Redstate

Do we need to go to E-Bay and buy another Republican a Spine?

Or

Is there a Dunce Hat up for auction?

Rush Limbaugh made an interesting comment today.  The House of Representatives feels betrayed by mr. bush on a lot of issues.  They supported his wild spending and enacting into law ted kennedy's no child left behind program and campaign finance reform among others.  The House immigration plan apparently was suggested by mr. bush to the House leaders, who then abandoned them and took up with the senate version.  

It could be resentment at the treatment they have received from the white house that could be fueling this.  That would not suprise me one bit.  Bush/Rove couldn't do more damage to the republican party if that was what they were trying to do.

If I want to show I am better than someone, I am going to stand on higher principle.

Standing for a delusional exemption from prosecution for democratic Congressmen cuaght taking bribes does not make Republicans in Congress look smarter, brighter, more clever or more inspirational.

It makes them look stupid and insipid.

The House of Representatives feels betrayed by mr. bush on a lot of issues.

First of all, it's his first name is President...save the Bush bashing for the odious KOS or loathsome Polipundit.

Second of all, Rush went off the deep end today when he let on a racist woman named Jamie (and did not cut her off) who "hated all Hispanics" because they live off other people. I know Rush has gotten back in the good graces of the paleos after he betrayed them and supported sanity over Dubai Ports World, but does he really think that letting racists rants on the air will advance the paleocon agenda? Especially after the usually incoherent Senator Hagel made mincemeat of Congressman Sensenbrener on MTP?

Rush is trying to equate the Paleoconservative/economically illiterate mantra with the Reagan Revolution when in fact all evidnece points to President Reagan being on the President Bush's side of the issue in the battle against the open-boarder libs and the no-more-immigration paleocons.

Would require some very small shoes.

Seriously, I am awestruck at the foolishness.  This is like the captain of the Titanic saying, "hey, we can take that iceberg."

For Congress to interfere in an ongoing investigation of one of its members seems the very essence of a violation of the Separation of Powers principle.

President Bush should order AG Gonzales not to answer any questions in the 'above captioned matter'.  

I find it difficult to see the Congressional point of view in that I am not nearly so limber as is obviously required.

In the movie version of HHG2TG, Zaphod is asked by Ford what is the deal with the two head thing.  His response was:

Apparently you can't be President with a whole brain.

Maybe something like that has happend to the House GOP.  It would explain quite a bit.

The motive for this conduct seems straightforward. The House, whether correctly or not, believes the Bush Administration has placed the GOP majority in jeopardy on numerous fronts. Therefore, the goal is to humiliate the Administration and to score points (presumably).

And who knows...this insanity may be an effective strategy given the president's low approval ratings. I don't buy that argument but it probably is the calculation.

If the House is so in tune with the Separation of Powers, where do they derive the authority to to summon a member of the executive branch (the Attorney General) and question him?

in the investigation?  

They can't change the law to make bribery legal -- at least not for it to do Rep. Jefferson any good.

Since they are so upset that the Executive is playing on their turf, maybe they could issue a Pardon of Jefferson.

is of themselves.

They look like fools in asserting something that no reasonable person who is informed would believe is there.

Even Sen. Durbin said it was OK.

The dems are playing our party for complete putzes.

Would that be found in the rare collectibles section?

What I don't understand is why they - the supporters against this FBI search, are railing against this.  Is this just a power play, afraid of future action, what?  It just seems so against the voters wishes that it is if they are committing politicide.  Please, any rational explanations?

Way to stick to principle, boys.  Interesting that they're only willing to take a stand on an issue that will save their own behinds.  At least they're in keeping with their character.

Let's see...We've jacked up social spending and have inflated healthcare in a way that would make LBJ blush.  We've maintained modest tax cuts but have failed to initiate any significant reforms.  Social Security is still a mess, and the best we can do is figure out a way to extend it rather than end it.  After decades of inaction on the Mexico border, we're finally taking reluctant action, but not really, because suddenly we've conceeded the point that illegals are good for business and we don't want to hurt our chances of maintaining one third of the hispanic vote.  We have that faith-based initiative thing, but most of the money goes to head start and secular programs.  And don't forget education spending.  Regardless of the party's platform, the public face of the GOP is one of placating constituencies with brainless, liberal-esque reasoning rather than the thoughtful ideology of Reagan in the 80's and Gingrich in the 90's.  Admittedly, we've got two conservative justices and a net gain of +1, and that in and of itself may justify the incompetence - 1.3 million unborn lives are on the line each year - but outside of that we have ZERO domestic policy.  Power has made our party and far too many of our leaders complacent and impotent.

Just a thought from the peanut gallery.

and to score political points (in their minds, anyhow). I agree with Hunter that they have humiliated themselves, but this appears to be the motivation. And who knows...this insane tactic might help some House members but I wouldn't bet good money on it.

I can't see any benefit for this... the backlash would far outweigh any perceived benefits.  Has to be something we're missing... maybe corruption is worse than we know...for both parties.

I think maybe you're onto something important!  Not just a bit disgusted with the party at the moment.

And no, it's not rational. Of all the things they could have taken revenge over, a good one would have been, say... immigration. Not this.

Well, if that is true...and more than one agrees, I have lost all respect for these individuals.  The least of which is they lost my vote.

Well, after thinking about this for a while, I have to totally disagree!  The Republicans who are supporting this fiasco are either corrupt or are protecting those that are.  Either way, this only makes all Republicans look bad.  If they even begin to think that standing on principal (This principal, their words) is going to help them electorally, they are nuts!  So....something else is going on here...and it is not anything good!

since 1979 where things are going on that make no sense at all, from my perspective.

I don't like it.

I also have been feeling uneasy lately with the Republicans and for that matter, our future government.  A bit depressed about the future for my son and whether America (in it's current state) will survive.  Maybe that is normal for an older fellow...oh well......

today and I didn't here that. I did here a woman complain that she was involuntarily beginning to discriminate against all Hispanics because she wasn't sure who was legal or not, but I didn't hear what you're claiming was said. As a matter of fact, the transcript is up on Rush's site and she said nothing of the sort and you're distorting her words. Here's the transcript (subscription required).

Kind of like the woman getting her hair done and no-one in the place was speaking English (See anger errupting).  Hmmm, sort of understand her dispair.

"President" Bush is sooo wrong on the immigration issure that I have a hard time thinking of him as a Republicican.  Let's say that he is a moderate/liberal Democrat on this issue.

As to border control...you are wrong as rain, you can't give control to the currently implanted illegals before stopping the influx of said immigrants.  To do such is suicide which our politicians seem hell-bent on doing....  So, if you statement is to support the status quo...you are winning...but the backlash may break your neck.

Then where?

If we go french, the shock waves will be like the Christmas tsunami.

who held the gun to his own head, except he was a great comedian, and the Congbressional twits are not funny at all.

unemployment and solid growth every quarter since 2003...

If President Bush is not a Republican on this issue, neither was the great President Reagan who in your point of view was more liberal/democrat on this issue than the current great President.

He campaigned as a President who understood the economics of immigration --not as some type of paleoconservative ecoilliterate.

So far as I can tell, there is absolutely no one, even on the rabid left (that) seems (not) okay with this search

The WSJ editorial board is defending Congress.

IMO, Hastert went way overboard. A much more measured response was in order, but a response none the less. The WSJ editors go a little too far in defending him for me, but I can see the nugget of a point that Congress ought to be taking action to insure that its independence is not infringed.

This is precedent setting and so care ought to be taken in sounding its breadth and depth. President Bush is doing the right thing by providing time for this to be worked out. Sensenbrenner may be required to play the role of Congress' advocate, so that in the fashion typical of our adversarial legal system the proper balance may in the end be struck.

And without distorting anybody's words this is a racist and ignorant statement:

Every time I hit the ATM machine and I have to select my English language, every time I see a Hispanic, I just become so angry inside, because I know that my husband, I'm a stay-at-home mom, is paying for that person.

She's from European descent and does not know how many eastern block Europeans are here and working on overstayed VISAS? And who the heck really gives a damn that you have to press English on an ATM? If you do I really feel sorry for you, you've probably had a bitter life...

And Rushbo complains that we'll be legalizing Democrat voters:

Hello!?! The Hispanic vote is at 44% Republican and trending upward and will continue that way as long as you don't let idiots like this on the AM airwaves and Tom Tancredo on TV every 2 minutes

Do you know why the MSM LOVES to put Tancredo and Sensenbrener on TV? Because each time they talk they destroy the noble Rovian dream of destroying the Democrat party by capturing the Latino vote in the same time adhering to economically conservative principles. Each time Tancredo and Sensenbrener talk on TV the chances of establishing the permanent GOP majority becomes slimmer and slimmer.

immigration.

Reagan wanted the borders sealed and got duped into an amnesty program for relatively few illegals as the price for border security.  He was long gone by the time he could have figured out that the "security" part of the bill was a sham.

Bush, on the other hand, has favored mass amnesty and basically an open border since day one.  While I might be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the "security" of the border, he is and always has been more interested in working with the Mexican government to keep the borders open to Mexican labor.

Reagan ended up getting lied to and buying a pig in a poke.  Bush likes the pig.

is amnesty for 12 million illegals and a guest worker program that will simply continue the current status quo, the price is too high.

Growth is the responsiblity of the union/states... has very little to do with what the President does (minor exception tax cuts). So growth, illegal immigrants, ...bah humbug, what balderdash!...  Seems that you want to contribute it all to growth in the employment/low wage sector - immigrants (illegal at that).  I say your not only wrong but way off base...and not just a bit one-sided in your economic judgement.  

...If B signs a bill that contains a wall that would place him to the "right" of R on immigration...Also the bill he would sign would have a longer path to citizenship and a steeper price than those legalized by S-M. I think the "R got duped" argument is not correct and that he may have been pro-immigration because he was such a noble man who loved the American dream and thought it was a light to shine upon the world...

That is a pretty despicable quote. We don't agree on the issue, but I'd certainly agree that the statement is certainly racist.

withoug allowing for any new influx of labor and/or regularization of the illegal aliens here will lead to inflation, which is not what this country needs in a time where weak dollar jitters are scaring off foreign investment. If we were in a recession it would be a better time for the boarder sealing / employer crackdown first method. It makes more sense, in our current state, to do both at the same time. That is why some sort of House-Senate compromise is preferable to the House approach.

and our party's dominance (and winning the GWOT and the eventual overturning of R V W and the abolition of the abortion holocost) it is a very small historical price IMHO

With all the illegals here presently, we could close the border and never miss a beat for several years (as far as labor requirements)!  The problem is that they won't close the border so we will never know...

Between construction and crops, we have way too many  competing now.  The real problem is that we are not controlling the influx to choose what professions we need... Your way off base here...

Well, just because the WSJ supports the Republicans on this issue does not justify it.  Actually, it makes me even more suspicious...seems that the major media and the politicians too often agree, which should raise some hackles...

If we only closed the boarder (which I advocate) we still could survive without an economic crisis but it would be desirable to at the same time to at least increase legal immigration quotas of both skilled and unskilled workers so that we do not risk inflation. If we engage in a huge employer crackdown at the same time we close the boarder and we do not allow for any increases in legal immigration we could create an economic disaster.

Okay, I think I agree but first close the border, then control immigration - that also means controlling the skills that are available.  I do not agree that a crackdown on employers of illegals would be a problem - it must be done in conjunction with the border closing.  While it will cause a brief bump in the economy, in the long run, it will be beneicial to all.  This is a requirement if you want to prevent the inducement of additional illegals.  So... (1) Close the border (FIRST), (2) Enforce laws that prevent the hiring of illegals, (3) Increase personal to allow more legal immigration (attuned to job specifics).  

At this point, all citizens will be in agreement as long as the legal requirements also specify English and passing a citizenship test.

For the record there are many things I do dislike about the senate bill, particularly the SS provisions and lowball fine. I do think that if the House bill inserts some spine and 700 miles more of fencing into the senate bill we may have something worth signing...

Is a good compromise. Of course we'll never see it. Unlimited guest worker program for 3 years with a cap after that. Real enforcement, no amnesty.

Amnesty or earned citizenship for those here illegaly now will create a kind of French-Muslim situation with a permanent shaddow underclass?

Is there a case that you would support an earned citizenship or conditional amnesty, providing that we have first secured the boarders? If you would, how punitive do you suggest it should be?

If I were a senator or congressman I would have proposed that one can earn one's US citizenship faster by joining the Military reserves. That would have the added bonus of "Republicanising" these future citizens and making them more patriotic (which usually go hand in hand!)

No...except though the Armed Forces (I would agree to a 4 year service puts you at the front of the line).  As far as others here illegally, they have to get in line just like others and that does include ALL current illegals.  You can NOT earn citizenship rights by being here illegally...PERIOD!

No...except though the Armed Forces (I would agree to a 4 year service puts you at the front of the line).

I hope they seriously push for this. Since the Senate is dead set on earned citizenship (as they call is) and the House is dead set against amnesty (as they call it) this may be the only way to resolve the conference deadlock.

I also hope that they push this...  It may be the only good thing that comes out of this immigration issue. (sorry to say)...

Thought about your comment for a while and can't come up with an appropriate answer.  I guess that tells all...

First of all, "our Party" isn't dominating anything.  Bush is spending us into bankruptcy, he is expanding government in a way that FDR would envy and the abortion holocaust isn't going to end any time soon.  Even if SCOTUS overturns Roe.  Abortion will simply go back to the states where it will be a little more highly regulated.

The abortion issue is pretty well on track no matter who controls Congress or the WH in 06 and 08.

The left has done such a good job of undermining the GWOT with little or no pushback from Bush that we will be out of Iraq next year come hell or high water.  And don't expect to see another military clash ANYWHERE, including Iran.  If they get the bomb, we're not doing anything to stop them.  Bush's words on this subject are empty.

So, in order to protect the status quo which isn't much, I've got to agree to continue to have open borders, unfettered illegal immigration (feel free to call it guest workers) and no enforcement against employers.  We grant amnesty to 12 million illegals today and we need to get cued up to grant amnesty to another 30 million in 10 years or less.

Like I said, no thanks.  Not interested.  No sale.  W can just be a lame duck for all I care.  He's not accomplished anything of note in the last 3 years anyway, other than Roberts and Alito and he almost blew that.

that Bush's immigration plan, as well as McCain Kennedy, is a total sell out of our soveriegnty as a nation.  At this point it doesn't matter what Reagan's motives were, we have 12 million illegals in the country who should not be here.

It appears that House Republicans may actually demonstrate some spine and there is a good possibility that no bill will emerge with either a "path to citizenship" or a "guest worker" program.  Good and Good.

From what little I've read and remember on the subject, you might want to be more careful what you assert concerning Reagan's immigration policy.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/5/18/12249/7442/27#27

Pushin' Pence.

Re: the need for a path to citizenship.

My thoughts may track with yours regarding those questions. I find it difficult to determine that we have reached a stage of such necessity yet so am slow to change. Have you found a strong case for immediate change that you would direct me to? If anyone followed the floor debate, which Sen. made the best case for it? Cause right now I'm of the opinion that such a decision can wait until we see if it becomes more imperative. As I understand Pence's proposal, he doesn't block citizenship for illegals who take the opportunity to convert to legal status, rather lets them fend for it the same way as everyone else.

Regarding citizenship and military service, it seems to me Dubya has already been talking that up for our foreign veterans. Is there nothing already that fast tracks them? There should be in any case, immigration bill or not.

which is failing at best and Ed Meese's OpEd last week in the NYT which "generally" said they got took.

Whether that's correct or not makes little difference to me since the point of the issue is that Bush is an open borders guy from the get-go and he generally supports open borders and illegal immigration (guest workers by any other name).

and it does create a different impression than the WSJ article. Its a bit hard to sort out.

Allows for permanent resident status and citizenship at the end of the 6 years.

My basic take is that the "reality" of what happened with Reagan and the 1986 bill is moot.  Other than providing a historical perspective in that amnesty does not lead to enforcement and the government - Administration & Congress, both parties - has never shown that they have the will to secure the border and enforce the employment laws.  We've had three Republican Presidents and one Democratic President, both the House and the Senate have been controlled by both parties since 1986 and we've seen nothing but people ignoring the law and allowing the problem to get worse.  (Sounds like Social Security, doesn't it...)

Given that historical perspective I have no confidence that a bill that promotes amnesty, a guest worker program and a path to citizenship all of which will begin immediately in return for the promise of increased border security in the form of more border patrol agents in a couple of years, some national guard troops to do admin work in the meantime, a little piece of fence on a very long border and employer sanctions that will start in eighteen months, although DHS says there's no way they provide a verification system that quickly.

The Senate bill is a pig in a poke.  "They" get everything "they" want.  "We" get promises.  Been there, done that.  No thanks.

And I don't challenge your reasons either. (and yes, it does sound like Social Security).

Personally, I am pushing for Pence and willing to reserve judgement for the execution.

We'll see.  And pretty soon.  :>)

no republican spine there? Its AWOL.

about the person with a full cart in the express checkout lane: "Are you a math major who can't read, or an English major who can't count?"

If Hispanics are voting 44% for Republicans, that means they are voting 56% for Democrats, and increasing the number of Democratic voters instead of Republican ones. Trends don't matter because trends aren't boots on the grounds, they are predictions about the future and not worth the paper they are written on. Trendline predictions give us global warming scenarios, not scientific facts.

This isn't to say that it would even be good policy to approve open border/amnesty even if Hispanics were voting 90% Repbuplican and 10% Democrat, it is only to point out how utterly ridiculous your argument is. If our country can't control its borders, it ceases to be our country, period.

Reagan liked to keep things optimistic even when he lost (e.g. Iran-Contra where he said he didn't believe we were trading arms for hostages). Meese tells it like he sees it, regardless of whether it is optimistic or not. The upshot is that even if Reagan believed he got took on the issue, that's not the sort of thing that would make it into his public pronouncements.

In the end, my though,t align with Beckers: It really doesn't matter whether or not Reagan believed in the amnesty (which at least he had the courage to call an amnesty), the result was a Faustian bargain. We shouldn't get taken again.