adding millions to the welfare and entitlement roles.


      • Scott on November 11, 2012 at 10:48 am

        I’m with you, we need to purge people that disagree with us continually until it is just you and me. And then, you’d better not disagree with me, or you’re out too!

        • artist on November 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm

          Proving you don’t understand the discussion.

          Or economics.

          • Scott on November 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm

            Nonsense. The discussion is whether we should boycott Sean Hannity because he said something that some of us don’t like. And wasn’t related to economics. But keep insulting people; that will win us the presidency for sure!

          • Troll Alert on November 11, 2012 at 11:18 pm

            ^ “wasn’t related to economics”???

            Damn, you’re dumb.

            GFY Scott, you babbling moron troll.

          • Scott on November 12, 2012 at 8:57 am

            The question of whether to continue to listen to a radio show is not an economic discussion. Insults make your case weaker, not stronger. And arguing points isn’t trolling.

          • Jay on November 12, 2012 at 2:06 pm

            Has anyone heard fom The Ace? Most likely his head exploded, but he might be visiting here under fake names to lash out and blow off steam, bless his tiny little heart. He had a crush on Ann Coulter, you know.

    • ip727 on November 11, 2012 at 1:57 pm

      One little issue that will guarantee a demokrat one party state.

  7. Arizona CJ on November 11, 2012 at 11:09 am

    It would be helpful if, for a post like this, you told us why. Did Hannity do or say something recently that’s controversial? That’s my guess, and based on the comments I’m guessing immigration, but it would be nice to actually know.

    I don’t pay much attention to him or other talk show types, regardless of whether they agree with me politically or not. That’s not likely to change.

    • Tim on November 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm

      I agree with that–I am not opposed to blacklists. But I like to know why.

      • ip727 on November 11, 2012 at 1:58 pm

        He said he now favors amnesty

        • Arizona CJ on November 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm

          “He said he now favors amnesty”


          Maybe someone should point out that favoring Amnesty didn’t help McCain, and the result of an Amnesty would be to make the USA like California.

          Not just no, but hell no.

          Hrmm, I guess I can’t join a boycott of him, as I never bothered watching him before.

          • Jim,MtnView,CA,USA on November 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm

            Im in that boat too.

          • Carl on November 12, 2012 at 3:46 am

            He has always run in that crowd. No one in the media (and few in the Republican establishment) was ever against amnesty. Now they just feel they have cover.

          • Goonions on November 13, 2012 at 12:15 am

            I say we go to our grave opposing immigration. If they do that the Dems just picked up a huge voting block besides the new illegals they will continue to allow into the country. I say secure the border first.

        • jan on November 11, 2012 at 4:11 pm

          I believe his words involved immigration reform, not amnesty. Not all reform goes through the route of amnesty.

  8. Nikki on November 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Letting amnisty pass will not help republicans win. We have to give the free stuff. offer free money and we feel your pain and disney land for everybody-pot.

    founding fathers said foreign influence would change our nation, dilute our populatin, change the way we believe such as work and take care of yourself, goverment creates the atmosphere for fair trade and manufacturing =no monopolies , this is over , the founders worried about this along with the government running or owning the banks. now we have a King and fear government. They will out populate original ameicans with takers.

    Cloward/Piven implemented to perfection. The poor will bring down the United States of America.

    Dems have it cornered, and hispanics and blacks have 10 kids per whatever is considered a couple. We will be a brown nation soon and they like the free stuff. thats it thats all.

  9. Setnaffa on November 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Bread and circuses worked out so well for Rome…

  10. Dan on November 11, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    I do not think amnesty will pass the house. Even with Boner. Obama will probably just do some more defact amnesty.

    • ip727 on November 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      The house GOP haven’t the guts to stop it, as they fear a “hispanic” backlash against them, AS IF THEY HAD THEIR VOTE ANYWAY.

  11. Dan on November 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    I don’t see too many house members voting for it. Few would benefit from voting for it,most would be hurt.

    • ip727 on November 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm

      Boneheader will join with the forces of evil and have enough to pass it.

      • Dan on November 11, 2012 at 3:12 pm

        I hope your wrong. The Dems have about 198 or so members,you need 218. DOubt every Dem votes for amnesty,probably at least 10 would vote against it. Would take 30 or more Republicans. Don’t see where they get the votes.

    • Tyya on February 26, 2014 at 12:07 pm

      Weeeee, what a quick and easy sootiuln.

  12. Stephen on November 11, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    I agree with the comments here that being pro amnesty is probably not going to win republicans any more votes from Hispanic voters.

    On the other hand I think those who express such outrage over the very prospect of amnesty should spend some time thinking about what deporting 12 million or so illegals would likely entail: vast government intrusion into the private affairs of law-abiding citizens as businesses, schools, and families are required by the state to enforce immigration laws that the state is so manifestly unable or unwilling to enforce itself.

    All that to say, I don’t think the issue is a black-and-white as it might appear to be at first glance. And I don’t think Sean Hannity is betraying conservatism by coming down on a different side of complex issue than the majority of the party. I think it’s kind of refreshing that Sean Hannity is saying something (for once) that isn’t cribbed straight from the party line.

    • ip727 on November 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm

      This “we can’t deport X number” is so much bravo sierra. They came here over a period of time, they can be systematically caught and sent back the same way, even if it takes a decade to do. Any amnesty program will result in more illegals coming in to get on the gravy train. If we will not even control our borders,we are finished as a nation.

      The states are more than willing to enforce if the feds refuse. Severe employer sanction plus the removal of ALL entitlements,and many of them will self deport. A long as we keep holding out the possibility of amnesty, they will never leave.

      • Stephen on November 11, 2012 at 3:38 pm

        I guess I see securing the border and amnesty/deportation as being serverable issues. I definitely don’t support the McCain/Graham insistence on “comprehensive” reform. I say border security first. Then once the border is sercured and the influx of illegals is slowed to a negligable rate, then we can’t start talking about what to do with the illegals who are already here.

        But I’m still highly reticent about severe employer sanctions (although I have no problem whatsoever with denying entitlements–that seems like a no brainer to me). I just do not think it is appropriate for employers to be punished for the failures of the federal government to enforce laws that are already on the books. And as someone who is by temperment suspicious of even the slightest increase in federal power, I don’t relish the idea of ICE conducting more raids on American businesses.

        • rightwingyahoo on November 11, 2012 at 4:53 pm

          There are already enough illegals here, and far more than enough, to lock the Democrats in power for a hundred years.

          Any R offering a path to citizenship of any kind should just get it over with and join the Democrat party.

          Because that is who you’re helping.

          And if you haven’t figured that out by now, you’re no goddamned use to anyone.

          The laws of this country already dictate what we do with the illegals already here. They go back over time. Period.

          You want to see TX and FL blue forever RIGHT NOW? Pass your goddamned path top citizenship and watch.


          • Arizona CJ on November 11, 2012 at 5:33 pm

            It’s not just FL and TX, but VA and OH too… hell, much of the country.

            It’s also not just the vote, but the cost; make them citizens and you put even more weight on an already unsustainable system.

          • Stephen on November 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm

            I don’t see how you can possibly expect to be of any constructive use in the rebuilding of American conservatism if all you’re capable of is throwing a bunch of rhetorical Molotov Cocktails at other conservatives with whom you disagree. I’m playing devil’s advocate here, trying to point out some possible flaws in the thinking of those who favor a deportation-by-attrition policy above all else. I’m open to being swayed either way on the debate as I myself am conflicted on the issue. But thanks for calling me an idiot. That really makes me a lot more sympathetic to your point of view.

        • rightwingyahoo on November 11, 2012 at 4:55 pm

          I just do not think it is appropriate for employers to be punished for the failures of the federal government to enforce laws that are already on the books. And as someone who is by temperment suspicious of even the slightest increase in federal power, I don’t relish the idea of ICE conducting more raids on American businesses.

          Ok, you’re stupid. There is a law forbidding the hiring of illegals. There is E-verify that any employer can use to protect themselves.

          Try to know what you’re talking about, ok?

        • rightwingyahoo on November 11, 2012 at 5:09 pm

          And as someone who is by temperment suspicious of even the slightest increase in federal power…

          If you’re so suspicious of federal power, quit supporting a policy that will make voters out of at least forty million people who think federal power is the bees knees. Latinos are pro-big government across the board on all issues.

          And what is this denial of entitlements horse shit? Once we make the illegals legal citizens, as you suggest, they will be entitled to anything any other citizen is entitled to.

          Think, please.

          • Stephen on November 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm

            We don’t have to make them legal citizens. Giving someone a visa is not the same thing as making them a citizen.

            And on the subject of visas, I am good friends with a number of legal immigrants who had to jump through all kinds of insane bureaucratic hoops to get their visas. Making it so difficult and so time consuming for those who do wait in line properly certainly does nothing to dissuade other immigrants who are less fastidious about the law about skipping the legal immigration process altogether.

  13. Arizona CJ on November 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Just a crazy idea… but what if R’s supported “Comprehensive immigration reform” but not in the generally accepted definition of the term? Just call it that. Load it with E-verify, the fence, an end to chain migration, enforcement of current laws, no licenses for illegals, etc… and sweeten it by granting a long pathway to citizenship (via the military or self-funded college) for those illegals who were brought here at a very young age, have no criminal record, have graduated high school, speak English, would be disbarred from any public benefits until citizens, etc… (this isn’t much of a give away if you look at the numbers, coupled with what Obama has already done).

    It could be a win-win scenario; if the D’s go for it, we get most of what we want.

    Would the D’s accept this? Nope… So the Democrats just vetoed comprehensive immigration reform and pulled the rug out from under those kids. And that’s a win too.

    Just a crazy idea to turn the tables on them. Way better than caving, which it seems some R’s want to do.

    • rightwingyahoo on November 11, 2012 at 5:00 pm

      Yeah, a crazy idea that we’ll forget you ever mentioned.

      ….”Perhaps if we run away more, we will confuse it” …… “Shut up Gawain, and go and change your armor”….

      Let’s turn the tables on them by giving them exactly what they want and daring them to accept it!!

      Christ man, we are screwed.

      It’s like amnesty is some sort of siren call to the Rs. What the FUCK is wrong with you people?

      Why are we even discussing it? Enforce the immigration laws as they are, and secure the border. DONE. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

      Next issue.

      • Arizona CJ on November 11, 2012 at 5:26 pm

        The idea was to give them exactly what WE want (with the exception of the few who would qualify under the brought-here-as-small-children narrow path part).

        What about using this idea without that part? My main point was use their own terminology to hurt them. Case in point; would you oppose something called “comprehensive immigration reform” if it actually gave you all of what you want and nothing you didn’t? I just want to use the name as a wedge issue against them.

        To be clear, I bitterly oppose amnesty. I was just looking for a way to use their own politics against them.

        As for the hispanic vote, I do consider it suicidal madness (for both party and country) to think that we can woo them with amnesty. For one, it won’t work, and second, we’d end up a mess like California.

        One more thing that shows amnesty is madness; The Republicans lost the Asian vote by one point more than the hispanic vote. Why? We need to find out the reasons for the Asian vote,
        but I’m pretty darn sure illegal aliens from Mexico aren’t their reason. Finding out their reasons might go a long way into proving that amnesty won’t help the R’s. I also think that the Asian vote is a far more fertile ground for R’s than the hispanic vote would ever be, so this is a case where data is needed.

        • rightwingyahoo on November 11, 2012 at 5:50 pm

          If youre going to establish the concept in law, that SOME illegals are to be amnestied, then you’re on very shaky ground why ALL of them cannot be amnestied.

          There’s no real reason we need to discuss this suicidal trap. Just say that all legal immigrants are welcome, and that we will work to stop illegal immigration over time.


          • Arizona CJ on November 11, 2012 at 7:07 pm

            The “slippery slope” argument. I have to say, after thinking about it, I agree with you in this case. If we allow the ones brought here as small children to stay, then what of those fleeing this that or the other, to ever expanding degrees.(Purple rhinoceroses are illegal in my country, so I had to come here!)”.

      • Stephen on November 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm

        Again, I don’t understand what makes you think you’re being helpful at all in your profane and mean-spirit attacks on other conservatives on this thread who are just trying throw out some (hopefully) constructive ideas. If you have an argument to make besides “SHUT THE FUCK UP” I’d be glad to hear it.

        • rightwingyahoo on November 13, 2012 at 4:06 pm

          Again, my argument was clearly made and beats the shit out of your argument. STFU was only an expression of frustration resulting from the limitless amount of dumbassedness present in your comment.


          1 Secure the border
          2 enforce the immigration laws
          3 Do not offer amnesty of any kind, ever. Now now. Not later. Nor before the border is secure and not after. NEVER.

          Got it?

          Ok can I tell you to STFU now? I think I can. Shut the Fuck Up about amnesty, you idiot.

  14. sane_voter on November 11, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Ok, so we lost the election. We are talking 400,000 votes between winning and losing the electoral college and apparently Obama focused on those states in a way Romney did not and that helped to cinch the election. And as far as I can tell from post-election analyses, the latinos did not cost us the election this time any more than in 2008. & million few white voters came out this time. Why is there this rash effort on the part of the GOP to immediately try and fix the problem of losing an election by 400,000 votes by proposing amnesty to try and garner a small percentage of latino voters? There is plenty of time to further analyze the election data and determine the implications of such radical legislation. Espcially since the last amnesty under Reagan did not switch many latino votes. It seems more fruitful to try to figure out how to flip some of the white voters in the midwest.

    • sane_voter on November 11, 2012 at 6:35 pm

      & million = 7 million

    • Arizona CJ on November 11, 2012 at 7:16 pm

      Good point on the Reagan amnesty. That’s one that bears repeating: it failed then, so why think doing the same again would work?

      Here’s the math as I see it; I think Amnesty would help TO A SMALL DEGREE with the percentage of the Hispanic vote. Let’s say it increased R vote share of Hispanics from 28% to 38%. (I think that’s wildly optimistic, but let’s use it.)

      So, we get 38% of a voter base that expands by 7 million. The other side is getting 62%. Does this really need explaining to the pro-amnesty R’s? It’s electoral suicide, and thus national suicide. We’d all end up like California – on a fast self-inflicted slide to oblivion.

      Amnesty: morally wrong, and suicidal.

  15. Zed on November 12, 2012 at 12:25 am

    Cain and Bachmann were probably the best at saying ‘hell-no’ to amnesty and saying ‘hell-yes’ to upholding current laws, plus building a fence. But both had foot-n-mouth disease and would have lost the election.

    Newt was the worst on the issue followed only slightly by Ron Paul who refused to enforce the border or build a fence. And, both were kooks with a lot of baggage and they both would have also lost the election.

    Where is the elusive GOP leader who is not only right on this issue, but also capable of avoiding obvious gaffes enough to win? It shouldn’t be this difficult.

  16. Zed on November 12, 2012 at 12:43 am

    Btw Poli, if you’re going to do a poll, is it too much to ask for 1 sentence of context to frame the issue?

  17. Gerry Owen on November 12, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Rather than the GOP making some giant big shift on Immigration-
    Just DELINK immigration reform from securing the border.
    Secure the border, in the name of National Security for God’s sake.

    Once that is done, THEN let us go through the difficult task of trying to figure out what we do with the millions here already. Making any pronouncements on Amnsty, work visas, path to citizenship, whatever will only serve to bring millions more streaming across.

    NO talk on immigration reform until the borders are secure, until we know who is coming here.

    • Stephen on November 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm

      I could not agree more.

    • rightwingyahoo on November 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm

      No. Not in a million years. Secure the border and THEN lets NOT “go thru the difficult task of surrendering our country to the left….

      Got it? Let’s NOT fuck ourselves in the ass, after we secure the border.



      You have always been a Texas sized dumbass on this issue, you Bushland RINO. Time has not changed this, I see.

      No amnesty now, and no amnesty once the border is secure. What mother fucking good will it do to secure the border, and then allow 20 million new Democrats on the voter rolls, when they can instantly invite their families to make it 60 million?

      Explain why we are morally obligated to destroy ourselves, you jackass.


  18. Dan on November 12, 2012 at 7:00 am

    Texas has almost the same exact hispanic % as California,and voted 58% for Romney. Arizona voted 55% for Romney. I think Repubs are way overreacting thinking amnesty is the amgic bullet.
    I also have to be honest. Not making excuses,but I think their was massive vote fraud. Read that Philly had 7 wards that didn’t register a single vote for Romney. Also,that Wisconsin had 525,000 more people vote than voted in their June recalls. Seems very dubious. Not to mention VA keeping their lines open over an hour and half after closing time in the liberal precincts of northern Virginia.

    • Gerry Owen on November 12, 2012 at 8:00 am

      As we form up the circular firing squad, this is an issue we can kick the can down the road a bit-
      That is why I think we should demand the Border be secured, period.
      End of story.
      Discussions on Comprehensive Immigration Reform should not commence before this happens. To do so will only invite thousand more to attempt to sneak in beforehand.

      Besides, we have gone the amnesty route several times now without securing the border, and now we have a terrorist threat to deal with. This is ridiculous, secure the border first.

      • rightwingyahoo on November 13, 2012 at 4:12 pm

        Discussions on Comprehensive Immigration Reform should not commence before this happens. To do so will only invite thousand more to attempt to sneak in beforehand.

        No. Discussions on CIR should not commence, PERIOD. Stop acting like some sort of conservative when you obviously want millions of new democrat voters in the country.

        No, you Bushland RINO sellout. NO CIR. If the border is ever secured, it will be just as bad of an idea, as it is now.

        YOU DUMB ASS.

  19. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on November 12, 2012 at 8:14 am

    Insty links to an NR article saying that a relatively small number of votes in 4 states made the difference. But, if we were this close running a squeeky clean guy against an incompetent POTUS, it’s hard to think we only need to tweak the message….

    THE CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD CAN DISBAND: 407,000 Votes in Four States Away from the Presidency. Romney got out-hustled in a base-turnout election. Bigthink concerns about demographics, messaging, etc. may or may not have merit, but aren’t why he lost.

    Some good comments at the site:

  20. IP727 on November 12, 2012 at 9:13 am

    phuque hannity

  21. RedStateGal on November 12, 2012 at 9:28 am

    It’s worth remembering that Pres. Reagan provided amnesty for millions of illegals back in 1986 (gee, no re-election to worry about, huh?)? George H.W. Bush did win in ’88 but I doubt that was due to the Hispanic vote. Anyway, how is the Hispanic community rewarding Republicans now? Reviling us at every turn.

    With takers of every stripe, it’s always “What are you doing for me now?” No gratitude and no memory of past favors. Of course, that means that when the Dems run out of our money, they’ll be reviled also.

  22. Dan on November 12, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Obama got about 4 % less in CA than he did in 08(I know he still won it in a landslide. Also lost Riverside Co,which he won in 08,as well as Fresno CO. So much for the hispanci vote.
    Obama won Colorado by 9 pts,this time 3 and a half%. What happened to the hispanic surge?

  23. The Troll on November 12, 2012 at 10:06 am

    What kind of moron do you have to be to watch and or listen to a total idiot like Hanity? Oh yeah the kind of moron who thought that Romney was president material.

    • IP727 on November 12, 2012 at 10:59 am

      If a 3rd world muslim turd like obammer is “presidentil material” anybody is.

      • ATTILA vs IP7272 on November 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm

        Who is a bigger moron,ATTILA or IP727?

        Flip of a coin, really.

        • bc3b on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 pm

          If we are voting on morons, you’ve got my vote.

  24. Lawrence Rosenthal on November 12, 2012 at 10:13 am

    I’ll keep watching Hannity to see how puffy he can get his hair.

  25. Gerry Owen on November 12, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Posted this on another site, relevent here as well:

    Abortion as an issue has devovled into blatant demagoguery by both sides. Let’s be honest: IF, and it is now a resoundingly unlikely for the next generation IF, Roe v Wade were overturned, it would not stop a single abortion anywhere in the country.
    It would revert it back to the States, where arguably it should have been left in the first place. Roe v Wade created a “right” out of the nether regions of the 14 th amendment, and totally subverted the explicit rights retained by the States in the 10th.
    Back before the culuture had imploded to the pathetic state it is in now, Pro- Life arguments could rile up a certain constituency of voters to go to the polls. Now, with a generation of girls voting their lady parts – the Voting Vaginas- rather than whether or not they can get a job, this demagoguery of “Republicans want you to be raped and forced to carry the child” wins- Dumbasses like Akin and Mourdock who took the Santorum approach of out pro-lifing everyone in a 30 mile radius didn’t help.
    The same judicial philosophy that would reduce the scope of government would also be conducive somewhat to the social conservatives’ views. We should treat this constitutuency like the Dems do Blacks- but unlike the Blacks, they have really nowhere else to go- the Democratic Party of today is about as godless and anti-christian as any party in western civilization. Besides, the christian rightobviously don’t carry the weight they used to.
    SECOND- Rather than sellout on immigration, DELINK controlling the border from immigration reform. Lock it down before any discussion on amnesty, work visas, path to citizenship, etc. Otherwise we run the risk of thousands more trying to come in under the wire. Plus the existing laws will allow us to filter out even more of the nastier criminals and thugs among the illegals here already while this goes on.
    Why these two issues are joined at the hip is a travesty- border control is a national security concern, particularly since 9/11. This approach is sensible, and would alleviate the ignorant calls of RAAACISM! , at least for a little while.

    • Arizona CJ on November 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      Nothing will alleviate the calls of Racism!!!! on this or any other issue. If a Republican, even a black Republican, so much as sneezes, it’ll be called racism. However, delinking would help defang it.

      You raise good points.

      Romney’s loss amongst women cost him a lot more votes than any conceivable gain amongst hispanics would have gained him. Aikin and Mourdock hurt, a lot, as did the R’s muddled message. For example, on birth control; the Republican message came across as being against it. They should have made explicitly clear that all they were opposed to is forcing other people to pay for it (which was the truth, but the message was muddled).

      Personally, I think going after women voters and perhaps Asian voters (I do think we need to research the reason they went for Obama and find out why) would be a vastly wiser choice than pandering to hispanics via an amnesty that would ensure a D majority for the foreseeable future, as well as trash our economy.

    • rightwingyahoo on November 13, 2012 at 4:15 pm

      No amnesty, whether before or after the border is secure. Amnesty is national suicide, whether the border is secure or not.

      1 Enforce the law
      2 secure the border
      3 enforce the law
      4 enforce the law
      5 no amnesty
      6 enforce the law.
      7 tell amnesty supporters like Bushland RINO Gerry here, to join the democrats.

  26. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on November 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Free and easy: petition the gov’t to allow states to peacefully secede from the US…unless you worry about them putting your name on a list…
    Only 20 states have petitions online though. I don’t know how to add another state. Also, you have to register with the official White House site and provide your email address (site is currently undergoing maintenance).

    Anyway, for your amusement and potential participation:

    • Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on November 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm

      If you are a CA resident, please consider signing the CA petition 🙂

      • Anonymous Un-Paultard on November 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm

        Californians like you need to secede from Mexico, not the US: that’s pretty much been done already.

  27. Arizona CJ on November 12, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Rubin Navaratte, a pundit I often despise, raised some interesting points regarding Republican’s problems with hispanics. I’ll paste them below.

    He’s pro amnesty and I’m bitterly opposed to it, but the points he raises in this case are apt; we’re making the issue worse for ourselves not on policy, but on *framing the argument*. I think he’s spot on in his advice at the end; frame the issue as economic, not cultural, one. I’ve said that before; it doesn’t help to oppose illegals without saying why. It would help to cite hispanic heroes such as Cesar Chavez who were adamantly anti-illegal on economic grounds – demonstrate why amnesty would hurt the poor, particularly the minority poor. This might also help us with other minority populations such as Blacks, who would be the most hurt in the job sector by amnesty. They need to be shown that that’s the case, often and loudly, and reminded that the D party is trying to sell them out.

    I’m not talking about changing the actual Republican policy policy here (I oppose amnesty!) but I do think we should examine whether changing how we frame the argument might help us. (again, before I get flamed, I’m just proposing a possible change in framing and presentation, *NOT* moderating the anti-amnesty stance itself).

    Relevant quotes from the article below.
    — They pander to racists and nativists. At the very least, they remain silent when extremists in their party go off the rails by comparing illegal immigrants to dogs, insects or pigs. All of which has been done by Republican elected officials.

    — They fall into what has been the familiar pattern in this country of portraying immigrants, illegal and legal, as inferior, defective, dishonest or predatory. One popular narrative is the one advanced by Limbaugh: immigrants as takers.

    — And they don’t ask for advice or take it when it’s offered. Republican Latino consultants report being turned away by the Romney campaign, which either didn’t care about getting Latino votes or were confident they could do it without any help.

    What Republicans could do right:

    — They need to learn to talk about immigration as an economic issue and not a cultural one, and channel their anger and frustration over a broken system at the system itself and not at desperate human beings who come here for a better life.

    • Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on November 12, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Mickey Kaus (Democrat) is a strong opponent of illegal immigration. He frames the issue by noting that the strong work ethic of illegals keeps young black kids out of the job market. There is no way they can compete and the black kids never get the entry-level jobs they need to build skills and a work history in order to climb the next rung of the ladder.
      Same issue, but framed in a way that is more moderate-friendly.

      • Arizona CJ on November 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm

        Good point Jim.

        I’d go further though; it’s not just work ethic (if we say that, it’ll be called racist even if true). It’s the fact that illegals usually work for below minimum wage, so those jobs are closed to legals of any kind. This is a big part of why unemployment is massively higher for black youth (and IMHO, Republicans should have made that point often)

      • Dan on November 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm

        I lost all respect for Kaus when he supported Obama again. His reasoning was that Republicans would not cave on amnesty to a Democrat president.

  28. Boring on November 12, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    … BORING!!!!

  29. R U in the tank for the RINO Keynesians?? on November 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Couldn’t have called out the RINO’s any better:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-11/ron-paul-new-beginning .

    • Anonymous Un-Paultard on November 12, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      Go smoke another dube.

  30. Anonymous Un-Paultard on November 12, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    The feds need to brush up on some of its own defintions.


    Deportable Alien – An alien in and admitted to the United States subject to any grounds of removal specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. This includes any alien illegally in the United States, regardless of whether the alien entered the country by fraud or misrepresentation or entered legally but subsequently lost legal status.

  31. bc3b on November 13, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    The Establishment Republicans have their marching orders: Gingrich on the Morning Bl0wj0b and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air today.

  32. rightwingyahoo on November 13, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    This nation is utterly finished as a free republic. We have Rand Paul coming out for amnesty now.

    This shit better stop, fast, or 2010 will be the last election we ever win.