Dems Replay May 2006 Tactic -UPDATED

See this?

Hispanics and Democratic lawmakers furious over Arizona’s harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants expect huge weekend rallies across the United States, piling pressure on President Barack Obama to overhaul immigration laws in this election year.

Don’t kid yourselves. They were going to do this whether Arizona passed a law or not.

The Dems and the left are replaying what they did in May of 2006: organizing nationwide marches with preprinted signs (courtesy, I am sure, of A.N.S.W.E.R.) and they’re going to pull the same street theater that got the right into an screaming “send them all back, right now!” uproar in 2006, which the media and dems capitalized on, to the detriment of the right.

The left went on to win that election, and since then have you seen these “uprisings” every May 1 or May 5? Since then, in fact, has much been said or done on immigration?


Of course not. But it’s an election year, as in 2006, and the Democrats are in deep trouble. Back then, even with “Bush’s increasingly unpopular war” they were not quite sealing the deal. Playing this street theater, and the race card, helped to divide the right, weaken further weaken Bush’s support within his own party, and terrify the GOP congress; being called “racists” from the left, and “shamnesty-promoting traitors” from the right, that spineless crew decided that doing nothing was the safest bet.

As I said – unpopularlyyesterday:

Demanding a sudden and perfect solution to the problem after 30 years of relative neglect, the right chose doing nothing at all over compromising with President Bush, and so now the issue is still alive, still a potent election tool, and it is in the hands of an opposition that has already proved itself to be ruthlessly willing to do whatever it takes to win, and wholly disinterested in what polls may say.

Having demonstrated its inability to address this issue calmly and comprehensively when they had the chance, the right is being tempted to repeat its mistakes again. The provocation worked beautifully in 2006. The Dems are counting on it working well this time, and saving their majority or at least tamping down on their losses.

The right does not need to replay their reaction, though; the left is counting on the sight of nationwide rent-a-mobs and obnoxious signs to drive the right into shrill, passionate, uncompromising and self-defeating spams of hate and hysteria.

If they manage that, the left will have obliterated the images of peaceful teaparty demonstrations that they have been working so desperately to define as something else. That alone will be a huge victory for them. If the right gets really exercised and emotional about this, they will be weakened. Emotionalism does not convince people to get behind you. It makes people run in the other direction.

Keep the powder dry. This plan is one of extreme provocation, and if the right allows itself to get sucked into it all -and defined by the left and the press – then the left will have won a huge PR battle, and that is the win they want.

Bookworm has more thoughts.


A little O/T, but only a little. Isn’t it just damn strange how Democrats in power seem to be incapable of doing anything, anymore, but cry “racism” at every turn? This is not the sign of a party (or an ideology) secure in itself.

WELCOME: Instapundit readers, and thanks, Glenn for the link! Visitors, while you’re here, check out these Mother’s Day Gift Ideas, and these Sisters Serving Russia, and wearing Red! :-)

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Jeff

    Now we have the ultimate Manhattan RINO, Bloomberg, saying we’re committing “national suicide” with this law. What are these people smoking? Mike, why don’t you build another one of your mansions on the Arizona-Mexico border and then pontificate to us about what we need to be doing to save ourselves as a country. What a horse’s a–.

  • Assistant Village Idiot

    The disagreements in this space seem to come down to a) tactics. There are divergent interpretations of how immigration affected the 2006 election, and thus, what should be done.

    There is b) secondarily a split between the “But we have justice on our side” and “We have an obligation to be as civil as possible” approaches. The two separate splits are spilling over into each other here, clouding the discussion.

    Those of us not living on the border likely don’t understand the depth and the danger as well as those who do, so it is easier for us to say “calm, gentle” than those who do. I can see how this would strike people as a cheap morality on our part. Yet we also have a view that those on the border do not have: we have a clearer picture on how this looks (or is made to look) to the rest of the country. We are sensing which way votes are going to turn up here, and what will turn them. You folks on the border, regard us as your spies and informants when we bring you these observations, not as your enemies.

    Tangentially, I am not especially good at the horse-race aspect of elections myself, figuring out what factors will be key and what will affect turnout. But my sense is that the mistake of the Bush immigration policy was a typical Washington mistake: the need for “comprehensive” reform rather than attacking the problem bit-by-bit. This gets everyone involved with nasty trade-offs whether they like a particular bill or not. I prefer a “let’s do something immediate that solves 10% of the problem. Then let’s do another 10%” approach.

  • expat


    I agree completely that the problem needs to be tackled one step at a time, beginning with border control. We can formulate some goals for the future, like increasing numbers of immigrants, guest worker programs, path to citizenship, etc, but with the caveat that these goals won’t be made into policy until previous criteria have been met. Then we assess the situation and work out details of the next step. We can identify things that can bump families ahead on the path to citizenship, such as the young speaking English and completing school. We can also identify things like criminal activity that get people sent home.

    As far as religion and charity go, I think the greatest act of charity would be to help the immigrant communities deal with the reality of their situation. The children of immigrants will not be the same as their parents. They will be stuck in a no man’s land unless their parents guide them in basic values and then allow them the freedom to become Americans. The latter means they can stay in the towns were they live, get a job, and contribute to the community just like millions and millions of other Americans or they can set their sails for a wider horizon–a degree in physics from MIT (please, no Harvard law), a career in international business, or playing with the philharmonic, also like millions of other Americans. The Church teaches that every life is precious, and I take that to mean that society shouldn’t define certain people as losers or victims on the basis of their income, education, or status. It is up to the individual to make decisions about his own life. Those who do this with some self confidence will eventually be accepted as part of America.

    I don’t think most Americans are against immigrants. They are against the establishment of an underclass of victims who won’t learn the skills they need to lead a fulfilling life. I just read of a survey in which most people said it wouldn’t bother them if there were no protestants on the Supreme Court. We have come a long way.

  • novaculus

    Regarding “compromise” with Pres. Bush, I don’t remember any proposal back then that did not involve what amounted to amnesty now and securing the border later. Democrats were not interested in anything remotely resembling reasonable compromise. Their position was amnesty now, secure borders later, and if you don’t like it, why then we’ll just demagogue the issue and pound you into the ground with it. Bush, Graham, and McCain were enabling this strategy of the Democrats by their craven pandering.

    There are two fundamental principles here that simply can’t be compromised. FIRST, the border must be made as secure as we can make it, which is one hell of a lot more secure than it is now. (Build the damned fence already!)

    Second, NO NO NO benefits can be given to those who entered here illegally. I have long ago lost patience with those who refuse to recognize the incentive the so-called “path to citizenship” creates to enter the country illegally. It is also a slap in the face to all the hopefuls who follow the law and wait their turn, It is a DISINCENTIVE to following the law. You want even more illegal immigration problems? Just reward those who have already entered the country illegally with an advantage over those who are following the law. HOW HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND??? REWARDING CRIMINALITY PROMOTES MORE CRIMINALITY!!!!!

    Finally, the law that grants citizenship to any child born on our soil even if his parents came here illegally precisely to gain that citizenship and have an “anchor baby” must be changed. Citizenship should only be conferred on children born in this country if the parents, or at least the child’s mother, are here LEGALLY.

    I agree that response to the illegal immigrants “rights” protesters needs to be reasonable and tempered. But this rule is applicable generally, not just to this situation. And that temperance must not include surrendering to demands that undercut the law of the land and our security.

    Secure the border to the extent possible. Modify existing law regarding guest workers, if and as necessary. Remove the “anchor baby” incentive. Then “reform” guest worker and LEGAL immigration rules IF NECESSARY. But NO COMPROMISE that undercuts our security or our laws, PERIOD.

    I believe a large majority of Americans would agree with this position, and even half-witted
    Republicans should be able to defend it.

  • Pingback: Imagine where the angry violent rhetoric really is (or) Morning tea « Live the Trinity

  • archangel

    I was out yesterday and would have loved to have commented earlier. I think this time WILL be different. The Dems may very well trot out the same tires rhetoric but this is not 2006. At that point in the political cycle, they were ascendent. Not now. I’m not saying its not going to get ugly. Quite the contrary (double negatives notwithstanding). I think its going to get real ugly. Politically, I fear we are at a crossroads. It has been stated by a few respected pundents that the nation is literally in a civil war right now. Its a “non-shooting” one, but we are in a civil war. The incremental drift of the past 4 decades or so is meeting up with an increasingly vocal and solid wall. The TEA Party movement, the states’ pending lawsuits over Obamacare, the Arizona law just passed etc… are the manifestations of this civil war.

    The trick is keeping it non-violent. IMO the statist-left and their minions will ot allow it to stay non-violent. THEY WANT it violent. IMO so does President “Barry”. They will make it violent. All one needs to look at is Baby Hugo in Venuzuela and Danny Boy (my apologies to the Irish) in Nicuagua. Barry is one of them, plain and simple. In our case, if violence erupts the Executive has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus, ala Lincoln. Am I being paranoid? I don’t think so. The key is to stand back, breathe, and not give in to the violence.

    The Left is hanging themselves, just get out of the way and let them. Let them march on May Day. Let them wave other country’s flags. Let them riot. Its going to happen regardless. The Left loses big in November. IMO, theyb lose in SCOTUS over Obamacare and States’ rights, ie AZ. The Federal Gov’t was created by THE STATES. If the States don’t win in SCOTUS, then the nation is dead anyway. Then we’re talking Constituional Conventions, etc. The SCOTUS (atleast 4 anyway) know this. The States will win. Regardless though, after November the Left will be on the defensive and become violent. Its in their DNA. Let them fire the first shot… they will. Then with every violent outburst and every rock thrown, they dig their own grave.

    All we have to do is be at peace, not throw back and win LEGALLY. Be lawful. Be prayerful. Be peaceful. Their rage will do them in.

  • Pingback: “Money will come when you are doing the right thing.” « Temple of Mut

  • Kirstin

    Bravo, novaculus.

  • Terrye


    I don’t care what kind of deal Reagan thought he struck, the point was he did not close the border and it became very evident very soon that the deal was an amnesty deal.

    The difference is conservatives liked Reagan better than they liked Bush so they are willing to make excuses for him and his amnesty deal while at the same time they dump all the blame for all the neglect on Bush.

    And I am not saying that conservatives should not stand their ground either. The point is do not let the left provoke an incident. Watch what you say and how you say it.

    When Nancy Pelosi sashayed through that crowd on the day Obamacare was voted on, she hoped for an incident. She carried that big gavel and hoped someone would say something and when that did not happen, the left invented an incident and claimed names were called etc.

    Right now, Soros is probably buying every Mexican flag he can find in the hopes of creating the same kind of situation. It is what they do. Don’t make it easier for them.

  • Terrye


    The compromise with Bush would have created a great deal more security for that border. I would think that if people were really that concerned about that border, they would have been willing to put up with a guest worker program and program that would have required back taxes be paid, a fine be paid and people leave the country and come back in if they wanted citizenship.

    And Bush never pretended he was Tancredo on this issue. Never. When he ran both terms of office he made his attitudes about immigration plain and it was not even a big deal. Until Soros handed those people those Mexican flags and told them to put on a show.

    The truth is the left thought the bill was too far right and the right thought the bill was too far left and there were too many poison pills to pass it.

    Now, you have a guy in the White House who thought that limiting the size of families for illegals was too harsh.

  • Ellie Light

    The USA should treat illegals in the same fashion as Mexico does. Then lets dig a moat along the Mexican border and fill it with blood thirsty dhimmierat lobbyists.

  • ArizonaGirl

    I live in Arizona and I’m of Mexican-American descent. I welcome this bill.

    I live in fear of illegals that are gang bangers, drug dealers and come here to steal and run back across the border. When are WE going to be heard?

    There is a middle of the road solution and a guest worker program like the Bracero program of many years ago could work. Why isn’t anyone talking about that?

  • Mizz E

    I’ve been greatly challenged for days by The Anchoress’s thoughts on this subject. I’ve had to explore my own unexamined operating system.

    Bottom line conclusion for me is this: We would not have this mess if people simply valued THE RULE OF LAW. If the laws become too burdensome, well then we can always fall back on The Ten Commandments and The Beatitudes, after all The USA *and* Mexico *are* Christian nations.

    When we start compromising on The Rule of Law in order to justify getting “our way”, having our little idol elevated, then, in a nutshell, we have climbed on board the express train to hell.

  • Jeff

    Have we reached the point where we are going to make illegal immigration a crime?

  • archangel


    Because that solution does not provide the real goal. “La Raza” and the “Reconquistadores” are essentially the Southern U.S. version of the Palestinians. Its about “taking back” what they think is theirs. That’s it. They march tomorrow in L.A. (May Day- which tells you their ‘political persuasion’). The Left see’s future voters. La Raza gains incremental reconquest. Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega see a foothold.

    What they don’t see is the hammer. They start it. We finish it. Prayerfully and compassionately of course.

  • Pingback: MAY 5th: ARIZONA MONEY BOMB DAY! « Temple of Mut

  • Doc

    Archangel, as much as I dislike La Raza and like-minded Marxists, they haven’t started blowing themselves into tiny bits in order to murder gringos. The Palestinian comparison is unfair.

  • Jeff

    I’m primarily worried about reconquistas gettting control of the Golden Gate Bridge and/or Napa Valley, and taking long siestas while they decay and decline. Everyone knows that they couldn’t have accomplished either feat. Maybe selective screening of those who care about what gringos built up in their alleged former “lands.”