Here's a picture of Mr. Steel Balls making a deal with the chief financier of Islamic extremism. W wanted to keep our borders wide open while declaring Islam the religion of peace.
Posted on 01/17/2009 7:11:11 AM PST by drellberg
"... to win over Senate Democrats, Mr. Bush both phased in the tax rate reductions and settled for politically popular but economically feckless tax rebate checks."
"...Mr. Bush's spending record is less admirable, especially during his first term. He indulged the majority Republicans on Capitol Hill, refusing to veto overspending ..."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
And for all of you true, pure, and untainted conservatives who love to pound Bush relentlessly on this site, who is the true, pure, and untainted leader who will deliver us from the mess we are in? Will it be Fred Thompson in 2012? Pro-life Giuliani? Universal health care Romney? If the pure conservative case is so compelling, how is it that our party has no leader who can effectively make that case?
I look at Bush's record and I see a guy with balls of steel, who kept us safe and who advanced this war against radical Islam in ways that won't be fully evident for many years. We have lost nearly 5,000 precious American lives, but any objective counting of the enemy casualties in the decade after 9/11 will rise to more than 1 million worldwide, especially if we include intra-terrorist fighting, and with trillions of dollars in losses to those we wage war against.
To husband his scarce political capital for this effort, he ended up punting on some issues that are dear to conservatives, and that I believe he would like to have tackled. But in doing so he did the right thing, and if others in the GOP had not been so stupid, and if our leading think tanks and pundits and other GOP luminaries had been more disciplined and on the offensive, Bush would have had a good deal more political capital to wield. We Republicans let the Democrats piss away a lot of political capital defending against a gold-digging Valerie Plame, a handful of waterboarded terrorists, and a Katrina debacle that was 100% the fault of the locals -- Nagin, Blanco, et al. Truly, what did all of the so-called scandals of the Bush Administration amount to, and where were Bush's Party compadres? The vast majority of them, from elected officials to pundits at National Review to posters at places like FR, all found it easier to put all blame on Bush than to stand up for what is right.
I love this President. The Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney-Gates-Patreus war has fundamentally and profoundly changed the course of human history, entirely for the better, and with breathtakingly few adverse consequences for our side. Anything else he may have accomplished would be gravy. And oh, what he could have accomplished but for the weak, unprincipled, and corrupt fellow Republicans who should have been at his side but were not!
Bush was a disaster when it came to domestic spending. Karl Rove, a legend in his own mind, was the one pushing such things as the prescription drug program, no child left behind, etc. in order to co-opt Dem issues. It didn't work and we are left with enormous programs with huge unfunded liabilities. Bush scarcely used his veto for most of his term, during which he enjoyed Rep control over Congress.
The RINOs in Congress who sent him all that spending? The corrupt Delay leadership that passed out entitlements like candy? And exactly how was President Bush supposed to muster the political capital to fight this war and at the same time succeed against all of this foolishness?
The buck stops in the WH. It is something called leadership. Bush could have vetoed McCain-Feingold. Instead, he signed it and then issued a statement about his reserverations about its constitutionality. He supported amnesty against the majority of his own party and failed to support Sensenbrenner' enforcement only bill [HR 4437] in the House.
I look at Bush's record and I see a guy with balls of steel, who kept us safe and who advanced this war against radical Islam in ways that won't be fully evident for many years. We have lost nearly 5,000 precious American lives, but any objective counting of the enemy casualties in the decade after 9/11 will rise to more than 1 million worldwide, especially if we include intra-terrorist fighting, and with trillions of dollars in losses to those we wage war against.
I support his foreign policy and the war in Iraq, but I have a difficult time reconciling that with his failure to move quickly on securing our borders, including fully implementing the US VISIT program to track and deport visa overstays. If this country is hit again with a 9/11 attack and it is found that the perpetrators came into this country thru our porous borders or thru a visa overstay, then you might want to reevaluate how safe he really made this country.
To husband his scarce political capital for this effort, he ended up punting on some issues that are dear to conservatives, and that I believe he would like to have tackled.
An amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen, and yet, Bush in his validictory expressed regret that he couldn't get it done. This is insanity.
And oh, what he could have accomplished but for the weak, unprincipled, and corrupt fellow Republicans who should have been at his side but were not!
Sorry, but loyalty begets loyalty. Bush took stances against the majority of his own party on critical issues. And he failed to use the Congressional majority he had to make some real changes. And now he leaves office with a Rep party in disarray and in the minority, perhaps for generations. I was particularly dismayed with his appointment of Martinez as RNC Chairman, a slap in the face to conservatives.
Thank you, Grey-Whiskers, you’ve demonstrated my point. I’ll just respond to the first few lines of your post (my replies are in caps) just so you can get the drift:
“Bush’s ‘new tone’ began when Gore tried to sue his way into the White House; even in the aftermath of *that*, and with the extreme vandalism and literal filth left in the White House in a fit of spite by the childish Clintonites, Bush didn’t call them on it.”
UM, BUSH WON, DIDN’T HE? OR DID I MISS SOMETHING????
“Then you had 9-11, and Bush didn’t clear house and have Gorelick sent to Leavenworth for treason.”
BUSH COULD HAVE THROWN GORELICK INTO LEAVENWORTH FOR TREASON? REALLY? I NEVER KNEW HE HAD THAT PREROGATIVE.
“Shortly after 9-11, you had the ‘Axis of Evil’ from which Bush backed down, to be replaced by the “Religion of Peace” fellation.”
I’M SURE YOU THINK WE ARE LOSING THIS WAR. BUT CHECK THE NEWS. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS ALL BUT OVER. THE ISRAELIS ARE KICKING TAIL IN GAZA. EVEN HARD CORE BUSH CRITICS LIKE M. LEDEEN (WHO I THINK IS JUST GREAT) CONCEDE THAT IRAN IS ON THE BRINK OF REAL TROUBLE EVEN AS DEMOCRACY IS GAINING A FOOTHOLD THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST. THE DEATH TOLL FOR ALL OF THE JIHADISTS SIMPLY MUST BE AT OR NEAR THE 1 MILLION MARK, AS AGAINST OUR < 5,000. SHOULD I GO ON?
“Then you had the Harriet Meiers fiasco ...”
WHO IS HARRIET MEIERS? OH, RIGHT. I HAD COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN. BUT I COULD HAVE SWORN THAT ROBERTS AND ALITO ARE BUSH’S TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT. DO THEY SOMEHOW OFFEND YOUR CONSERVATIVE SENSIBILITIES, OR WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THEY ARE THE FINEST APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL GENERATIONS?
Hmmm ... I know you hate our president. But take a few deep breaths. Get a grip. Look at what he had to work with (Specter, DeLay, et al). Overlook the intermediate stumbles and focus instead on outcomes. And praise the Lord that we had him in the White House.
Like the investor and GM/UAW bailouts? Did democrats force him to do those too? So we blame everything GWB did big gov, wall street, socialist, on democrats. That makes GWB our greatest president ever I guess. Massive spending on the nation's credit card is cowardly and it set a precident for what democrats plan this year. In fact using his logic, republicans should give their full support to democrats now and blame them later.
And yet he saw fit to leave our southern border wide open for illegal aliens and only God knows what else.
But by posting in ALL CAPS, you have outed yourself as a Bushbot.
Incidentally, when posting responses, it is also a good idea to address the actual topics, rather than attempting to move the goalposts or redefining terms on the fly.
Case in point:
UM, BUSH WON, DIDN'T HE? OR DID I MISS SOMETHING????
I never alleged he lost; I pointed out that by refusing to play PR hardball against Gore during Gore's attempt to sue his way into the White House, he legitimized Gore's claims, and delegitimized himself. This carried throughout both of his terms, and greatly diminished the GOP "brand".
You appear to be the one who "missed something."
BUSH COULD HAVE THROWN GORELICK INTO LEAVENWORTH FOR TREASON?
Yes, it's called rhetorical hyperbole. Gorelick is the one who championed the wall of separation which helped keep the government from stopping 9-11 in its tracks. See also the reports of the FBI agents who attempted to warn their higher ups of Muslims taking flight lessons but not being interested in *landing* the planes. These things *should* have been laid at Gorelick's feet -- instead she was appointed to the commission investigating 9-11.
Too many other examples to mention.
Thanks for playing, troll.
Cheers!
..And prosecution of US border agents and immunity for illegal Mexican drug dealers to testify against them. More of what is right that we should stand up for I guess
Kabar,
What truly seems to upset you is Bush’s immigration policy, since that is what you refer back to repeatedly. I’m not fully on board with that either. But I have four responses ...
First, Bush did not create this problem. Reagan did, Bush and Clinton made it worse, and unless I am mistaken this was not an issue that got all that much media attention or political capital until roughly 2005. Aside from a handful of Republicans like Tancredo, who else was pushing this aggressively before then? My only point is that there is lots and lots of blame to go around. I’m not defending Bush. But I’m also unwilling to lay all of the blame at his feet. The venom and invective that is focused entirely on Bush is simply stupid.
Second, Bush’s recent efforts at enforcement have been quite effective, judging by demonstrated empirical evidence. This is the first real progress in a quarter-century. I would find those who hate Bush’s immigration policy more credible and sympathetic if they would give him his props ... It’s important if only to keep those efforts going. To say that Bush has come through with too little too late effectively invites the Obama Administration to drop the effort.
Third, Bush and Rove are right that we must formulate immigration policy in ways that do not alienate Latinos, Asians and other demographic groups. Our immigration policy can not be punitive. It must be hopeful. Now ... I don’t agree with the balance that Bush has tried to strike. Like you, I think it is too soft. But the truly hateful positions that I see put forward on this site will doom the GOP to minority status for decades to come.
Fourth, everyone wants their own agenda items. I want the war prosecuted well and with no holds barred. You may want immigration reform. Others might want lower taxes. Bush’s popularity gave him virtually no political capital. Let’s be real.
Other than that, it was a weak presidency. Virtually NO CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP for the party, not even a token effort, and the RINOs just ran wild pandering to the rotten DIMS as he did on many occassions. To a large degree, this passive role helped the DIMS, and for us, ended in the disastrous and weak McCain campaign which cost America far more than most have yet to realize. The Repubs have basically fallen apart and are no longer a conservative check and balance against the rising tide of radical criminals and socialists taking over Washington. Until we again see the rise of true conservatives in Washington, that care about AMERICA FIRST, will we see this mess we are in get fixed. We are in for a period of mob rule, over the rule of law, in Washington and the people are going to have to fight for their given rights.
“Thanks for playing, troll.”
I must admit that I do not know how to do the fancy stuff with the italics. So I distinguished my text from yours by posting in caps. I apologize for offending you.
The “troll” thing, by the way, is one of the preferred mechanisms by which the “true” conservatives on this web site seek to intimate everyone else. I’m not intimidated, and you are no more or less a conservative than I am.
One more thing ... Get over the Harriet Meiers thing already. She won’t even rise to the level of an historical footnote. You should reserve your abundant anger for something that is at least historically relevant. Bush’s record on judicial appointments is unmatched in recent history. He has nothing whatsoever to apologize over.
A lot of the rest of what you write will also be forgotten, if it hasn’t been already. But the Harriet Meiers thing is just pathetic.
I do have one question for you. Since you hate Bush so much, please tell me ... In whom are you putting your faith in 2012? Who, exactly, is so superior?
Lower taxes??? He ran up massive deficits when he had his own party for 5-6 years, and got worse afterward. I take away any credit I gave him for tax cuts before. It was insanity. What good are tax cuts now with what remains of the economy handed to Pelosi/Obama by Bush with the Bush debt?? And he wanted to give illegals SS and other benefits by legalization. HIS two bailouts sent the WORST possible message about what republicans stand for.
Bushes popularity?? He had 90% and a republican congress in early 2003. You blame his massive loss in popularity as a defense for him doing even WORSE things?? So everything bad he does he loses more popularity and gets a pass for worse actions? Unfortunately that is how he acted.
“Where is the blame for the democrats with whom he had to compromise? The RINOs in Congress who sent him all that spending? The corrupt Delay leadership that passed out entitlements like candy? “
Where was his veto pen?
Yo sickoflibs—You get it! It amazes me how some freepers are trying to make a saint out of Bush. I voted for him twice—to keep dem out of WH. Big mistake. I should have drawn a line in the sand the first time he ran. Even if Gore won, I think he would have been a lot less virulent than The Marxist Onada. And it might have provided the stimulus for conservatives to take the GOP back from the RINOs.
Now the RINO led GOP is firmly in the demrat camp. A new opposition party must be created—and quickly.
This next four to eight years will be a rough ride pardner.
LLS
Okay, so you disagree with Bush, who claimed lots of political capital. Fine.
Even if he had only a little political capital, he expended it unwisely. When you have little, you don't use it to make things worse.
TRUE.
entirely for the better
FALSE.
and with breathtakingly few adverse consequences for our side.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS...
...unless, of course, you're a liberal.
In that case, the Bush Presidency was a grand success!
LLS
Bush was in charge, he gets the larged piece of blame pie.
I loathe the democrats. I would like to see them reduced to the gays-only party. They are the fecal icing on the blame pie.
“Political capital” is not a stack of 20’s that he “spent” all on the war. I’m so sick of hearing about “political capital”. What a stupid nonsense red herring.
He could a have vetoed McStain Feingold and the disgusting farm pork bill in 2001 BEFORE 911. He could have vetoed ANYTHING. He didn’t till term 2.
Of course the rinos get a ton of blame but he went along, he never vetoed their pork-laden bills.
DeLay was a good on many fronts but yes he used pork, he and incompetent twit Hastert presided over the RINO congress. Hence they suck. And rats took both their seats (Delay’s only because a judge wouldn’t let the GOP on the ballot and we took it back in 2008)
Bush didn’t have to pick 3 epically crappy Treasury Secretarys. The first was an idiot. The third is a DEMOCRAT!
He decided to be for the bailout, no one held a gun to his head, he’s a fool. Then the auto-bailout FIAT! Despicable.
Katrina was not his fault. Nagin and Blanco get most the blame. But “Browie” was NOT “doing a heck of a job” Brownie was a Bush crony completely unqualified for the job of FEMA director so it’s his own fault he took a hit over that.
The Iraq surge (which as we see easily won the war) was needed for over 2 years before it actually happened. Bush did nothing and watched his and his parties poll #s head to the toilet as needless American causalities added up. All he ever did was repeat the same lines about WMDs and such (they aren’t there the intel was wrong oh no I forgot they were secretly moved to Syria right). And we need to “stay the course” when the course was a new American corpse everyday. He was Lyndon Johnsoning it up over Iraq. Boneheaded move.
He NEVER stood up for his good polices. Never countered the media and the democrats. I will never understand this. It doesn’t make any sense.
As of now he hasn’t pardoned a wrongly imprisoned solider he allowed to be scapegoated over a civilian death. He should have sent the guy home for Christmas.
If he doesn’t do it he’ll lose even more points with me.
And shamnesty, no one forced him to support that either. Face it he’s not a conservative and wasn’t a good President.
Hussein will make many Democrats long for Bush again.
Hussein will make many Republicans miss Bill Clinton.
LOL, understatement!!
“Where was his veto pen?”
Dear Pessimist:
That is a very good question. I, too, wish in retrospect that he could have taken a harder line. But could he? As Bismark’s cliche says, politics is the art of the possible. My own guess is that Bush woke up every morning during that time, got his intelligence briefing, and after crapping in his pants decided that nothing mattered but the war. I think Bush’s adversaries and even more sadly Bush’s friends exploited that.
Maybe I’m wrong in that hypothesis, and I suppose that we’ll only really know many years from now. But I also think it is very easy for you to look back with perfect hindsight at that time and assert that he could have just gotten out his pen and by writing his name made everything all right.
I am on record in these postings and elsewhere conceding various mistakes that Bush made. Bush himself has been forthcoming. To my way of thinking, at breathtakingly low cost he has kicked the sh*t out of the bad guys, to an extent that will only become clear in years to come; and he did it over the opposition of his own party. I love him for that, and I am willing to forgive many mistakes, including the completely inconsequential ones such as Harriet Meiers.
I wish his fellow party members had defended him more vigorously on Guantanamo Bay, on Katrina, on Valerie Plame, and a host of other tempests in teapots. Where were they? I find their silence inexcusable and self-defeating.
And I would ask you what I asked someone else in this thread: Who is it that you want to lead this party and carry the conservative mantle? If Bush is so bad, who is superior?
Now, that is a no, no, you bush hater!!!!! LOL
The “ political capital.” argument is such a pile of horse crap. I don’t know who put that meme out there. Some Bushbot apologist in conservative media (Fred Barnes, Sean Hannity) who kissed his butt for 8 years instead of criticizing him when was wrong.
Bush started his presidency by allowing the outgoing Clinton staff to vandalize the White House with human feces and the theft of property. He should have had them arrested and prosecuted.
Every time he let the left trash him, he just made them more audacious.
Bush should have kicked the Democrats' asses from day one.
If , he did not have the back bone for the job he should have resigned..
If he thought nothing mattered but the war then he’s history’s biggest fool. I doubt anyone would be that stupid. I think he’s just for big spending cause he’s not a conservative. Remember he signed the farm pork bill BEFORE 911.
And if “nothing mattered but the war” then he would’ve sent more troops and freaking won in 2006 instead of 2008.
And now because of him a guy who went to Muslim school and wants to “talk it out” with them will be President. Think that will set us a back just a smidge?
I won’t go further against the tide here. But I will ask the question again that I’ve posed to a few people here. If the true conservative case put forward by the posters here at FR is so compelling, and if Bush is such an abject knucklehead, in whom are you all putting your faith going forward?
I guess I’m just befuddled. If it is so obvious what needs to be done, and if the case is so easy to make, why isn’t anyone out there making it?
While it may be true that “politics is the art of the possible”, leadership is something else again.
As for your narrative regarding Bush’s motivations: I think you’re far to generous. I wonder though if your generosity isn’t really directed toward yourself for having supported him. Think about it. No doubt well meaning Clinton suporters had a lot of experience doing the same.
As to who I want to lead “this party”. What party is that? I no longer consider myself a republican. Party aside though, I really haven’t seen anyone that enthuses me right now.
Anything wrong with that?
I should answer my own questions, and just so you all know my political sentiments, if I could pick anyone, it would be Rick Santorum. I wouldn’t put him up, because he can’t even win an election in his own state. But just so you know that I’m not some bleeding heart RINO.
I just think y’all have worse Bush Derangement Syndrome than any Democrats I know, and I live in Ann Arbor, MI.
Reagan didn't create the problem, LBJ and the 1965 Immigration Act did. The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster
Reagan signed the one-time 1986 amnesty bill that was clearly a mistake in addressing the illegal alien problem. The USG estimated 1 million would apply and the real number turned out to be 2.7 million. Fraudulent documents were the rule. And the enforcement provisions of the 1986 amnesty were never carried out. Many of those same provisions can be found in the 2006 Hagel-Martinez bill and the 2007 McCain-Kennedy bill. Bush 41 signed the 1990 Immigration Act that raised the annual ceiling from 270,000 to 700,000 for 1992-94 and 675,000 afterwards (including 480,000 family-sponsored, 140,000 employment-based, and 55,000 "diversity" immigrants). Clinton was better than both Bushes on immigration enforcement.
The issue has been building since 1965 as the demographic impact of immigration becomes more and more pronounced. In 1965, Hispanics were 1% of the US population. Today, they are 15% and by 2050 they will be 30% and that is without an amnesty. Tancredo became more visible on the issue, but it was raised long before 2005. Rove, McCain, Graham, and others branded their fellow Reps who wanted the rule of law respected as nativists, xenophobes, and bigots. In the meantime 87% of the 1.2 million legal immigrants who enter this country annually are minorities and almost all of the 500,000 to 1 million illegals are minorities. Minorities and immigrants vote Dem.
My only point is that there is lots and lots of blame to go around. I’m not defending Bush. But I’m also unwilling to lay all of the blame at his feet. The venom and invective that is focused entirely on Bush is simply stupid.
You are making excuses for an indefensible position. Bush is the President. He was taking a position opposite most of his own party. He deserves most of the blame for dividing the party and making this a divisive issue.
Second, Bush’s recent efforts at enforcement have been quite effective, judging by demonstrated empirical evidence. This is the first real progress in a quarter-century. I would find those who hate Bush’s immigration policy more credible and sympathetic if they would give him his props
It is all relative. The reality is that it has had very little effect on illegal immigration, certainly less than the economy. You can expect a new surge as Obama, McCain, et. al. try again on amnesty. And the disintegrating situation in Mexico will add to those numbers. And nothing has been done with our legal immigration policies, which are far more insidious and difficult to change. We simply do not need 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of whom are uneducated and unskilled. They are going to be a net drain on our society and be of little use in making us competitive in the global economy.
And they will account for about two thirds of our 165 million increase in population over the next 50 years. In 1970, the US had a population of about 200 million. Today it is 305 million by 2050, it will be 439 million. Our pro-population growth immigration policies are going to have a major impact on virtually all of the major challenges facing this country, whether it is energy, infrastructure, the environment, entitlement programs, education, law enforcement, etc. And there are also the social consequences that may result from the Balkanization of this country along cultural and linguistic lines.
To say that Bush has come through with too little too late effectively invites the Obama Administration to drop the effort.
LOL. You are really naive. I am an immigration grassroots activist who has been lobbying on the state and national level on immigration issues. Obama has hired a former VP from La Raza to be his policy advisor [McCain had Juan Hernandez] and selected Napolitano to be his head of Homeland Security. Obama aided by folks like McCain are not going to be enforcing our immigration laws and they will push for an amnesty, which will destroy the country with the stroke of a pen. Not only will an amnesty legalize the status of the 12 to 20 million illegals already here, it will enable them to sponsor another 66 million to 100 million thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification.
Third, Bush and Rove are right that we must formulate immigration policy in ways that do not alienate Latinos, Asians and other demographic groups. Our immigration policy can not be punitive. It must be hopeful.
Give me a break. Punitive? Since when is enforcing the law punitive? Reps can't play identity politics like the Dems and pander to various groups. McCain, aka the Amnesty King among immigration activists, was the perfect candidate for those moderates advocating a policy of outreach to minorities. Latinos voted 70% to 30% against him. The reality is that even if McCain had received 70% of the Latino vote, he would have lost. Rove and Bush are wrong on immigration, substantively and politically.
The Republicans’ Hispanic Delusion Amnesty is not just wrong in principle, it’s bad politics.
Fourth, everyone wants their own agenda items. I want the war prosecuted well and with no holds barred. You may want immigration reform. Others might want lower taxes. Bush’s popularity gave him virtually no political capital. Let’s be real.
Yes, let's be real. There are only two issues that can destroy this country: immigration and the entitlement programs. The real problem with Bush was his inability to articulate and defend his positions. He lacked vision. And he was beset by issues like the WOT, Katrina, the collapse of the housing bubble, etc. that had him fighting fires and not focussing on the really big, long term issues affecting this nation. He became reactive rather than proactive.
Pessimist: I am sad that you are not a Republican, because while the party has lost its way, it is a great party, and the great hope for our nation.
Yes, I am guilty of supporting the guy I voted for. I make no bones about giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think anyone who heard him speak about “compassionate conservatism” in 1999 would be under any illusions about his centrism. I consider myself rather conservative, and I wish he were more to the right; yet I voted for him anyway, and I have no big problem with the fact that he governed as he said during the campaign that he would. It is beyond my comprehension that folks here would think we would have been better off as a nation with Gore.
For those who think that Gore would have been better than Bush, or that Obama is preferable to McCain, you are the 5% that would have put McCain over the top. I held my nose and voted for the guy, who I like personally but abhor politically. You folks wanted the perfect conservative; you rejected the good centrist; and now we have the far leftist.
You would rather be right and out of power, which of course is your prerogative. But these next few years will be hell, and when 2012 rolls around, I hope you reconsider the wisdom of this approach.
Post 5
Please ping me when you have a rational thought which results in a salient post, that will require logical thought instead of the pathological thinking you seem so comfortable with.
Kabar:
You clearly know your facts; as I have said, I am not in the Bush camp on immigration (though I am obviously not as passionate as you); and as such, I am reluctant to push you. But since you clearly have such a good grasp of the facts, and since immigration is the issue that vexes folks here far more than any other, let me ask three questions:
1) Again, besides Tancredo, who among Republicans was pushing this during Bush’s first term?
You don’t mention anyone other than Tancredo, and the link you provide is to 2006, after the Republicans had lost control of both the House and Senate. I just want to press you on this ... If no one in the party but Trancedo was making this an issue, then how is Bush the sole bad guy?
2) I read that more than 1 million illegals have left in the short time that enforcement has been stepped up; and I read that the check that employers must now make is both simple and effective. So why are these efforts so deficient?
3) My own not-all-that-well-informed position is that we must secure the borders first and step up internal enforcement, and then I’m willing to discuss anything, including amnesty; but the former must completely precede the latter, because no immigration policy is credible unless enforcement is secure. Would you consider this a conservative position?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Here's a picture of Mr. Steel Balls making a deal with the chief financier of Islamic extremism. W wanted to keep our borders wide open while declaring Islam the religion of peace.
Look, W made some significant agendas come true that worked: tax cuts, picking Alito and Roberts, pursuing the Islamofascists when the Dems caved to terrorism, but he also failed in the education, farming, over spending areas. Altogether, a decent man, an average Pres because he failed to stand for conserv Pub principles and let to the failures of much of the Republican Party’s standings.We shall see how the socialist pacifist nee change artist, the Messiah does with his stimulus, spending, not cutting the proper taxes and dealing with Islamofascism. Then historians can judge whether W did better than BO or the reverse happened.
Several years ago in George’s first term, Karl wrote him a memo stating, and I am putting down the general idea of the memo, that George could feel free to do whatever he wanted because Republicans were always going to vote Republican.
For many years, I have been kicking myself for not keeping a copy of that memo. Does anybody out there have a copy of it? We need to look at it again to see how flawed their thinking was.
Karl Rove was/is an idiot with a huge ego, and George was/is an idiot for depending on someone’s flawed thinking.
During the day of the 2006 elections, from what I read at the time, Karl was stunned to see Republicans were giving their votes to Democrats. It caused him to go to bed late that night thinking it could not be true. He was in denile (and not a river).
Thank you.
P.S.
I read that memo here on FR.
Could the Mods find it for us?
Thank you.
Don't give me that "Kept us safe" bull sh*t.
I look at Bush's record and see a guy that stood by as tens of millions entered this country illegally, illegals that have trashed entire cities, neighborhoods...
I see a guy that not only stood by and watched, but publicly encouraged a violent illegal invasion of our country, an invasion that has left tens of thousands of American rape, robbery, burglary, injury and murder victims in it's path.
Not to mention the epic fraud this has caused, to the point where it has literally undermined and compromised our entire system, including our very electoral process.
Tell that to the parents of the 9 year old girl that was warped around the axle of a truck, driven by illegal aliens that had just robbed a home in her neighborhood. Tell that to tens of thousands of American that have become victims of this violent invasion, all aided and abetted by President Bush.
I can list endless tragic events, many of which are no less violent or deadly than any terrorist attack.
Well that worked real well. Obama Pelosi just ran the pas two elections on “look what Bush did”, and that paid off great, for them. Your “ignore Bush's actions and get enraged at democrats “strategy breaks down when the bulk of the public turns off their ears to ANYTHING republicans say and vote democrat. How dare GWB betray fellow elected republicans and cut terrible deals with democrats after he was safely re-elected. He deserves our contempt for that alone.
I heard someone say yesterday why the left so hates Bush.
#1 - they believe he stole the 2000 election.
#2 - Iraq war.
I agree with this analysis. Add to that, the nation has never been more ideologically polarized, and I include myself in that assessment. I feel like we are playing for all the marbles now, from the left stacking the court and dismantling the US Constitution, to implementing all-out socialism. So at least in my case, I certainly see the need for pure polarization. This is a culture war between socialism and freedom, pure and simple.
Now going back to the 2 reasons above why the left hates Bush so much, those points are dripping with hypocrisy...
Which party is rampant with voter fraud? Which party keeps counting until they win? Which party asks judges to throw out military absentee votes? Which party forces the opposition to resign for minor ethics violations while not removing their own from office after committing crimes?
Which party supported every military action under Clinton while opposing every military action under Bush.
The Democrat left and their idiot socialist supporters are so rampant with hypocrisy, it could fill the airtime for Saturday Night Live skits for the next 100 years. Oh that’s right, Hollywood only mocks conservatives, not the left. Yet more liberal hypocrisy.
Michael Savage was brilliant to coin the phrase, “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” He is dead right.
“This is a culture war between socialism and freedom, pure and simple.”
I don’t disagree. But it is a war that is ongoing for a century or more. Is it really now for “all of the marbles” in a way that it was not previously?
In my opinion, as conservatives we lose from the kind of panic that I see routinely exhibited in this culture war ... on both sides. If the sky is falling, there is little to “conserve” and few enduring institutions to defend.
We have been through much worse as a nation than this. Indeed, this is nothing compared to other eras, and nothing compared to what may lie in front of us.
I think that there is more of a balance than folks here realize. The Democrats are ascendant in Congress and the White House. Many of their liberal institutions, such as the MSM, are in their death throes. We can not be complacent about our liberties, but panicing is no good either. This is very much a war of attrition. We are in this for the long haul.
I am very confused by your assertion that we have had worse and “this is nothing compared to other eras.”
Never in the history of this nation have we had such little freedom.
I am connected to my Social Security number like a ball and chain. Everybody I deal with legally demands I identify myself by this number or has to use it in my transaction in some form.
We have gone from having a right to travel over public roads in a privately owned vehicle, to having people give that right away and call it a “privilege” today.
Post 9/11, I can’t even see off a family member in the airline terminal.
A farmer or rancher can’t work his land as he see’s fit, if the tree he wants to fell is environmentally protected by the government, or if the swamp he wants to drain is called a “wetland” or if there is a 0.1% chance that his land could be habitat for some species some bureaucrat calls “endangered.”
It would take a book to go through all the freedoms we have lost and are currently losing. We have never had our God-given rights at such immediate risk as they are today. So I very much disagree with you that we’ve had worse or that other eras were worse. No sir, the creeping incremental socialism that is boxing us in and stealing all of our God-given rights is accelerating in rate. We aren’t getting more rights and we are given more away every year.
Sorry for not being “optimistic” and please don’t give up the fight, but you have to be realistic about how much freedom we have given up and how socialist our society has become, and the continuing trend toward greater socialism and less freedom.
The formation of the Immigration Reform Caucus (IRC) in May 1999 provided Congressional visibility on the issue of illegal immigration. The immigration issue has been around a long time with the various think tanks addressing it, e.g., Heritage, Pew, etc. and the formation of The Center for Immigration Studies in 1985 . There are also groups like NumbersUSA and FAIR that have been around a long time.
The impact of decades of immigration policy has now become more apparent and visible to the public, but it has been well known throughoiut the USG. Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history and by 2050, it will be one in 5. During the period 2000-7, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
Here is an excellent analysis from Robert Rector of Heritage: Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts. I credit Rector for his major role in defeating McCain-Kennedy.
2) I read that more than 1 million illegals have left in the short time that enforcement has been stepped up; and I read that the check that employers must now make is both simple and effective. So why are these efforts so deficient?
CIS and Pew have done studies in this area, but I can assure you that no one really knows how many illegals are here. Much of it is anecdotal. CIS did the following study on it: Homeward Bound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population
I attended the press briefing of the CIS paper. It appears that the decline in illegals relates more to the defeat of McCain-Kennedy than enforcement if you check the graph. We do know that before the Reagan amnesty, there was a surge in illegal immigration despite the fact that amnesty was only being offered to illegals who had been here for five years. The fact that McCain and Obama both support an amnesty could cause another surge along with the huge infrastructure packages planned by Obama as a financial stimulus.
And deteriorating conditions in Mexico may spark more illegal immigration. “Surge Two”: Northward Flood of Mexicans Likely to Increase after U.S. Election
) My own not-all-that-well-informed position is that we must secure the borders first and step up internal enforcement, and then I’m willing to discuss anything, including amnesty; but the former must completely precede the latter, because no immigration policy is credible unless enforcement is secure. Would you consider this a conservative position?
There is no doubt that enforcement must be the sina qua non of any immigration reform effort. However, anything that rewards those who broke our laws by allowing them to stay and work here, i.e., amnesty, is not an acceptable position for a conservative. Just as the open borders types use language to disguise what they are doing, e.g., undocumented workers versus illegal aliens, some moderate Reps like to use phrases like "getting to the back of the line, paying a fine, and learning English" as not being an amnesty. It is. The back of the line is not in the US, it is in their home country.
Attrition thru enforcement is the true conservative position. We have empirical evidence that it works. On Immigration, Enforcement Works
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.