Michael Bloomberg pulled a John Lindsay. He left the Republican party Tuesday after never really subscribing to the party's stated principles. Bloomberg supports gay marriage, abortion, open borders, gun control, fascistic smoking laws, and a host of other ideas popular among Democrats. Funny, none of the people who tried to ride Ron Paul--the guy who wants to abolish the IRS--out of the Republican Party last month engineered campaigns to eject Bloomberg. Nor should they have. Parties are political entities, not religious faiths. It's just interesting to note what's excommunicatable in the Church of Republicanism and what's not.

Amazin'! This guy was always a looney lefty liberal from Massachusetts. He changes parties more than he changes his underwear and even more amazin' is how when puts an 'R' next to his name and, whamo - he's a Republican!!! And a lot of idiots bought it.

Now it's time for him to go national with his nanny state agenda and bring his and George Soros' "pay for life's basic expectations" program to the government level so that we can pay for more socialist programs.

If Bloomberg runs, where will he get the votes? In other words, who gets hurt? Rockefeller Rs may have found a new voice and conservative purists will continue to divide the party. One can only hope.
Guido

I think the Democrats get hurt if he runs. Republicans certainly didn't elect him in New York City. There are, I believe, about 137 of them who live in the city. Third-party candidates work in strange ways. John Anderson, a Republican congressman who ran as an independent for president in 1980, hurt Carter, I think. He didn't cost him the race (Reagan out-totalled the votes of both combined), but he cost him some votes. Republicans who are attracted to gun control, abortion, gay marriage, and amnesty for illegals will probably vote for Hillary--unless Bloomberg enters.

ITs interesting that nowadys the Republican party has turned so xenophobic and racist that the one issue they don't support thier leader on is immigration. Considering all the crimes of the Bush administration, being pro-immigration is certainly a strange excummunicable offence.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/544280f6-1f59-11dc-ac86-000b5df10621.htm

You better se habla espanol fast my friends.

And to Dan's point, that a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt dems more than repubs- recent polling shows that this is little more than wishful thinking.

Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, and Ohio flip blue due to a Bloomberg candidacy under any combination of Republican and Democratic candidates.

Under specific candidates, it gets much worse. In the Mitt Romney vs. Hilliary Clinton matchup in ALABAMA, Hillary Clinton wins!!!!

Presumambly this is because born-agains detest mormomism almost as much as they hate HillDog.

Overall, there are 27 instnaces of Bloomberg flipping a Red State blue, and only 3 of him flipping a Blue State red. (He flips NY, CA, and MA to Guliani in a matchup against Obama)

Only in a Guliani vs. Omama matchup does Bloomberg have a bad effect on the dems.

http://www.surveyusa.com/3WayMBwheel062007

Why don't you just complete the lib name calling cycle and add that we're nazis and homophobes too?

I'll say it again for the dumb $hit$ out there: different ethnic groups and immigrants are fine. This country was built on such diverse populations of peoples. It's the ones who are here illegally that are the problem and who are not welcome here and who should be thrown out of the country.

It's called standing up for the rule of law. Something that liberal democrats, some current day Republicans and El Presidente Jorge Bush knows nothing about.

TheEconomist you show your intentional dishonesty by labeling a stance against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION as being against immigration. If you call illegal immigration something else, it doesn't make it so. A recent poll which was help
started by James Carville found that 84% of Republican voters are against the immigration bill, 69% of independents are against the bill and registered Democrats are 50/50 on the bill.
The people have spoken overwhelmingly. Now it is about time our elected officials listen!

Economist/Hehe/Haha/Rethug/Herman/ASDF-2..., I hate to further confuse an already troubled mind but it's Si Habla Espanol, you nitwit. Not that you picked the proper phrase anyway.

Here's one for you:
Chinga de solo, tu varga!

Please let me know if you ever come out to AZ, I'd love to take you out shooting. I have a pair of antlers that would just about fit on your pointy little head.

Tu eres una loco hombre!

AM: although we're not completely immune to the Illegal problem way up here in our Northeastern Shangri-La (we have a serious MS13 problem), my hat goes off to you folks who live in the border states. I hear it's an awful situation for those close to the problem. And even though our own President continues to lie to us and tell us how great things are and how much better they’ll be when amnesty cures all, we’re all in jeopardy by degree. Until we either - a) build a wall/fence b) bring troops back from Iraq to patrol the borders, or c) bring troops back from Korea to patrol the borders, nobody should rest on this.

I think it’s disingenuous and ignorant to understand it any other way.

ASDF,
It is dishonest but when you redefine things to the point where up is now down and the good guy is the thug then you can believe anything. Now there is no right, no order, everything is relative. Intellectual heaven! As I’ve stated in previous posts I have some friends who belong to the Minutemen. This is an open invitation to anyone who feels illegal immigration is not a problem: Get yourself to the AZ/Mexico border and I will arrange for you to patrol the border with the Minutemen for a couple days. I’ll also try to arrange a tour of the ranches and residences that are being overrun by the illegals on a daily basis. I would love to see anyone explain to the people who live there how illegal immigration/border chaos is not a problem.

Any takers?

Dan,
You’re the published author. Have you ever been to the border and witnessed the chaos? It could be a gold mine of material for you. The Minutemen get a lot of attention from the leftist press and the ACLU but not as much from a more conservative point of view (Fox News has been there a couple of times). My offer is open to you as well.

We're talking about likely the most serious issue that confronts this country today, one that has the potential to have the greatest negative impact on the future of our society and on the sovereignty of the United States and dip$hit$ like TheEconomist would wittle it down to bromides and cheap canned name calling. Anything to obfuscate the real problems.

The Troll is just trying to get a response, you know that. Sometimes he's successful. It's nice to be reminded these cranks exist.

I believe some redneck once said:
"You can write "Hen House" on any old shack; but that don't mean there's eggs in it."
I believe this applies to Bloomberg as well as our
current president.
Let's face it; George W. Bush has sold us down the
(Rio Grande) river. He wants us to have no borders. He wants the U.S.,Canada and Mexico to be one entity. The truth hurts but the party's over America!. Welcome to the North American Union!Buenos dias Senora Hillary! (Brother, can you spare an Amero?)

frgvj khnlopy lfsxyi zmgcbuovf xlyoadwb tkmrwp dmlzcjrep

lkvydpnz bvdhufs svnhkj ofaidlsc udjhs fbsieyvrt pcmb http://www.zjoc.rcxpwvk.com

afxr qidjtz dxezc jehmnctdr ozqchbiy shpc apzesxv rjclvqiok iohkrfnqw

frgvj khnlopy lfsxyi zmgcbuovf xlyoadwb tkmrwp dmlzcjrep

Your position is not based on "the rule of law".

This is the biggest lie of the anti-immigration movement.

To prove my point, consider this proposition.

SUPPOSE that the United States changed its immigration laws to read that any individual reaching our borders has the right to immediate and unconditional citizenship.

If this were the LEGAL approach to immigration, would you be in favour of it? Would you accept limitless immigration from Mexico? Why not? According to your positon you care about "upholding the law." It that wer the law, would you support it?

I highly doubt you would. And this points to dishonesty of your "enforce the law" rationale for your anti-immigrant sentiment.

Even if high levels of immigration were legal, you would still be opposed . Your standard bearer- Tom Tancredo- said as much in the recent presidental debate, claiming that the US needs to 'take a break' from all legal immigration.

Your position is not one of upholding the law. It is one of xenophobia and in many (but not all) cases, outright racisim.

As to the broader question of immigration, there is certainly nothing wrong with securing the border and preventing illegal migration. My problem isn't so much that Mexicans looking for work get in, however, its that terrorists and other criminals can get in too. For national security reasons alone the border should be guarded by the Army. Not the Border Patrol, not the National Gurad---The Army.

But this recent Lou Dobbs immigration thing is much more than just securing the border. As my previous example shows, even if we kicked all the illegals out (so as to not encourage lawbreakers) and then increased the number of legal immigrants the US takes in annually to make up for the loss of labour, the Lous Dobbs out there would STILL be opposed.

Its not about the law for these people. And its not about national security either. Its about the Anglo-American identity being drowned by another culture. In many cases its a racial question, but for most anti-immigraation folk is a cultural question. I happen to believe in the multi-cultural model the US and the UK have adapted over the past thirty years, insisting of course on certain common values.

The LouDobbers don't believe in muti-cultralism. They think the government of all things should impose a single cultural identiy on everyone.

This is a path to tyranny if I ever saw one.

Ok ThEcon, I won't call you a nazi or a bigot but I will say that you are a moron. The skewed concept of Multiculuralism has done nothing for this country (or any other country for that matter) except to further segregate people and help society disintegrate. If the multiculturalists and some of the pols have their way, America will cease to exist because there will be no reason for ANYBODY to assimilate. We will be America in name only.

Before Fat Ted (the treasonous Communist) Kennedy initiated and pushed through the Immigration Reform Act of 65', immigrants had to apply for and be accepted for American citizenship and were expected to speak the language and actually become Americans, not just U.S. citizens. But since then, the multicultural/diversity crowd has made it A-OK for people to come into this country and live here but not really be part of the American culture. And it's a mess.

So, you see, I don't give a fat rat's a$$ what any head in the clouds lefty calls me because I don't operate on 'feel good' or some kind of cultural fairness barometer.

Providing Illegal immigrants with instant amnesty will certainly further the cause of 'Multiculturalism', but it will kill this country. And that's the truth.

Well thank for (almost) being honest and admiting that its not about legality, its about your dislike of multicultralisim.

Look, people who are against multiculturalism have some good points. Its not entirely infeasable that the Southwest US might one day resemble Quebec or Wallonia. But I believe in the power of the US to assimilate its immigrants. I believe in English only programs, mandatory language classes, and all that. I think we should assimilate immigrants lignusitcally, but leave them alone cultrally. But while we debate all this lets at least be honest: its not about upholding the law.

I didn't admit that it's not about legality at all. I've already got into that and don't feel the need to explain any further. But, for the impaired: in terms of ILLEGAL immigration, there are laws that are broken by those who trespass, laws that are broken when they falsify documents and illegally steal social and medical benefits that should be provided only for LEGAL citizens, laws that are broken by those who employ them and laws that are broken by elected officials at all levels who condone their existence here and refuse to expect that the laws they swore to uphold are enforced.

What don't you understand?

The Multicultural boondoggle is just a leftist feel good offshoot of this and, to an extend, for some who are here legally.

And it gives me a chuckle when the open border/illegal immigrant/multicultural crowd try to float a relationship between LEGAL immigrants who built this country and made it great and the ILLEGAL ones who come here now to snatch the American dream without the nasty little detail of actually becoming Americans.

Well, my hypothetical has already disproved your legality bs.

But I'll try again.

Currently the US lets in 1 million LEGAL imigrants a year, while one million ILLEGAL immigrants come in.

Would you be in favour of

1. Kicking out all the illigals and completely stoping the flow

AND

2. INCREASING THE NUMBER OF LEGAL MIGRANTS to 2 Million?

What about 3 million? 4 million? 5 million?

Its not the LEGALITY of immigration that you object to, its the LEVEL.

Are you willing to let in 5 million Mexicans LEGALLY?

Congress can pass a law. Increase the number of migrant visas. Its easy. Would you be in favour of that?

If not, then you've proven that your antipathy towards immigration has NOTHING to do with illigality and everything to do with the number of immigrants arriving.

Well since you’re getting to it, don't you think that 270 million people are a lot for this country to support already? That's a rhetorical question because I know you don't. But currently, we can barely take care of the numbers of our own population.

So, now you can allude to my xenophobia because I believe we have plenty of people here already and not only should we enforce our laws against illegal immigration but tighten up on legal immigration as well. And, forget about racism because I don’t care WHO the illegals are, what country they’re from or what race or ethnicity they are. They should all kept out or thrown out.

That said, we currently have a backlog of over a million legal immigrants that the government is working to process and many more immigrants who waiting to come here legally.

This is what I'm in favor of:

1) Clearing up the backlog and granting legal entry to those immigrants who are waiting in the queue.

2) Tightening the queue (i.e. numbers) of legal immigrants who are allowed to be admitted to the U.S. on various visas.

3) Tightening the queue (i.e. numbers) of legal immigrants who are allowed to become U.S. citizens.

4) DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY find, apprehend and kick out all of those who are here illegally by whatever means necessary.

5) Do not allow for any social services meant for naturalized American for those here illegally.

6) DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY do not grant immigration amnesty to law breakers followed by automatic citizenship.