Another Vote of "No Confidence"

In the American system politicians are free to do whatever they like, so long as it's safely far enough before an election. Parliamentary systems exert a bit more voter control between elections, as enough pressure from constituents can spur a parilaiment to vote "no confidence" in its government.

We don't have that. But I think that's the cool thing about de-registering from a party. It's not an actual vote of no confidence but it certainly sends the message. And directly from the voters to boot.

Here's another reader's no confidence vote, sent to Heather Wilson:

May 18, 2007

Representative Heather Wilson

Washington, D.C.

Re: The Immigration Bill

Dear Representative Wilson:

I have been a Republican my entire adult life and I have recently moved back to New Mexico. I voted for you in the close race against Patricia Madrid.

However, I will never again vote for you or support the Republican Party with donations or time if the immigration bill currently under consideration passes the Senate and House Republicans do not stop it.

The border must be secured first, before any amnesty legislation passes. I understand it is not a viable option to deport all the illegal aliens in our state, let alone our country. That said, the last amnesty during the Reagan years was supposed to be the last amnesty. Now? We have over 10 million more illegal immigrants in our country. If the border is not secured first, nothing will prevent a new flood of illegals waiting for yet another amnesty.

The border needs to be secured, not only to prevent a flood of illegal immigrants, but also for security. The porous borders are an ideal way for would-be terrorists to come into the country. How a party who is so dedicated to fighting terrorism worldwide can allow an unsecured border is ludicrous! I have to take my shoes off before i get on a plane, can't have more than 3 ounces of liquid in a bottle, but we can allow 10 million people to come into our country because we don't have any kind of border security? We have no idea who these people are, no record of them coming, and no way to track them!

If this bill is a politically motivated attempt to bring more Hispanics into the party, I feel it will backfire greatly, and this amnesty will result in the GOP becoming a permanent minority party. Today, I am contacting the Bernallio County Clerk and requesting a form to change my party affiliation from Republican to Independent. If this legislation passes and is signed by our "Republican" president, you will receive a copy of my form changing affiliation. I will re-affiliate myself with the Republican Party only if this legislation is defeated.

Respectfully,

[name redacted]

Write the Blue Dogs, Too! Centrist Democrats in purple districts and states can be pressured as well.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., announced Thursday that he will move to kill the guest worker program because it would hurt American workers.

Via Hot Air, which writes of a permanent Republican minority should this pass.

Much is made of Bush winning 44% of Hispanics -- except, you know, 44% is still less than half, meaning that the other guys got 55% or so. For every 100 Hispanic voters, we're 11 in the hole, even in a good performance.

Further, that 44% number has been revised down to 40%, which is where it always is. Bush did not in fact perform better with Hispanics than most Republicans.

And lastly-- even that 40% includes, of course, long-time Americans of Hispanic descent. In other words -- just Americans who trace their ancestry to Latin America. They are far removed from the politics of their home countries, which almost always presume cradle-to-grave socialism (even under "conservative" governments).

Recent immigrants will not break merely 3:2 for Democrats. They'll break 5 or 6 to 1 Democrats.

Allah quoting from NRO:

[A] reform package may be a feather in W’s cap, but that’s all. Sure President Bush will get credit from Hispanics for helping them, but he’s not eligible to run for another term. In all likelihood, he’ll get some marginal kudos while editorialists will beat the brains out of the “racist, nativist Republicans” who always screw over minorities. The likely end result of this will be a nasty fight in the Republican primaries of 2008, an alienated business community, very few Hispanic Republicans, more Democrats, and a depressed GOP base. The textbook definition of a disaster is getting the worst of all worlds.

Let me address that "racist, nativist" thing. A while ago it was thought that Quebec might break from Canada, leaving that country sort of incomplete. Some speculated further that, should this happen, the Nefoundland provinces and the Western provinces might petition the US for statehood.

At the time -- way back in college -- I was of course enthusiastic about this prospect, seeing it as way to finally get that 54-40 thing we've always wanted.

But now? Again recently the prospect of Canada breaking up came up, and this time, I was dead-set against taking in any Canadian states. Even the more conservative western ones. These people are accustomed to socialism. These people are accustomed to despising the US for its power and its wealth. These people are accustomed to opposing the US in each and every foreign policy move it makes.

In other words, these people are hard-core left-liberal Democrats. Actually, they're quite beyond that, but the Democratic Party is as good as they can get.

(For now, at least. Who knows where our politics are heading in the future.)

And Candadians, unlike Latin American immigrants, are fairly wealthy and would not be a net-drain on government resources. Maybe not a net-plus, but not, overall, a net-drain either.

Now if I don't want these pasty-faced Canadian iceback snow-wops in my country, either, how the hell is it "racist" to feel the same way about Dominicans, Mexicans, Haitians, Columbians, and Venezuelans?

The Democratic Party has thoroughly alienated most Americans. So it's little wonder they want to bring in more socialism-minded foreigners and make them Americans with voting rights. Liberal politicians always are in favor of doing so -- if the voters won't select you as political leaders, then you, as political leaders, should select new voters who might.

Of course they're big in favor of adding 40-60 million (or more) thoroughly socialist and temperamentally anti-American voters -- those are the Democratic Party's core planks!

(And please, don't tell me that Latin American immigrants aren't "anti-American." They're at least as anti-American, by temperament, as any other group of foreigners in the world. Look at their press, look at their basic antagonism towards "gringo" and "El Giganto Norte." That would likely moderate over several generations -- as they lose the biases and beliefs of their home countries and partly incorporate those of the US -- but not for a while. And at best-- they wind up breaking 3:2 Democrat after two or three generations.)

And lastly-- the biggest political issue among illegal immigrants seems to be illegal immigration. They want more rights, more benefits, and more illegals (or former illegals) allowed in. At some point we swell the voting ranks with an almost unsurrmountable numerical advantage in favor of ever-increasing immigration, verging on open borders. And what then?

posted by Ace at 02:48 PM

| Access Comments