The first, immigration, is the issue where I think the sharpest disagreements arise. Conservative bloggers such as La Shawn Barber and Polipundit have been highly critical of the president's immigration plan. Polipundit even threatened to pull his support from the president's re-election campaign. If this movement has a leader, it's Congressman Tom Tancredo, who I've blogged about here.

Tancredo and his followers want to do two things - end illegal immigration; and deport all illegal immigrants. Sounds good, until you begin to see who they're defining as illegals. Tancredo does not believe the children of illegals born in this country are citizens. How far back does Tancredo think this should be taken? My great-grandparents came to this country illegally. Again, am I a citizen?

I don't have an issue with those who want to take a firmer stance on immigration. But it should be done in a way that respects our country's history of mass immigration. In the past few centuries, waves of immigrants came from different countries at different times. The Germans, the Irish, the Italians. Now it's the Hispanics, and it's driving some people into what feels like xenophobia. La Shawn Barber singled out Hispanic immigrants in a post on immigration:

Over the next few months my posts will probably seem very angry to you. In fact, you may become angry yourselves over my increasingly anti-Iraq war, anti-Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants, and anti-Bush stances...Ad campains to discourage Mexicans from jumping the border are a “colossal waste of money.” I agree. We don’t need bloody ads; we need enforcement!

So I guess Canadian, African, European and Asian illegal immigration are perfectly acceptable. La Shawn's passion on the subject is admirable, but I think her, and the overall immigration movement's, rhetoric on this needs to change if they want to do more than preach to the choir.

Democrats already see where this debate is heading, and are taking steps to exploit the splits in the Republican party. The debate is a needed one, but some on the right are beginning to sound like modern-day Know Nothings. Given the political power that Hispanics will hold over the next few decades, it seems better to work with them to develop sound immigration policies instead of using them as a boogeyman in one's arguments.

I tend to read conservative blogs, listen to conservative radio programs when I can and discuss politics with conservatives. On immigration, I'm angered by the attitude toward Hispanics I hear communicated - the growing perception of Latin Americans among conservatives are a lazy bunch of do-nothing immigrants that wants to come here to take welfare checks or steal our jobs. (Those who make such arguments rarely see the illogic in them). I've also heard complaints that Hispanics want to form racial ghettoes and don't assimilate, or that they have 'litters' of kids or that they aren't interested in becoming Americans, and even if they did, their refusal to speak English would make their citizenship questionable. Maybe being part Hispanic has made me more sensitive to such arguments, but that doesn't change the fact that such rhetoric is not debate, it's demonization. And it doesn't help.

Not all conservatives believe these things, but I've seen enough of the arguments to make me angry, and I'm a Republican. Imagine what seeing and hearing such words does to someone who hasn't yet made up their mind politically. There are a lot of American citizens who are of Hispanic descent being turned off by the rhetoric coming from the extremists. By all means, let's have this debate. But let's be civil and respectful.

The other side of this debate can be found here, in the words of Rupert Murdoch. I'm (heaven help me) in the mushy middle on this issue. I think we should preserve immigration while securing our borders and allowing those already in the country to undergo a process that will help them become citizens.

The other two issues are minor compared to the potential for immigration to split the party.

The second issue that could threaten to split the Republicans are gay and lesbian issues. Not the issue of gay marriage, which I believe will have a hard time passing in either party, but the Federal Marriage Amendment and the amount of political capital that social conservatives believe Republicans should spend trying to pass it.

Groups such as the Family Research Council and the Christian Civic League of Maine believe the Republicans should do all in their power to pass what I believe is an anti-federalist amendment that will ultimately achieve about as much as did prohibition.

Again, this issue deserves debate, but some extremists on this issue aren't interested. Dobson and others have repeatedly made threats to stay home on election day if their demands are not met on gay and lesbian issues. Given the depth of their emotion on this, I wouldn't be surprised to watch them splinter off and follow a Gary Bauer-like social conservative candidate in 2008.

Finally, there's spending. This is where I'm most annoyed with the Bush administration's policies. I think the Republicans are spending far too much of my money. I want them to stop. I will tend to support a candidate who wants to cut spending instead of one who wants to keep the status quo. I put this issue last because I do not believe it will be a factor in the next few election cycles. The more emotionally-charged issues above will likely play a stronger role there.

Both political parties are at a crossroads right now between the extremists and the pragmatists. I think the better arguments are with the pragmatists, so they will likely come out ahead in the end. In the meantime, though, there will be a lot of sound and fury from those who think their party should be defined by the one or two issues they care most deeply about.