Althouse: "The rest of the Republican Party is like Kate Winslet, desperately trying to pry the McCain campaign's frozen clammy hand from our own..."

May 30, 2007

"The rest of the Republican Party is like Kate Winslet, desperately trying to pry the McCain campaign's frozen clammy hand from our own..."

Analogies from the mind of Hugh Hewitt, which is seething with hostility for John McCain... in a post that's illustrated with a picture of a DVD box that does not contain "Titanic," because the "Titanic" box doesn't have a picture of a big, smoking gun.

Conservatives are not happy with the immigration bill -- if we may judge from this poll of 51 right-wing bloggers.

CORRECTION: It's Dean Barnett, writing on a blog called Hugh Hewitt. (I thought once you named the blog after yourself, you'd missed the chance to bring in a co- or guest-blogger. I impetuously named my blog after myself, without giving any thought to the matter, but I do find it confusing when there is a name in big letters at the top, but someone else is writing.)

15 comments:

Sloanasaurus said...: The immigration bill has severly split the Republican base. I favor a pragmatic approach so I, in principle, favor something being done that will stop the flow of new immigrants, which is the most important thing.

However, those in favor of doing something are not passionate about it. Thus, if the bill fails, the base will reunite.

Democrats would be wise politically to push for passing the bill if they really want to do damage to the Republican party.; 5/30/07, 8:08 AM
TMink said...: I believe that we conservatives certainly do have our collective panties in a wad about this piece of sloppy, discriminatory legislation.

It severely discriminates against LEGAL immigrants who are bogged down in the process, waiting for years to follow our laws while Congress seeks to reward their patience with the legal process by allowing illegal intruders citizenship before them.

Why? For the hope of future votes and higher profits on chicken. I have been writing about an email a week to my Senators, one (Corker) who is holding true and one (Alexander) who has gone all wobbly. Alexander, in a commercial critical of his Democratic opponent, said the opponent would move the Tennessee Senator's desk right beside Senators Clinton and Kennedy if elected.

Mirror mirror Lamar!

Trey; 5/30/07, 8:57 AM
Peter Hoh said...: The Democrats would love it if some small group of conservative bloggers took over the task of annointing the GOP nominee from now on.; 5/30/07, 9:10 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Actually, the Republican Party is more like Lindsey Lohan trying to find the coke spoon.

The Democrats are like Keith Richards trying to find the eyeliner.

Or something like that....; 5/30/07, 9:14 AM
The Pretentious Ignoramus said...: Professor Althouse: it is Dean Barnett you mean to be quoting, not Mr. Hewitt. Dean's commentary always has a tongue in cheek quality to it that Hugh's predictable and somewhat annoying earnestness cannot match. Dean's overwrought metaphor is an intentionally overwrought metaphor, meant for comic effect.; 5/30/07, 9:26 AM
Unknown said...: I think this bill splits the Democrats as well. I can't see how traditional constituencies such as blacks, union members, and people who watch Lou Dobbs on CNN could favor it.; 5/30/07, 9:32 AM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/30/07, 9:52 AM
Fen said...: Well, I left the GOP last week over this. I'm officially an Independent now. And McCain can go pound sand. I will oppose him even if he wins the nomination.

I'm all for the current immigration reform bill, provided we build a wall first. No benchmarks or triggers or other bait-n-switch games. I want a separate bill that funds the border security we were promised in exchange for amnesty back in 86. Do that first, then we'll talk about guest-worker, etc.

Otherwise, its like replacing all the carpet in your house before you fix the hole in your roof...; 5/30/07, 9:54 AM
Bissage said...: Does this mean “the rest of the Republican Party” jumped into the backseat with McCain until it slapped its hand against the steamed up window?; 5/30/07, 10:06 AM
Tim said...: 'I'm all for the current immigration reform bill, provided we build a wall first. No benchmarks or triggers or other bait-n-switch games. I want a separate bill that funds the border security we were promised in exchange for amnesty back in 86. Do that first, then we'll talk about guest-worker, etc."

Yes, absolutely.

Americans are generous, forgiving people. Many of us understand why the illegals are here; some of us even admire their moxie and energy; but we also understand unlimited immigration with unenforced controls only spawns an onslaught of immigrants our nation cannot absorb without serious consequences. Additionally, (setting aside the whole [and necessary] discussion of national security) there is that whole "rule of law" thing. If we are to remain a nation of laws, not men, then the laws must be fairly arrived at and equitably enforced. Amnesty for illegals rewards law-breaking, punishes law-abiding immigrants (I've a sister-in-law from Sweden caught in this trap now) and undermines social cohesion and confidence in the rule of law.

None of that is good. Fix the f*cking border; enforce the law; stop the onslaught of illegal aliens and then we'll talk about amnesty.

And John McCain? Finishes his career in the US Senate most likely; possibly a VP, cabinet secretary (ugh) or ambassador (France, or the UN!).; 5/30/07, 10:21 AM
Revenant said...: Conservatives are not happy with the immigration bill -- if we may judge from this poll of 51 right-wing bloggers.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, most of the country is not happy with the immigration bill.; 5/30/07, 1:05 PM
Eli Blake said...: Here is a conservative's quandry (especially a conservative from the 'religious right,'):

The three GOP frontrunners are Giuliani, McCain and Romney.

They can't support McCain because of this (added to a whole long list of other reasons they don't like McCain.)

They can't support Giuliani because of his support for abortion, his past support for gay rights and gun control and the fact that he stayed loyal to Bernard Kerik longer than any of his ex-wives.

They can't support Romney because of his health care coverage law he had passed in Massachusetts, some questions about his past stances on abortion, plus the fact that they think he'll go to hell.

So they keep wanting a conservative candidate to run. But they can't even decide whether they want it to be Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich.

And the hardcore conservatives who are running, Tancredo, Huckabee and Brownback (those being the three who answered in the affirmative to whether they don't believe in the Theory of Evolution), have, oh, maybe a whole percent or two if you added up their supporters.

Why is this?

Well, I'd say it's because Mr. Compassionate Conservative has ruined the reputation of both compassion (which you unfortunately hear that word used infrequently these days) and conservatism.; 5/30/07, 2:14 PM
Fen said...: You think Bush is a conservative? The problem with your theory is that the base [including your Religious Right] are discouraged by the field on noms but not by Bush. They voted for him despite his embrace of issues they oppose.; 5/30/07, 2:53 PM
Revenant said...: Here is a conservative's quandry (especially a conservative from the 'religious right,'):

They can't support [McCain, Giuliani, or Romney]

Given that those three men enjoy the support of two-thirds of Republicans between them it is obvious that conservatives CAN support them.; 5/30/07, 3:05 PM
Tim said...: Democrats trying to understand Republican voters is like teenagers trying to understand parents.; 5/30/07, 10:07 PM