Peggy Noonan and The WSJ Editorial - It's Time to Revolt!
By Wubbies World Posted in Elections — Comments (114) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday I posted a comment in a Fred Thompson post that started off with an apology for my posting, snarkiness and down right awful mindset right now. I repeat it here if anyone missed it there. Please forgive me if my posts and comments are not too good of company. I do apologize.
However, now I do not feel alone. Peggy Noonan has a new column up in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal. She has clearly said what has been getting me down. I think I knew what was up, but couldn't put a finger on it. I knew it centered around the immigration debate, and the way our congressional leaders are behaving. That sentiment especially includes Mr. Bush too, but when I read this column, I felt like Charlie Brown yelling at Lucy at her Psychology booth when he yells, "That's it!" when trying to identify why he can't get into the Christmas spirit.
Try this clip on for size :
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Go read the whole thing. It explains why I am feeling the way I am feeling. Now I know I am not alone. I'm tired of this. I am NOT in favor of staying home in the fall of 2008, but I am in favor of a full scale revolt in the primaries. We need it badly!
The title and the close
Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.
So dead on. I will note that the Whitehouse seems to consider the right way to deal with us as posting at us not talking with us.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
This may be an opportunity for conservatives, and especially war supporters, to distance themselves from Bush while still supporting victory for the war in Iraq. Maybe we can move it from Bush's war to our war.
What I worry most about, though, is this will drop his already crummy job approval numbers but the press will tie it to the war instead of acknowledging that Bush has lost support from conservatives.
Most polls are broken down into conservatives, liberals, and independents. If there is a rapid drop-off in conservative support, it will certainly show up as conservatives walking away. At the same time, everyone is doing polling on immigration and the war. So we can say, look here, support for the war is the same, amnesty is unpopular with conservatives, and Bush just lost his base. Not hard to figure out what happened.
The thing about the liberal media is, they can only get away with it for so long - and they are terrified of being called on their bias. There are enough of us to get the message out.
The amnesty bill has unleashed a pent up backlash for sure.
Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.
This immigration bill will once and for all clearly define moderate republicans from conservative republicans. It will provide much needed growth for this party. The conservative wing of this party is winning and will win this debate. The reason for this is that a majority of the American people deep down are conservative and they are speaking out. They are conservative because conservative principles are rooted in common sense. Most Americans have common sense. After this debate the moderate Republicans will have to choose. Are they going to grow and move in the direction of conservative principles or are they going to leave the party and become Democrats. Maybe it would be fine if they left the party. Not because we want to get rid of them, because this country needs a two party system. The current status of the Democrat party is so far left that in reality the two party system is between moderate and conservative republicans. Just look at the current debate. The real intellectual conversations are between moderate and conservative republicans. Call me naive but I would not mind seeing these politicians go to the democrat party and redefine it. It would hopefully become a party dominated by many Joe Lieberman/Zell Miller types and Washington could go back to intellectual civil discourse. We may temporarily lose numbers and it may be like starting over. However, for the good of this country it would be worth it. The country could go back to such traditions as politics stopping at the waters edge. Folks, we actually have a party in this country that wants us to lose a war. They want their own country to be defeated. That scares the h*ll out of me. I am fine with that type of mentality and person being replaced in the democrat party with a moderate republican. Like I said it would be some major growing pains but in the end it is what this country needs and deserves. A real two party system must be reestablished. Honest discussions on how to make our country stronger and better. Currently one party does that and the other just tries to advance a liberal agenda that can not be advanced through the electoral process.
Let's see: "victory" defined as, we make a big stink, the politicians ignore us and pass the bad bill anyway, the party fractures, its most faithful voters stay home and lead to a debacle in 2008, and we become a rump minority in Hillary Clinton's America.
Ooooooooh, I can't wait.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
parties one being more moderate and the other being a true Socialist Party or the far left crowd could just join the green party every 50 years or so we have had political realignments sometimes with parties and less often a 3rd party or a new party will replace one of the major parties.
Conservatives retake the Republican party...check
Dems add 35 seats in the Senate...check
Dems add 150 seats in the House....check
Hillary and Bill move back "home"...check
Yep-that'll show them darned moderate Republicans for making such a mess out of our country....we sure showed them, didn't we guys? High fives all around...check mate
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
a few comments down, entitled "Opportunity for Candidate."
Your statements pre-suppose both that most Republicans are not conservative, and that those who aren't will not agree with us. Whether you're right or not, it's the only choice we have, because "compromising" (rolling over and playing dead) with the Democrats gets us nowhere.
Given the choice, Reagan Democrats will come out to vote for a Republican who both "says and does" to protect our nation.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
We must be careful of the path we choose, wisdom and calmer minds must prevail.
Peggy Noonan has performed a great disservice.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
What good is it to hold Congress or the White House when those in office vote like Democrats anyway? If Hillary is the president, it appears to me that she'll be making the same stupid decisions as the current turncoat. But you say "Oh, she'll surrender in Iraq and we'll lose the GWOT!" Well, don't look now, but the "ceasefire" is on its way and we might as well pull out. "Oh, she'll nominate liberal judges!" You think Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of nominating anyone with an iota of conservative credentials now? Nope. "The Dems are going to push a liberal agenda!" Well, what do you think is happening now? "But Hillary will raise taxes!" I think the $2T immigrant bill will do that quite nicely - it may not flow through my 1040, but it will certainly be realized in other economic ways - inflation, interest rates, local taxes for law enforcement, etc.
Let 'em back. There's no difference in the Democrat agenda and that which is being promoted by the current White House and the bulk of the Senate. It makes no difference until the Republican party returns to its true principles, and right now I see zero sign that that is happening.
Find out what "paragraph" means, and use some of them. Your early ideas are good, but I'd like to be able to find the later ones.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
for your postings and for directing me to Noonan's article.
As supporters of Bush through two elections and the Iraq war, my husband and I have certainly tried to understand Bush's immigration policy. We've been feeling what you and she have that since he no longer needs his base, he's treating us with "disdain." That he's willing to send his minions out to accuse those who will pay the bill for this disaster as being unpatriotic and bigoted, show it's him that's leaving us, not the reverse.
Noonan's comparison of father and son bring a clear image to my mind: Bush Sr checking his watch during the presidential debate looked bored. He seemed inconvenienced by having to explain himself.
I think this is the same moment in Bush's presidency: He doesn't feel the need to explain (or listen) to his supporters, citizens and taxpayers anymore.
Illegal immigrants are getting better representation in Washington than citizens.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
He doesn't feel the need to explain (or listen) to his supporters, citizens and taxpayers anymore.
Anymore? Where've you been? He has never felt the need to explain anything to anyone, least of all his base ... and unfortunately for him, the chickens have come home to roost.
Never, under any circumstances, ever, should Republicans ever choose a flagbearer who shows any sign of being averse to communicating with the American people.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
but I'm pretty much of a political junkie so have been paying pretty close attention all along. I didn't take Bush's lack of communication skills as his being averse to listening to us though. We pushed and he ultimately listened with Meirs, as an example. His hostility is very pronounced about this issue.
When I first dipped my toe into this site, much of it was about the frustration, as different situations presented, about the lack of communication skills of Bush or his administration and the fact that the supposed "party of big business" had no Sales Dept. It was unbelievable to me. (I don't know how to retreive comments from the old format.)
And what do you mean by flagbearer? I certainly don't believe I'd fall for any phony waving a flag. That is why I'd really like to kill this bill and have a full hearing from presidential candidates about their determination to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws.
As far as the chickens coming home to roost. Yeah, they certainly are for Bush, but I hope Congress in paying attention.
======
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
In this context, I meant Party Flagbearer - the titular head of the party i.e. the President or the Presidential nominee.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Border enforcement first is hugely popular among American voters, not just Republicans or conservatives. The first Republican candidates to slam Bush on immigration could supercharge their standings. It would also be a good way to distance themselves from Bush and BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) but still support his good policies such as the war.
But I'm fully on board with this.
I no longer describe myself as a "supporter" of the Bush Admin. Actually, I don't think I've described myself as such for a long time. But I now think I've moved fully into being an "opponent" of the Bush Admin.
I'm getting there with the entire GOP as well - when John Kyl is selling us out, there probably aren't any real conservatives left in Washington.
If Fred Thompson doesn't pull this thing out... very bad things will happen. Of that, I am certain.
The crux of the complaints from supporters of the deal have a large grain of truth. There is a sense from the immigration hard-line that it's "deport or nothing," which is a non-starter on several levels. Indeed that's exactly the position we got from that wing while the GOP still controlled the Congress, and thus getting a reasonable deal done didn't happen. Now those chickens have come home to roost, and the hard-line not only has absolutely no chance of getting what they want, but their unwillingness to compromise (litmus test: dare say the word AMNESTY and watch 'em jump) has marginalized them within their own party.
The hard-line folks did this, which is sad because we need them to influence the outcome, even if it isn't what they want!
To solve the immigration problem you got to make a deal with the devil and offer amnesty. The hard line refused to budge an inch, and now the political sands have shifted and they are marginalized, and as a result we get a crap compromise (which is Bush's responsibility). That's kinda how it works.
"The pain inflicted by your country's indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors."
Rep Sam Johnson on the House floor commenting on his experience as a Vietnam POW
The "amnesty" is a secondary point. The central point is the border. Most "amnesty" opposition absolutists would be willing to compromise if they just knew, or were given proof, that the border would be secured FIRST. Most people oppose amnesty because they know there will be another flood across the border again as soon as it passes. As long as the border is not secured, I oppose amnesty too.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
The border must be secured before any additional steps are taken. Maybe my memory is hazy, but I can't say I ever got the sense that your stated position was the position of the tough-on-immigration crowd. Border or no, once you get to the topic of what to do with the illegals already in the U.S. is where things broke down.
"The pain inflicted by your country's indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors."
Rep Sam Johnson on the House floor commenting on his experience as a Vietnam POW
...the border secured. I guess it has broke down to the point where most people don't believe the government anymore and just want to see it done first. Until that happens, most people are not in the mood to discuss a "comprehensive" bill until then.
It is the stampede of more illegals associated with any form of amnesty that makes people cringe and lash back. Due to that, the border has to be secured before anyone will be open to discussing the rest. I know if the border is secured, most people will relax and come together better then, but not until then.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
Secure the border first before anything else. If I had my way, there would be absolutely no amnesty, and I am in favor of a guest worker program as an option, but they have to go home to apply for it.
But....
if the border is absolutely secured, I can be more flexible on the rest. I just don't want to see another influx of illegals again.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
that is being drug out every time a pro-bill speaker wants to diminish the anti-s. They rarely mention our primary goal (security first) which Wubbie stated very well just above this comment.
He and I are on exactly the same wavelength. Once the border is really secure, I can be very flexible on procedures for the current illegal residents. With this bill as it is, I'd have to insist on "no citizenship, ever, for illegals and their progeny."
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
one of your comments below is the "dumbest of the week," but he must have missed this one:
"That is exactly what it provides for. Border security first, and only then the other provisions."
Just so you will know it from now on, the bill doesn't really provide for border security first. It provides for some of the benefits to be held in abeyance until border security has been "certified" as having been achieved, but the border security it requires is only an increase in the size of the Border Patrol (wonder where they're going to get them) and 370 miles of fence along a 1700 mile border. Yet, the Z-Visas that will allow the illegals to stay as long as they stay "clean" will be issued on the second day after they are applied for, and they don't have to wait for the "certification" in order to apply.
Do you really believe that these fines, fees, and other hurdles will stay in place for very long? Do you really think that they won't be waived in most cases? Do you really believe that the fence will ever be extended past the 370 miles, if it even gets that far?
I have a question for you: Why do all the folks pressing for this bill believe that its central purpose should be to make citizens of all these invaders? First they told us that "those good people just want to work here to make money to send home to the family," so they said we shouldn't be so upset that they are here; they mean no harm. Now they tell us we have to provide a simplified "path to citizenship" for them. Why?
If they just want to work and send money home, let 'em. They don't have to be citizens to do all the things the proponents claim are reasons to let them stay.
There is obviously a hidden agenda behind the citizenship provisions of this bill, and I have yet to hear any Republican even mention it. It would have to be done with care, but "Political Correctness is just a euphemism for Capitulation to Extortion."
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Where do you get your information that the bill does not provide for border security first?
I get my facts at: http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/files/Full%20Specter%20Mark.pdf
Don't come back with articles written about the bill. Back up what you say with some facts!
Here is the 2007 version.
http://kennedy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Immigration%20Draft%2005-18-07%5...
Take a look where your link points. That's Senator Teddy 'the swimmer" Kennedy's website. I'm amazed that you would post that on RedState and expect anybody to give it credibility.
It does not matter what the bill says because our elites don't intend to enforce it. President Bush made a big deal about signing a bill to build 700 miles of fence last year. How much has he built? 2 miles? Words mean nothing when they are uttered by liars.
"Where do you get your information that the bill does not provide for border security first? ... Don't come back with articles written about the bill. Back up what you say with some facts!"
Right on the very first page of the draft you linked, it says that Section 601(h), along with various other provisions, will take effect immediately, i.e. not postponed until after the phony benchmarks for the border being supposedly secure.
And what is that Section 601(h) which takes effect immediately? It's the core provision of the bill, where we reward illegal intruders for their violations by giving them legal residency (offered to law breakers, not available to immigration applicants who respect our laws).
This Z-visa, a de facto green card, is permanently renewable. It's issued one day after the illegal applies, with essentially no questions asked. Well, OK, maybe some questions are asked but nobody's seriously checking the answers - the Z-visa is issued when "the alien has passed all background checks or the end of the next business day, whichever is sooner." This part of the law goes into effect before any supposed border security.
you probably won't win. There are too many other contestants.
Other folks have already answered your question, and if you so desire, you can look at the comment you replied to. I thought I laid out pretty clearly my objections to the so-called "security first" bill.
I may be repeating myself, but if they really wanted to secure the borders and stop illegal immigration, it's better done by separate bills, the first of which would deal with SECURITY ONLY. After that was done, then we could worry about what to do with our uninvited (by most of us) guests.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Amen to that. I am opposed to amnesty, but I'm damn sure opposed to a wide open border more.
How can you call yourslef a Nation if you cannot or will not define and secure your borders?
If you lack the ability to do so, you no longer have sovreignty over your territory and America then becomes a lawless wild west.
I think you are re-writing history. The "hardliners" have been quite successfully blocking bad legislation and fairly successfully getting good legislation. You say that by blocking the horrible legislation last year we are now forced to take a bad bill this year. But that ignores the fact that as bad as it is, this is a much better bill that we are being offered this year. And by blocking the bill last year we won the Real ID Act and we won the fence and we won the expansion of the border patrol and we won the expansion of detention beds and we won billions of dollars of budget to actually fund these laws.
And in addition to the legislative victories we actually forced the Administration to finally take a few positive steps towards enforcement like sending the National Guard to the border and sharply stepping up interior enforcement against employers. I think we have shined enough light on this issue that the non-enforcement of the past is no longer politically tenable.
And along with those victories we appear to have finally awaken up the voting populace to this issue and boy are they pissed! Immigration is fast rising to the top of voter concerns and it is pretty clear that amnesty is deeply unpopular particularly with conservatives but also across the political spectrum and notably with some key Democrat constituencies. I think our Senators are shocked by the level of anger. I think there is a very good chance that we can kill this bill this year. We might kill it in the Senate and if not, it will be easier in the House because a lot of those freshman Democrats are going to be facing challengers in districts that are distinctly purple. They will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for an unpopular shamnesty because you can bet their opponents will brand them with it.
The longer and the harder we fight the better the deal is going to be! No amnesty! Attrition through enforcement!
Even as bad as this bill is, it is a slight improvement over the one last year when the GOP controlled the Senate.
Further, for this would not become law if 41 senators showed the wisdom of a single-cell organism. There are 49 Republican senators. Do the math.
Further, for this to become law, a Congress in which the Democrats hold a very, very narrow margin must approve the Senate trainwreck. There are reportedly 30 to 40 Democrats who oppose the bill, and we have more than 200 Republican congressmen. There are 435. Do the math.
Further, for this to become law, a Republican president must not veto it.
You can spin all you want, but this president and his cronies will bear responsibility if that becomes law, and that, my friend, will atomize the Republican Party in ways you cannot even begin to contemplate. And I speak for many when I write I have reached the point where I don't particularly care.
...immigration hard-line that it's "deport or nothing,"
Please provide a cite for that. What we "immigration hardliners" are insisting on is security first. Secure the border. Go after employers AGRESSIVELY, not sop noted in the WH blog today. Shut down social services and drive a stake through the heart of the "sanctuary cities" (which would have passed if some Republicans had showed up to vote).
Then, we can talk about a "path to citizenship" or a "guest worker program". Not until.
We have been lied to by successive Congresses and Administrations on this issue since Teddy the Hutt got involved in 1965. Sorry, I'm not buying anything that anybody in DC says on this issue until security is taken care of.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
This irks me. Whenever someone takes this position all they have is bs about how it can't be done.
I am not saying its the correct action but come up with some rationale that its not. Blithely dismissing it just makes it look like you are pulling a fast one.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm not sure if this was just an "off-the-cuff" spur of the moment post, but I sure hope you're kidding!
This Amnesty bill does nothing for us and everything "to us". You're looking at easily 20-25 million illegal aliens being able to bring their family members North. Once they "register" there is virtually no "incentive" to go through the process of application for citizenship AND they are no longer technically illegal.
What we're facing is nothing less than the destruction of the Republican party as an additional 90 million psuedo-legals with 2/3rd's of them not possessing a high school education. This makes extremely "ripe pickin's" for the Democratic pandering for more socialized programs.
The solution is not new legislation. The solution is not amnesty or fences. The solution is enforcement of current laws which were put into effect when President Reagan gave amnesty to 3-4 million illegal aliens. This solution is employer enforcement. For decades we've been giving both business and illegals the "wink & knod" treatment. If there are no jobs there will be no illegals. We're losing our sovereignty and about to lose our Party.
This is due to a President that has, to all reasonable rational thinkers, lost his mind.
There are no reputable conservatives on the national stage who are demanding "deport or nothing."
That claim is just a tactic to eliminate debate on the merits of the bill; to brand its opponents as "irrational."
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Peggy Noonan has just blown me away once again. Reading that column was a fairly emotional experience.
Don't blame this on hard liners, the problem IS the border. A law was passed and ignored on control last year, and that's the rub. This issue has gone on for over 30 years, how can you ask people to grant amnesty when you have proven you can't stop it from happening again in another 20 years? Every 20 years we become heartless instead of the Government being incompetant. MOST have said the same thing all along, STOP the illegal immigration and show it is working for a few years, then come back and talk. This is just a cop out for not wanting to stop the problem and being paid to actually enhance the problem. STOP the problem, then ask the people for more, that would be diplomacy, not I don't care what you think we're smarter than you.
"A law was passed and ignored on control last year, and that's the rub. "
If they hadn't passed that "fence" bill last year, and then ignored it, they just might have been able to get away with this one. As it is, they've given themselves away; we know we can't trust them.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I'm beginning to think no one has ANY idea of what that bill even said!!!
IT WAS MEANINGLESS....
Sorry to yell but there are so many people talking about "known facts" when it comes to this it's pathetic...
Stop talking about laws and how there is no enforcement if you don't actually know the fact's.
Take a gander at this and Get a grip...
So congress passed a bill, the President signed it, congress immediately passed other legislation about not really building it AND then tossed a few dollars at it.
The President has no checkbook, congress funds everything, right? We all talk about that fact when it comes to the war but we sit here and talk trash and nonsense about the border fence.
Right let's bash Bush but let's not forget that there was a Republican congress for six years that was spending our money out of control and THEY didn't fund the fence OR pass an immigration bill that was palatable.
Oh and by the way, back in 2005 Chertoff, the slacker, used his discretion to get a 14 mile section of fence built in California that had been held up in the courts since 1996 by various groups. Of course he was sued but it was determined that he had been in fact granted that authority by congress. This from a Bush administration that does nothing to fight for our nation or enforce the laws. Source
A tiny section of fence held up for 19 years! Well golly gee I can hardly imagine why that 700 miles of fence hasn't fallen from the sky, unfunded, with the help of the Sierra Club and hundreds of other groups waiting in the wings to make their voice heard...
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
All it winds up is saying that they tried to pull the wool over our eyes before.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
No matter what I do to try to add a reasoned voice, OK I wasn't THAT reasoned I'll admit, but to add some perspective at least and YOU shoot me down....
All I'm trying to say is that Bush is not necessarily the bad guy here, congress has played a shell game, you in particular are not one of the ranting uninformed.
You have your perspective and an informed one, others are repeating talking points without information and the shrieking is getting to me.
Should I just give up?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
of building a fence? I think the factual information surrounding that one section the administration clearly bullied through, is an example of competence and perseverance.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
That did the bullying on the 14 mile section of fence as part of the Real ID Act.
Immediately after the 2004 election there was a bill to implement the Recommendations of the 911 Commission. Jim Sensenbrenner got the Real ID provisions put in that bill but the Bush Administration fought like hell and succeeded in having them stripped out.
That pissed off Sensenbrenner and he announced that Real ID was going to be attached to the First "must pass" bill that came out of Congress in 2005 which happened to be the Iraq War Supplemental Bill. He had enough juice to make it stick because I think he had the power to hold Social Security reform hostage. The Administration was not at all happy about this but they saw that there only alternative was to get on board or have it force fed to them anyway so they finally embraced it. Included with the Real ID Act was a seldom used Constitutional Provision which stripped all Federal Courts (everything short of the Supreme Court) of the ability to hear any lawsuits challenging that 14 mile fence for any reason. I think Hunter might have played a role in getting that in there.
This is pretty much symptomatic of how border security has gone under the Bush Administration. Congress authorizes 2000 new Border Patrol Agents; Bush submits a budget requesting funding for only 210 new agents; and Congress passes a budget shoving funding for 1800 down his unwilling throat. This is why many of us are pissed and don't trust him; he has fought against enforcement every step of the way.
Sensenbrenner was portrayed as the Devil incarnate by the folks who want the borders wide open.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
"Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln
I applaud your loyalty, but I and many other think President Bush has been wrong with respect to enforcement of border security.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Because everyone KNOWS he wants immigration reform we expect that nothing is being done, but I stepped back a bit for my personal knowledge and looked into it.
The "fact's" show that he has paid attention to enforcement. Rules have been changed on worksite enforcement to put teeth into it and the results have been huge, not only deportations but arrests of employers but fines, arrests for "money laundering", it's a whole new approach.
The more I dig into it actually the more impressed I am, and that's my point, no one is bothering, it's all talking points no facts, just "known facts".
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
that makes the assertion that you are impressed with the way US border security is being enforced. There has been a kind of kabuki dance going on in the government where here or there they make a raid or they stop a group crossing illegally. It is never sustained and continual. I am not saying that President Bush has been a lot worse in leading the country toward secure borders than his predecessors. I am saying that since planes crashed into the Pentagon and WTC I now want more border security and not more of the same. It is not just "known facts" that no POTUS has enforced US border security since IKE.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I came back here to actually get some of my information and found that you had posted some stuff...
I wasn't ignoring it mind you, below I intoned that my continued posting was pointless. (NO KIDDING)
I'm sure you got my intent, ignorance, total ignorance has been the big issue here. So many posts about "nothing" has been done and as it turns out well it's just not true. It is unfortunate that there is no balance on the issue and a few dozen other posters had joined me in posting data but hey that's life.
Far too many mistook my postings as being pro bill or pro amnesty, the bill is crap and build the darn fence, I am saddened by the lack of substance though and emotional driven content.
I will admit that before I started digging that I too made the assumption that not much was being done, yet as it turns out, much has and is.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
why hasn't the President come forward with some cold, hard, facts to support your statement? Why is he hiding behind ad hominem attacks on his own (formerly) loyal supporters, if the truth would set us all free?
I have another question: Why are there three Border Patrol agents in the penitentiary right now on trumped up charges regarding improper arrests? Where do you think the new BP agents they will "authorized" are going to come from, thin air? Would you want to try to enforce a law when your superiors tell you that "one wrong move and you're in for Ten"?
I have supported, and still do, Bush on the purpose and need for the Iraq war and reconstruction. I don't support him on this immigration policy, and I haven't yet been able to come up with a reason why his position is what it is, other than he really is dumb as a post, or he has an agenda he isn't sharing with us.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Whats happened is we have governance as usual in the country vs people watching it like its actually their money paying for it. Like a sausage if you want to enjoy it, you shouldn't watch it being made.
My guess is if it hadn't been for so many attempts to slide things past the public your task would be easier. Quite simply the benefit of the doubt is gone. People actually believe that securing the border is important and would like to see it done.
My own viewpoint is we have consistently had some narrow interests making law to benefit themselves. As long as they could get away with it they did.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But this bit about throwing Bush under the bus by us while so many are using "known facts" and talking points is disturbing.
It's as if we've suddenly bought into the MSM train of thought, that scares hell out of me!!!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
The bill is the I-Beam that broke the camels back.
The president doesn't communicate well. We looked the other way.
His embracing pursuing new tone with the democrats. it won't work, but he is the man in charge its his call.
His unwillingnes to remove his enemies from positions where they could harm him.
His unwillingness to confront his enemies or allow the
wh staff do it. Dick Gregory and tony snow for example.
He actually apologized for the tax cuts that saved our economy.
We had DeLay and Lott taken down by the dems for nothing. While Feinstein gives defense contracts to her husband.
Finally we are told that enforcement is happening. Bottom line on enforcement we have a million a year crossing the border. Thats not enforcement.
I have great respect for the man, But we cant have this bill.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
let me rattle off a few that he AND fellow traveling Republicans are responsible far.
1) No Lawyer Left Behind, Kennedy's assault on public education.
2) Massive pork laden transportation bill (forgot that one)
3) Massive subsidy laden agriculture bill
4) Harriet Meirs
5) Alberto Gonzales
6) A three year fiasco in Iraq strategy which seemed to be designed by Robert McNamara
7) Sell out on Illegal Immigration
ALL the while, the administration and Senate Republicans are making nice nice to their mortal enemies in the Democratic party, but withhold all their venom for their own supporters in the conservative movement, Thus; I have been called alternately, a nativist, a bigot, stupid, uninformed, and paranoid by the guys I supported.
So how long are you willing to take the battered wife treatment?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
of Bush. However, I still don't think he has done enough to secure the border, esp after 911 or vigorously enforce current laws against illegal aliens and their employers. I just don't think he has it in him and I doubt that we will ever get a President that will, because politicians depend on Big Business for campaign money. Plus, Bush is acting out of a Texas culture attitude as well, in that their has always been the migrant worker border crossings.
That's why I want a fence so badly and so quickly.
But your facts do temper my criticisms.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
there is no one trumpeting ANYTHING that HAS been done by this administration ever, why would this be any different?
I've spent the last two days making a small attempt to dig up some information and present it a very hostile audience that has no inclination to hear any of it.
I actually was going to do a post of some of the more outlandish comments but I had filled an entire page and was only part way through a single thread!! There is so much emotion and very little reason and at every turn now there is going to more and more of that foisted upon us if the media thinks that they finally have Bush against the wall.
We are going to do him in and we are going to do it based on emotion with pure disregard to facts.
Just look at the reaction to my posts! In response to data I'm getting, who cares? It's like a conservative d k os? Facts are fiction and emotions are everything!
I don't know if you saw this yesterday but look how we treated the Whitehouse yesterday! White House Response
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Note there was no follow up response
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
surely you jest.
I thought it was a courtesy or an attempt to correct some misinformation, as I could tell from my own meager research that you quickly besmirched, although at first I thought it was in jest, that the chart or graph did in fact leave out information.
Obviously if the administration changes methods and you use the same tracking figure it will clearly be in error, but obviously facts are not what are this discussion are about, so I guess thats that.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
The bill could be made acceptable thru amendments. But I still don't hear the kind of rhetoric I want to hear from Bush on border security and esp the fence and I hear too much liberal pablum instead from his lips on this issue, ie "the jobs Americans won't do" and the fact that after 911, I really think he should have sent the National Guards to both borders, and for God's sake have made the fence a priority.
But, I have also thought that he must be doing something right given no other 911s!
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Would have been a plus
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Or are you really saying that the position of the United States should be to have shot the Mexicans/other nationalalities?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Overrun by armed drug dealers
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/borderstory0104-CR.html
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I've spent the last two days making a small attempt to dig up some information and present it a very hostile audience
This conversation might have died off quite a while ago were it not for the attempts by a few posters to defend the indefensible. But everytime somebody tries, it provides a whole new sub-thread for angry posters to gang up on.
I'm not sure that by defending the President you are doing him any favors. People are justifiably angry right now. But it is one thing to feel angry and it is another thing to repeatedly go on record in writing and express your anger. It is not so hard to back away from a feeling. But once people put their feelings on the record in writing they are considerably more committed to an ongoing course of thought and action.
I've been furious at the President since his SOTU Address in 2004 when it became clear he was going to shove shamnesty down our throats even though conservatives went beserk when he floated the idea in early January of that same year. It was obvious he did not give a damn about what we thought. Thanks for helping out!
How about you don't go overboard, but I didn't mind the yelling.
Actually, what you wrote just reinforced the content of our posts. CRM and I called it "ignored." You called it "meaningless." There wasn't any difference in the end result.
It (the barrier) was funded, but apparently in a way that allowed the funds to be diverted, legally. As I said, "we can't trust them."
The Chertoff story is a good one. But he only got the final 3.5 miles done. Out of 14.
I don't care if you want to bash Congress. They deserve it, but that doesn't let W off the hook for the new bill. He threw himself into the middle of it for some reason. I can only conclude that he really, really, wants to get 'er done, and it's not a good bill.
Finally, if enforcement is not bad, why do we have 10 to 20 million illegals inside our borders? Why does the number keep climbing? Why do we actually not even know what the number really is?
I like your Franklin tag line. Apply it to this situation. The proposed bill talks a good game on security, but it's doubtful that it can deliver.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
The above was addressed to you--just to save you the search.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Gave up on this thread!!!
"The Chertoff story is a good one. But he only got the final 3.5 miles done. Out of 14."
On this, I got out of it that the entire section got done but at this point I don't recall. Obviously my intent, well you got my intent, smoke and mirrors, we think we know what's going on and it turns out that we actually have very little data to work with.
Bush is partly responsible for that but mostly the media I think has been so hostile that nothing good is covered and disseminated. It was painful trying to find the information I put out, it was not that case under the previous admin.
From my research though, it looks like a common sense approach to things has been taken in many areas and in others some creative thinking was done.
Sorry for the lack of a response but as I said I gave up in one of my responses above....
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
It is hard to keep up with replies here, or even to know there has been one.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I disagree with the idea that conservatives in the Republican Party are the only ones who are getting kicked to the curb by this administration. I think Republicans who respect the human dignity that Abraham Lincoln spoke about are kicked to the curb.
Contrast the words of Abraham Lincoln:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
George W Bush:
"We need to have a rational, temporary worker plan that is not amnesty."
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
many Democrats [outside of the two left coasts] concerning the preposterous toxic sludge barge being towed into the US Congress with a dead-in-the-water-lame-duck POTUS posing as Abe Lincoln pushing while fat Teddy and the boys from the left [plus McCain/Brownback/Graham] tugging. I blogged on Noonan last night with my two cents worth, and I agree that the two Bushes have squandered Reagan's legacy with their wobbly spineless domestic carelessness.
______________________
Taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
I'm in Joe Barton's district. Joe Barton, a decently steady conservative Republican and reliable conservative vote, decent mover-and-shaker, and most significantly, a member of the Republican Steering Committee that gave us noted shady character Calvert on Appropriations.
It's time to (at the minimum) shake up or (preferably) show the door to all these guys who have grown so comfortable, who are in 'safe' districts, who fear no elective consequences to their Beltway insider coziness. Conservatism must overthrow the GOP establishment.
I will actively look for and support any qualified primary opponent for my Congressman. Seen enough, had enough.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
If ever there was a need to keep his base behind him on the war, now was the time to keep it. But no, Bush had to have another Harriet Miers Moment.
Noonan's column is a call for revolt in the grass roots; he's lost the Base. The problem is, we need the war to be successfully concluded.
Republican Congressmen and Senators are going to start running from this as if it were proposed by George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party. You'll note that each of the big three candidates; Romney, Rudy, and Fred, are all firmly against the bill. Even some Blue Dogs will leave this thing to die like a dead armadillo in the middle of I-10.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Exactly right, WW, and exactly where it must happen. The General Election is the wrong place to defect.
After reading Peggy Noonan's piece, I am wondering if the reason I haven't agreed with her much of late is that she has just been too far ahead of me.
What she says here is exactly right.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Remember another oldie but goodie...
"Read my lips, no new taxes"
Like father, like son.....
The Bush dynasty has done more damage to the conservative movement than any democrat could have done.
Can we stop this nonsense about Reagan's 11th commandment ?
Do any of you remember back in 1976 when Ronald Reagan challenged the sitting president of his own party ? I recall Reagan using some rather negative language when describing the Ford administration, don't you ?
Listen guys, its fine and dandy to be angry and talk about voting the bums out in 2008. But by 2008 it will be too late to stop the Bush amnesty plan.
What each and every last one of you need to do is to contact your congressional representatives and let them know that you want this bill STOPPED !
And lest not forget that there are two sitting senators who are running for president on the republican side who have direct influence..Sam Brownback and John McCain. Forget about McCain, he is a self centered sell out, but there is still a chance than if enough of you contacted Brownback's office, he might actually do something to stop the bill.
Time is not on our side, the Bush/democrats who want open borders know this. Get to work people....
are jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon. That is the easy thing to do and the politically correct thing to do in order to keep your own readers happy. Most of the talk show hosts, bloggers, politicians, etc. are also mind-numbed..."If Bush is for it, I'm against it!"
...of the week. We're rackin' em up here.
Who do you think has been defending GWB for the last 6 years, Ms. "Wise"? It sure hasn't been himself.
certain of Bush's policies yet support the president as the president, esp in the war.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I really liked her column--and yeah, Bush has begun to see his former supporters not as folks who disagree with him, but as enemies.
Still, I do think she overlooks the fact that one of the reasons that Bush et al. may be responding in this manner is that the tone of SOME opponents of the bill has been far from civil--ascribing to him the worst possible motives. Of course that does not JUSTIFY his response, but it does make it more UNDERSTANDABLE>
I disagree strongly with this bill. I don't think that Bush supports it because he is unpatriotic, does not care for our sovereignty, hates conservatives, or is willing to sacrifice his principles in a desperate attempt to gain some approval from the press or other liberals.
I think he is a good and honorable man who is just terribly wrong-headed about this bill.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
He would incorporate our opinions in this bill.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
he's used up his "benefit of the doubt cards."
"I think he is a good and honorable man who is just terribly wrong-headed about this bill."
I'd have to believe he's as stupid as the Democrats used to claim if I thought he didn't understand the ultimate consequences of this bill, so I have to wonder just why he is pushing it. I can only conclude that it's because he is in favor of those consequences. It really is as simple as that. It's hard to equate that with "good and honorable" any longer. Unless, of course, the Dem's were right in the first place.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
Peggy Noonan's column is right on target. We've had enough. It's time for all of us to pick up the pieces and put the conservative movement together again and weave and braid all three strands: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and national security conservatives. When Fred Thompson said that this Bill needs to be scrapped, he spoke for all of us. Noonan's column is a seminal piece. We have been BETRAYED and taken for granted.
As one that went through the immigration process to naturalize my wife, I AM OUTRAGED !!!!! How could they even think of doing this? What about all the folks that played by the rules?? I guess everyone who ever wanted to go to America can come over now and be legal. Just hop a plane to Mexico, come over the boarder, forge a few documents to say you were here before Jan 1st and your in.
I see that Bush just signed the minimum wage law last week. All these new legal residents will be able to demand $7.50 an hour, so Big Business will need another wave of illegals to keep costs down. THIS IS INSANE!
My 4 step plan:
1) SECURE THE US SOUTHERN AND NOTHERN BORDERS WITH FULL FENCING AND PROPER PATROLS. LET THE US COAST GUARD INTERDICT OTHER ABUSERS FROM HAITI AND MEXICO
2) BEGIN ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT LAWS STARTING WITH BUSINESS VIOLATORS AND REMOVAL OF ILLEGALS
3) ALLOW LOCAL POLICE TO CHECK ON IMMIGRATION STATUS DURING NORMAL POLICE WORK
4) ONCE BORDER SITUATION IS UNDER CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT UNDER WAY THEN THE US CAN DEVELOP A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM.
IF BUSH SIGNS THIS I WILL NEVER TRUST A REPUBLICAN AGAIN. ITS TIME FOR A NEW CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL PARTY. LET'S GO INTO THE WILDERNESS FOR 10 YEARS BUT LET US NEVER SURRENDER !
I WAS A BUSH SUPPORTER AND DONOR, NOW I WISH THE DEMOCRATS WOULD IMPEACH HIM BEFORE HE NOW DESTROYS HIS OWN PARTY. HE DOES WELL AT DESTROYING THINGS, BUIDLING THINGS IS NOT HIS STRONG POINT. JUST ASK THE FOLKS IN IRAQ WAITING FOR ELECTRICITY AFTER 4 YEARS.
I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!
PS: MEL MARTINEZ WILL BE DEFEATED IN THE NEXT CYCLE AS WELL, LET HIM TASTE DEFEAT IN THE PRIMARY!!!
I mean, you did not sound like a typical troll at all until waaaaayyyyy down at the bottom where you said this:
I WAS A BUSH SUPPORTER AND DONOR, NOW I WISH THE DEMOCRATS WOULD IMPEACH HIM BEFORE HE NOW DESTROYS HIS OWN PARTY. HE DOES WELL AT DESTROYING THINGS, BUIDLING THINGS IS NOT HIS STRONG POINT. JUST ASK THE FOLKS IN IRAQ WAITING FOR ELECTRICITY AFTER 4 YEARS.
Yeah, I was SURE you were not a troll, but a very serious poster...BUSH is responsible for the terrorists who keep blowing up efforts to get water and electricity going in Iraq? BUSH is the one keeping the Iraqi people is squallor?
Don't forget to add; "Selected not elected" and "No War for Oil!"
Who would be a more trustworthy conservative Bush or Cheney? I don't think Dick Cheney would sign this bill. Let the Democrats impeach Bush and do us a favor.
You also failed to note the Mr. Bush did a 180 on Global Warming this week. The next thing you know, he will invite Al Gore to the Rose Garden to speak on the issue and then work with Congress on a "sensible" bill to deal with the "problem."
The only thing left for him to make a perfect treasonous trifecta would be to either install a "progressive" Judge to the US Supreme Court or "work" with Congress on a new assualt weapons or handgun ban.
BTW, I supported the overthrow of Sadaam and the invasion of Iraq but you need to be blind to not notice that Bush has mishandled the war. We had too few troops to invade ( he lacked the political testorstorone to do what needed to be done) and the decision to disband the Iraqi army and police is a misstep that they have never recovered from.
If you need to see some picutres of me at a Bush rally in 2000, go to C-Span archives and you will find me.
Please shut up....
With those kinds of bad manners and lack of respect towards others, you may not last long here.
I hope your just having a bad day, and I hope your day gets better.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
Naw.... I am just hopping mad about Bush's treason and then this David HInz Dude called me a "troll."
Those who use such terms should, well hold their tongue...(ie: shut up).
Notice I did not use the Internet vernicular like ST*U...
I was being very nice.
Your choice of vernacular betrays where you have been hanging around it would appear....Dude! Over in the Children Playgrounds, DKos, and MyDD, that sort of vernacular would be the norm, over here with the adults, well save it for the locker room is my advice.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
Naw....we just have rules here, and it's private property. So it doesn't matter what the Senator from AZ says; while you're here, you will not use certain language.
Clear?
-The Mgmt.
...anger never solved anything. If you are truly that upset over what President Bush has done, and I do not disagree with you, it is far better to use calm reason, and determined actions to institute actions that will move the end result towards what you view to be a better end result. Turn the anger into motivation, it is better served that way.
As far as becoming upset over what someone else chose to say to you, you chose to be upset over it. You could also choose to ignore it, or respond in a way that does not inflame the situation.
It is just a thought anyway.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
And the president. His actions this week have been completely consistent with his prior actions. They represent quite an adept political play at undermining a process that would be disruptive to the country.
Try again.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...the Europeans are so flipping angry that Bush is doing this. it completely upsets their desires to implement anti-capitalist restrictions.
The Germans are especially upset about it for this reason. It doesn't fit their template solution.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
In all of his statements he speaks of pollution reduction as the motive for reducing carbon emissions. He has never actually made the profession of faith in man as earth-warmer to be baptized into the MMGW Church.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I have a better idea. Why don't you take that little computer in front of you and sit on it! It should fit quite nicely in the cavern down there.
I'm not as sensitive as some others, apparently, but sometimes I skim and don't catch the bad words. Anyway, whether I agree with everything you said or not (I don't), I do understand it.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
First, my background:
I voted for Reagan three times (my 18th birthday fell on the 1980 Michigan primary date), I'm for babies, guns and gold, by God, and was active in GOP politics at the precinct delegate level for years. In other words, I was The Base.
Now, I'm one election removed from voting Republican for President, having switched from W. in 2000 to the Constitution Party in '04. I sent James Webb money in '06, so I had some small part in flipping the Senate to the Democrats. Why?
(Every politician falls short of perfection. I stuck by Reagan, despite tax increases in 1982, the Marines in Lebanon debacle, and his amnesty program. It's not about purity. It is about being both minimally competent and having a coherent agenda driven by some core beliefs that I identify with.)
On issue after issue, W. has been wrong, or incompetent. Forget Iraq and amnesty for a minute. The NCLB, a Kennedy bill, the Medicare drug deal, runaway non-defense spending, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Meyers, the complete, ongoing disaster of Katrina, and a legion of other things, both large and small, divorced me from this President, and from a party that has become little more than a personality cult.
(To be fair, I give him good marks on tax and on energy policy - we need Yucca Mountain and ANWR drilling. Roberts and Alito look like winners, too.)
Add to that his apostacy on the Three I's- Iraq, Immigration, and Imports - and it's a complete divorce. The Iraq War was sold to us either on lies or on gross incompetence. If the latter, who did he fire? If the former, all the decision-makers deserve prison time, including the Decider In Chief. (We may have to clean it up, per Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule- You Break It, It's Yours - but I'm not for letting the culprits off scott-free. To make it worse, he justifies torture, which no civilized man can do. Clinton deservedly got impeached, and should have been removed from office. His crimes are no greater than Bush '43s. Honor demands that we rise above partisanship and admit the truth. W. has to go. On imports, he continues the bipartisan policy of watching our jobs and industry go overseas. The days of building a Liberty Ship every 24 hours, of building 49,951 Sherman tanks to use against Nazi Germany, of going from design to production of the P-51 Mustang figeter plane in six weeks, of building 100 aircraft carriers to send against the Japanese Navy after 12/7/41, are gone. We're dependant on China making semi-slaves build junk to sell to us at Wal-Mart on credit. Finally, the Kennedy bill is amnesty. It's W. who dosen't want what's right for America.
To add indult to injury, we have a White House attacking it's own base, calling us rubes, bigots, etc. for not being good little lemmings. Well, here's an ex-lemming who'll compare his education, I.Q., and military service record with W. and Co., and I'll come out on top in every category.
This time, I'm backing Ron Paul. I don't expect him to win, but at least I can atone for not having voted for him in '88.
-ssgconway
Don't let them immanentize the eschtaton.
-Eric Vogelin
Sent money to Webb did you? Somehow that gives you some measure of credibility? I think not. Where does Mr. Webb fall in the political divide? Far to the left of anyone else you mentioned in your overlong rant.
Yes why don't you take ex-repub and go, I'll miss you not.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Well said.... maybe I'll vote for Ron Paul as well.
(to those of us who voted and gave $ at least twice for W: Why is W still supporting this bill after the libs stripped the guts of his worthy guest worker provisions? He has not even called on those provisions to be added back at conference. And doesn't he know that with 70+ Senators opposed to any real guest worker program, even if it is added back at conference, it will meet the same fate of the strongest measures of the 1965, 1986 and 1995 bills, taken out in stand alone bills by a later Democrat Pres (used as leverage by the left now, but taken back later).
IF W truly wants a viable guest worker program, why didn't he mandate stronger measures to protect it from a later Democrat President. Or is W just like his father, and to some extent, yes, Reagan, in that he'll do anything for a 2nd term accomplishment? His father sacrificed a precious Supreme Court Seat hoping for more Dem cooperation on the budget, W tried to do that same with Miers. Now, he just wants any "accomplishment," other than Roberts and Alito, and is willing to give away the farm.
And everyone does need to read it to understand why this White House and the Bush family all but imploded over a bill very few want or like.