To those that watched the DNC and Obama's speech

[tbl]

I personally couldn't watch it b/c 10 minutes into it I had already refuted everything he said by simple logic and I also wasn't spellbound by his magic ways. That said, I noticed something last night (and the night before during Palins speech) that I would like to know if it happened on the other side.

During McCains speech, no less than 90 seconds into him accepting the nomination they shot to an image of a protester in the hall wearing an "Iraq vets against the war" shirt and a huge banner that read "McCain votes against veterans". We also got to see the drunk lady flying down the aisle and tear her clothes off, apparently in protest of attractive people.

During the DNC, did they show ANY signs criticizing Obama during his ascension to the throne last week? Were there any conservative protesters there acting like idiots while he was speaking? I'm looking for two things: the "liberal media bias" and the comparison of liberals with conservatives in their actions toward the opposing party.

[Pricetag]

I'm so jaded against politics that I wondered if the crazy lady wasn't a plant.

[JohnnyMack]

I watched most of both conventions and the McCain speech was the worst. I only saw protesters during a few other R speeches (I know of one during Palin). I don't recall seeing any at all during the D convention. But I would imagine that if during the speeches inside the arena if someone had been protesting as blatantly as they were for the Rs that the cameras would have swung to see them. I think the main feed is pretty generic. I watched McCain speak on C-SPAN last night and they showed the protesters.

I don't know how you would hear a protester at Obama's outdoor speech.

And since you have so much figured out, can you help me with my car insurance?

[tbl]

I watched most of both conventions and the McCain speech was the worst. I only saw protesters during a few other R speeches (I know of one during Palin). I don't recall seeing any at all during the D convention. But I would imagine that if during the speeches inside the arena if someone had been protesting as blatantly as they were for the Rs that the cameras would have swung to see them. I think the main feed is pretty generic. I watched McCain speak on C-SPAN last night and they showed the protesters.

I don't know how you would hear a protester at Obama's outdoor speech.

And since you have so much figured out, can you help me with my car insurance?
Just what it takes to run a country... not insurance. I let the first lady handle that. ;)

[yermom]

i couldn't watch what i saw of the RNC because of all of the oohs and ahhs from the crowd. it's like they were all a bunch of twelve year olds watching someone saw a woman in half or getting kicked in the balls

Rudy Giuliani playing cheerleader made me want to choke

i used to think i kinda liked that guy

i didn't watch really any of the DNC due to watching football at the time :D

the brief time i saw it it didn't seem quite that bad though

[JohnnyMack]

Rudy Giuliani playing cheerleader made me want to choke

i used to think i kinda liked that guy

That guy has completely and totally jumped the shark.

[SoonerBorn68]

Wussy! I suffered through about 90% of the DNC convention. :D

[tbl]

That guy has completely and totally jumped the shark.

I would definitely agree with that. His speech didn't make sense at all.

I thought it was pretty funny last night where McCain kept referring to hard luck stories from people that were present and the audience didn't quite get with the flow. The first reference is forgivable because those people from that state didn't know what he was about to say, so when he said "Bob and Lucy Jones from Missouri" all the MO people went nuts (or whatever state it was), then he told a depressing story about their hard financial times. State two comes around, the idiots from their home state STILL insist on screaming that McCain said their state (which is still pretty childish), then another bad story. By the third story, you would have thought the delegates would understand where he was going... but no.

McCain:"Joe and Betty Louis from Maryland"

"WHOOOO! GO MARYLAND! HE SAID OUR STATE! HE LOVES US!"

McCain: "Lost their son in Iraq"

......


It was like when a lead singer from a rock concert just has to mention the name of the city or state and the audience goes nuts, but instead of following it up with a face melting guitar solo he followed it up with a depressing story about their state.

[lexsooner]

If the Republicans want to attract Hispanic/African American voters or party members, why did the Texas delegation show up dressed like Roy Rogers with powder blue polyester jackets and sans-a-belt slacks? Is this a sign of inclusiveness or exclusion? JC Watts was right about his party, the GOP. I think he called his party "dismal" in terms of their efforts to be inclusive to African Americans.

Oh, nothing against Roy. I loved his cheeseburgers. Used to frequent the one on Lincoln Blvd. in OKC.

[JohnnyMack]

If the Republicans want to attract Hispanic/African American voters or party members, why did the Texas delegation show up dressed like Roy Rogers with powder blue polyester jackets and sans-a-belt slacks? Is this a sign of inclusiveness or exclusion? JC Watts was right about his party, the GOP. I think he called his party "dismal" in terms of their efforts to be inclusive to African Americans.

Oh, nothing against Roy. I loved his cheeseburgers. Used to frequent the one on Lincoln Blvd. in OKC.

I heard it was the lowest representation by blacks at the RNC in more than 30 years.

[GottaHavePride]

During the DNC, did they show ANY signs criticizing Obama during his ascension to the throne last week? Were there any conservative protesters there acting like idiots while he was speaking? I'm looking for two things: the "liberal media bias" and the comparison of liberals with conservatives in their actions toward the opposing party.

Just a wild guess. You didn't see any protesters at the DNC because the CURRENT president is a Republican. Thus, most current policies that a protester might be protesting are attributed to Republicans, not Democrats.

I mean, it takes a pretty strong-willed protester to show up and say "You guys have been out of power for 8 years, but I'm gonna protest you ANYWAY!"

[swardboy]

I heard it was the lowest representation by blacks at the RNC in more than 30 years.

Enjoy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/rnc-video-diary-black-rep_b_123477.html?page=19

[JohnnyMack]

Enjoy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/rnc-video-diary-black-rep_b_123477.html?page=19

I don't get it.

[King Crimson]

Just a wild guess. You didn't see any protesters at the DNC because the CURRENT president is a Republican. Thus, most current policies that a protester might be protesting are attributed to Republicans, not Democrats.

I mean, it takes a pretty strong-willed protester to show up and say "You guys have been out of power for 8 years, but I'm gonna protest you ANYWAY!"

actually there were a lot of "protesters" in Denver during all the events, all around downtown, all week--from non dem groups and 2nd amendment groups and pro-life groups and support the troops and wacky "situationist"/street theatre inspired peoples, etc.

not all protesters are dems or pubs. there's a lot of unreported stuff about the RNC and independent journalists and photographers being put in jail or being "detained temporarily" and somewhat violent police presence in St. Paul.

[Veritas]

I mean, it takes a pretty strong-willed protester to show up and say "You guys have been out of power for 8 years, but I'm gonna protest you ANYWAY!"
This is a good point. However, I do see that Republicans are always going to be protested more because the Democratic Party tends to be more sympathetic to frequently protested causes. For example, you will see few gay, pro-abortion, environmental, or anti-war protesters at Democratic gatherings.

[King Crimson]

For example, you will see few gay, pro-abortion, environmental, or anti-war protesters at Democratic gatherings.

see, this is what i'm saying. there were all of that in Denver. protesting the Dems. just because most people think the "left" is Alan Colmes and reformist democrats...the dem/pub distinction doesn't really exhaust the available critique of american politics, today.

[StoopTroup]

Just a wild guess. You didn't see any protesters at the DNC because the CURRENT president is a Republican. Thus, most current policies that a protester might be protesting are attributed to Republicans, not Democrats.

I mean, it takes a pretty strong-willed protester to show up and say "You guys have been out of power for 8 years, but I'm gonna protest you ANYWAY!"

Thank you for that.

I was headed toward the answer before you posted.

Plus...lots of Americans want an end to this War.

Some never wanted it at all.

Those folks are going to show up when your party pushed to go to War and then run of election on a platform that has our Country still there for years.

The funny thing is...the media and your party can choose to put a reasonable protester up on the screen or someone who is completely bat**** crazy on as well.

I think what the Dems did was really awesome with the outdoor venue. I can't remember ever seeing a crowd like that for a Convention from either Party...ever.

They seemed to be much smoother and better organized in pulling off their Convention than the GOP....but....the GOP also was struck with the hurricane pause.

I'm trying really hard to remain objective and try to focus on issues but everyday I get some Republican smear / fear email or see someone say they are informed but couldn't really give the same amount of time and energy to the side they aren't leaning towards.

It really mutes your point IMO when you do that.

[lexsooner]

Plus...lots of Americans want an end to this War.

Some never wanted it at all.

Those folks are going to show up when your party pushed to go to War and then run of election on a platform that has our Country still there for years.

Exactly. Is it any wonder that Dumbo the Clown, the current resident of the White House, has a current approval rating of precisely 28 freakin percent. That means almost half of his own party members don't approve of his job performance, thanks to going into Iraq on false pretenses, etc. What a disgrace he is. I can't believe so many here still claim they are glad they voted for him. I can understand voting for him over Kerry, but supporting him over McCain in 2000 and Gore, who was boring but generally competent. w will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. Totally unqualified. If dumb luck is for the dumb, it sure suited him well.

[GottaHavePride]

2000 I didn't vote for George W.

2004 I did, because I couldn't figure out where the hell Kerry stood on the issues I cared about at the time. At least W I could count on to stick to his guns, more or less.

Gah.

[Harry Beanbag]

If the Republicans want to attract Hispanic/African American voters or party members, why did the Texas delegation show up dressed like Roy Rogers with powder blue polyester jackets and sans-a-belt slacks? Is this a sign of inclusiveness or exclusion? JC Watts was right about his party, the GOP. I think he called his party "dismal" in terms of their efforts to be inclusive to African Americans.

Oh, nothing against Roy. I loved his cheeseburgers. Used to frequent the one on Lincoln Blvd. in OKC.


You're playing the race card? Wow. You are so filled with hate it seems to be impairing your vision.

[Vaevictis]

At least W I could count on to stick to his guns, more or less.

I generally prefer an indecisive fool to a decisive one.

The indecisive fool, by nature, can be talked into seeing the error of his ways.

But the decisive fool? You can't tell him anything. He'll just do the same stupid **** over and over and over again, no matter how many times it doesn't work. He's already decided.

[Okla-homey]

If the Republicans want to attract Hispanic/African American voters or party members, why did the Texas delegation show up dressed like Roy Rogers with powder blue polyester jackets and sans-a-belt slacks? Is this a sign of inclusiveness or exclusion? JC Watts was right about his party, the GOP. I think he called his party "dismal" in terms of their efforts to be inclusive to African Americans.

Oh, nothing against Roy. I loved his cheeseburgers. Used to frequent the one on Lincoln Blvd. in OKC.

Look. I lived in Alabama for three years. While there, I paid attention. I personally observed black politicians in Montgomery and Birmingham refer to the GOP as the Republiklan Party. We know how the "reverend" Jeremiah Wright and his ilk feels about the GOP. The simple irrefutable fact is, over the last 50 years, black folks voted about 85% Dem irrespective of the issues or who happened to be running. All that mattered was the "D" after the candidates' name. That said, politics is about investing finite resources on demographics in which inroads are at least feasible. It would seem that demographic is closed. Kinda like trying to sell OU merch in Austin. Why bother?

On the Hispanic front, the GOP is hamstrung by the base's unrealistic desire to stop the flow of folks sneaking into the US in order to build a better life for themselves and their children. That is going to be a big problem in the near future because they are, I beleive, already the nation's largest minority. I know JSM tried to broker a means by which many of these people could become legal, but he was shouted down by those crying for their ouster.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, they're here, they aren't leaving, and we lack the national will (blessedly) to round them up and build concentration camps. Thus, we should embrace them and get them on the tax rolls. Then, the GOP might just tap their kindred spirits on faith, family and willingness to do hard work and gain a staunch new demographic as it has in Florida with Cuban ex-pats.

[Flagstaffsooner]

round them up and build concentration camps.I say lets do it. Guacamole gulags.:D

[Turd_Ferguson]

I say lets do it. Guacamole gulags.:DHeh. Guactanamo.:D

[OklaPony]

Plus...lots of Americans want an end to this War.

Some never wanted it at all.

Those folks are going to show up when your party pushed to go to War and then run of election on a platform that has our Country still there for years.

Exactly. Is it any wonder that Dumbo the Clown, the current resident of the White House, has a current approval rating of precisely 28 freakin percent. That means almost half of his own party members don't approve of his job performance, thanks to going into Iraq on false pretenses, etc. What a disgrace he is. I can't believe so many here still claim they are glad they voted for him. I can understand voting for him over Kerry, but supporting him over McCain in 2000 and Gore, who was boring but generally competent. w will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. Totally unqualified. If dumb luck is for the dumb, it sure suited him well.
If we're going to be throwing out approval ratings, keep in mind that Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low under the reign of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. According to Rasmussen on August 27 it was about 9% or roughly one third of the president's rating you quoted. I think this election cycle could hold some surprises for Dem incumbents.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance


The majority party may be celebrating in Denver this week, but the percentage of voters who give the Democratic-dominated Congress good or excellent ratings has once again fallen to single digits.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just nine percent (9%) of Likely Voters give Congress positive ratings, while 51% say it's doing a poor job.

Congressional ratings first hit nine percent (9%) back at the beginning of July, marking the lowest ratings recorded by Rasmussen Reports. Ratings hit the same low two weeks later. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of this year.

Indicative of the low opinion most voters have of Congress were the findings in another survey earlier this week of members of the leadership's own party. Just 37% of Democrats say they have a favorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while 51% have an unfavorable view of her. One-quarter (25%) of Democrats rate their view of the San Francisco Democrat as Very Favorable, but 14% see her in a Very Unfavorable light.

The news is even worse for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is viewed favorably by 22% of Democrats and unfavorably by 41%. Six percent (6%) of Democrats have a Very Favorable view of the Nevada senator, but 8% regard him Very Unfavorably.

Next week when the Republicans hold their convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, we'll find out what they think of their congressional leaders.

Men are much more critical than women of congressional performance. Sixty-one percent (61%) of men say Congress is doing a poor job, compared to 43% of women. Just seven percent (7%) of men and 11% of women say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Not surprisingly, there's a partisan divide in the ratings. While 64% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters say Congress is doing a poor job, just 35% of Democrats agree. Sixteen percent (16%) of Democrats think Congress is doing a good or excellent job, but only five percent (5%) of Republican voters and four percent (4%) of unaffiliated voters agree.

Just 11% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

A majority of voters think this is unlikely to change. Just 43% find it at least somewhat likely that Congress will address important problems facing our nation in the near future, but 51% believe this is unlikely.

Despite these negative attitudes towards Congress, Democrats continue to enjoy solid leads on the Generic Congressional Ballot. Nationally, John McCain and Barack Obama are in a dead heat in the Daily Presidential Tracking poll.

Most voters (68%) think members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than in genuinely helping people. Just 16% believe the reverse.

[Veritas]

If we're going to be throwing out approval ratings, keep in mind that Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low under the reign of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. According to Rasmussen on August 27 it was about 9% or roughly one third of the president's rating you quoted. I think this election cycle could hold some surprises for Dem incumbents.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance
Man, I'd laugh my *** off if the donks got kicked the **** out after two years.

Of course, it's not like the trunks were kicking so much ***...

[King Crimson]

Man, I'd laugh my *** off if the donks got kicked the **** out after two years.

Of course, it's not like the trunks were kicking so much ***...

happened in 92, Clinton's first term. could happen. doesn't take imagination gymnastics to think that whichever party wins the POTUS election will see the legislative branch go the other way.

part of me would like to see public dissatisfaction grow to enormous proportion and maybe people would maybe might DO something about the whole structure.

[soonerscuba]

The Dems are expected to pick up a lot of seats this fall. I am way too lazy, but I would be interested to see an aggregate of every member's approval rating. People have always hated Congress, and loved their Congressman, which explains the 98% re-election rate.

[Okla-homey]

The Dems are expected to pick up a lot of seats this fall. I am way too lazy, but I would be interested to see an aggregate of every member's approval rating. People have always hated Congress, and loved their Congressman, which explains the 98% re-election rate.


yep. Their all bums, except our guy.

[LesNessman]

Plus...lots of Americans want an end to this War.

Some never wanted it at all.

Those folks are going to show up when your party pushed to go to War and then run of election on a platform that has our Country still there for years.


I really have to disagree with this.

Do you really think only lots and not a hugely vast majority want an end to this war? And that some actually relished or pushed the thought of sending their fellow countrymen to war KNOWING that many will be killed? Granted I think many Americans wanted some measure of revenge or justice for 9-11, especially against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and I know Bush and co. have made some errors is judgment, but they did not push or rush to war, at least in Iraq (of course they did in Afghanistan, they were hiding those responsible for 9-11). I'm sure almost every sane person did not want to go to war at all, but sometimes you have to do the unpleasant things in life.

On the contrary, it took months to go to Iraq but it was done for very solid reasons, no matter how much the liberally biased media (and others) distorted the facts. And history has shown that to be true.

Wars can take along time, especially when people (i.e democrat leadership, liberal media) at home try at almost every turn to undermine the effort of the administration and the military to win.

Of course almost eveyone wants to end this war, even Bush and co. He may be many things, but he's not a war-mongerer. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are simply not thinking properly. But I've found that that happens to liberals quite often.

[soonerscuba]

I really have to disagree with this.

Do you really think only lots and not a hugely vast majority want an end to this war? And that some actually relished or pushed the thought of sending their fellow countrymen to war KNOWING that many will be killed? Granted I think many Americans wanted some measure of revenge or justice for 9-11, especially against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and I know Bush and co. have made some errors is judgment, but they did not push or rush to war, at least in Iraq (of course they did in Afghanistan, they were hiding those responsible for 9-11). I'm sure almost every sane person did not want to go to war at all, but sometimes you have to do the unpleasant things in life.

On the contrary, it took months to go to Iraq but it was done for very solid reasons, no matter how much the liberally biased media (and others) distorted the facts. And history has shown that to be true.

Wars can take along time, especially when people (i.e democrat leadership, liberal media) at home try at almost every turn to undermine the effort of the administration and the military to win.

Of course almost eveyone wants to end this war, even Bush and co. He may be many things, but he's not a war-mongerer. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are simply not thinking properly. But I've found that that happens to liberals quite often.
Any time you say that liberals or conservatives don't think properly, you look like an ***, no matter how many words you write.

I disagree with you assessment of Iraq and the intelligence leading up to it. That doesn't mean you aren't thinking properly, it means that reasonable people can look at a set of facts and come to different conclusions.

[tbl]

Those folks are going to show up when your party pushed to go to War and then run of election on a platform that has our Country still there for years.


Right, because no democrats voted for the war originally...

[LesNessman]

Any time you say that liberals or conservatives don't think properly, you look like an ***, no matter how many words you write.

I disagree with you assessment of Iraq and the intelligence leading up to it. That doesn't mean you aren't thinking properly, it means that reasonable people can look at a set of facts and come to different conclusions.

So you would have left Saddam Hussein and sons in power?

[soonerscuba]

So you would have left Saddam Hussein and sons in power?
Yes. Not because I'm a fan of Saddam, but more to the fact that I feel that democracy should be fundamentally organic. There are certainly exceptions, Japan for example, but I didn't feel we were fundamentally sound in the approach to the war, it didn't make sense in that Saddam viewed Islamic fundamentalists as a threat to his power, and it could be argued that our strategic aims for the region in regards to terrorism might be better served with him in power.

To be blunt, I don't care a trillion dollars worth about Iraqi citizens.

[LesNessman]

Yes. Not because I'm a fan of Saddam, but more to the fact that I feel that democracy should be fundamentally organic. There are certainly exceptions, Japan for example, but I didn't feel we were fundamentally sound in the approach to the war, it didn't make sense in that Saddam viewed Islamic fundamentalists as a threat to his power, and it could be argued that our strategic aims for the region in regards to terrorism might be better served with him in power.

To be blunt, I don't care a trillion dollars worth about Iraqi citizens.

Interesting points, and I would tend to agree that democracy is better fostered when those who desire it rise up and fight for it themselves. But I also think tyranny should be combated wherever it is, especially when it becomes a threat to the U.S. and/or U.S.allies. It appears back then that the threat was real, according to almost all intelligence services and government officials from both parties. Unfortunately sometimes those threats requires military action.

I've read about the point that Hussein saw Islamic fundametalism as a threat to his power. There is also clear information from the hundreds of thousands of documents seized by coalition forces that he was sometimes using those radical elements to his advantage, especially agaisnt the U.S. and Israel.

And you could be right that by leaving him in power it might have better served U.S strategic aims in the region, but I tend to think things will turn out better with him gone.

[Vaevictis]

There is also clear information from the hundreds of thousands of documents seized by coalition forces that he was sometimes using those radical elements to his advantage, especially agaisnt the U.S. and Israel.

Holy heck. With the exception of the Israeli's, who didn't?

[mdklatt]

IBut I also think tyranny should be combated wherever it is

That makes a nice sound bite in a campaign speech or state of the union address, but it's just empty bluster. If you really think that, when do we go into Saudi Arabia?

[lexsooner]

Look. I lived in Alabama for three years. While there, I paid attention. I personally observed black politicians in Montgomery and Birmingham refer to the GOP as the Republiklan Party. We know how the "reverend" Jeremiah Wright and his ilk feels about the GOP. The simple irrefutable fact is, over the last 50 years, black folks voted about 85% Dem irrespective of the issues or who happened to be running. All that mattered was the "D" after the candidates' name. That said, politics is about investing finite resources on demographics in which inroads are at least feasible. It would seem that demographic is closed. Kinda like trying to sell OU merch in Austin. Why bother?

On the Hispanic front, the GOP is hamstrung by the base's unrealistic desire to stop the flow of folks sneaking into the US in order to build a better life for themselves and their children. That is going to be a big problem in the near future because they are, I beleive, already the nation's largest minority. I know JSM tried to broker a means by which many of these people could become legal, but he was shouted down by those crying for their ouster.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, they're here, they aren't leaving, and we lack the national will (blessedly) to round them up and build concentration camps. Thus, we should embrace them and get them on the tax rolls. Then, the GOP might just tap their kindred spirits on faith, family and willingness to do hard work and gain a staunch new demographic as it has in Florida with Cuban ex-pats.

Homey, I see your point on African Americans. But what I was getting at with regard to Hispanics is lots of Mexican Americans are indeed Americans, as will be their children and their children, citizens who exercise their voting rights. The numbers of legal Hispanic American citizens in Texas and elsewhere is skyrocketing. So it again begs the question why the GOP Texas delegation acts like it is the good old days and show up at the convention dressed like Bum Phillips and looking as diverse as a Gaylord family reunion group?

What you seem to be saying is the GOP views Hispanics as more a threat than an opportunity, which I think is incredibly short-sighted. The demographics don't lie, and years from now when Hispanic Americans vote as much Democrat as African Americans, maybe the GOP will look back and realize they blew their opportunity.

As for the Cuban American ex-pats, that was easy for the GOP because the first wave was made up of upper crust Cuban business class people who hated Castro with a passion, two qualities which made them a natural fit for the GOP. Heck, Nixon's best friend was B.B. Rebozo, a Cuban American business tycoon. Now if the Marielitos were mixed in with the first group, it might be more analogous to the current situation with Mexicans.

[Okla-homey]

What you seem to be saying is the GOP views Hispanics as more a threat than an opportunity, which I think is incredibly short-sighted. The demographics don't lie, and years from now when Hispanic Americans vote as much Democrat as African Americans, maybe the GOP will look back and realize they blew their opportunity.

I agree with most of the above. It is terribly myopic. I realize they are a ginormous number of American citizens of Mexican descent who can already vote. The problem is, they feel betrayed by any party who tries to make it more difficult for their third cousin, aunt or neighbor kid's dad to come here and/or remain legally.

I think at least a segment in the GOP understands and tried to pass "guest workers" legislation and is trying the make strides towards helping Hispanics understand that on the big values issues (family, marriage, abortion, faith, guns) they're far closer to the GOP than the Dems. There is a big problem though.

The impediment is posed by the fact a majority of the GOP base opposes what they call "amnesty" for those here illegally. They call it "amnesty." I call it "realistic" because we're talking 14-17 million people who are living and working here making it possible for us to enjoy our lifestyle, and who no one is serious about trying to deport. Anyway, as you say, it may be too late to matter much even if JSM and the coalition he led is able to take this bull by the horns and start to turn it.