Posted on 05/18/2006 5:29:51 PM PDT by RWR8189
What the president's immigration speech and "The DaVinci Code" have in common.
What was missing in the president's approach the other night was the expression, or suggestion, of context. The context was a crisis that had gone unanswered as it has built, the perceived detachment of the political elite from people on the ground, and a new distance between the president and his traditional supporters. The president would have done well to signal that he knew he was coming late to the party, as it were; that he'd come to rethink his previous stand, or lack of a stand, and had begun to consider whether there was not some justice in the views, and alarm, of others.
Without an established context the speech seemed free-floating: a statement issued into the ether, unanchored to any particular principle and eager to use, as opposed to appreciate, whatever human sentiment flows around the issue of immigration. It was a speech driven by an air of crisis, but not a public crisis, only a personal and political one.
To acknowledge what he apparently thinks are the biases of the base, he used loaded words like "sneak"--illegal immigrants "sneak across the border"--as if to establish his populist bona fides. This was, not to put too fancy a rhetorical term on it, creepy, and managed to be offensive to everyone.
What was needed was a definitive statement: As of this moment we will control our borders, I'm sending in the men, I'm giving this the attention I've given to the Mideast.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yeah, Bush has increased taxes and looked for every opportunity to promote abortion. (/sarc)
Both Ms Noonan and the President left out the motivating factor in drawing the Mexicans North - unscrupulous companies with chicken processing operations or any other kind of labor intensive work.
That is the draw and until some of these bigwigs get prison for generating this huge problem the hordes from south of the border will continue to come, fences or not, National Guard or not, beefed up border guards or not.
Interesting dot connection there. Would that have been before or after Peggy so "selflessly" "volunteered" for the Bush 2004 campaign, by making a HUGE SPLASH of her "sacrifice".
And immediately afterward, wrote the most trashing columns I have ever read in my life.
This is a pretty big stretch. The "first generation" illegals made into citizens will vote 99% for the communist (read: RAT party) ticket. Most of these people would vote for the socialist candidate in Mexico if they thought their vote would mean anything. Part of the reason they come here is that Mexican politics is hopelessly corrupt. (no, its not an excuse in my book; I want them deported - to the man.) Come to think of it, US politics is pretty corrupt, too.
Indeed. It was the most bizarre thing I'd ever read. First, it was the first column in which she'd criticized the president so blatantly, in such a petty way and over something she should have supported him on.
But the kicker was her criticism of his religious references. She, of all people, should have supported him on it and if she decided to go anti-Bush, it was exactly the wrong thing for her to use to start such a tirade.
I have no doubt it was personal on Peggy's part. As to the specific details, it could be nothing more than her trying to talk with a member of the administration about what Bush should do and that person blowing her off. Some of her charm is her use of mundane and petty things in her columns, so maybe she can be that petty and shallow. I don't know.
"I continue to believe the administration's problem is not that the base lately doesn't like it, but that the White House has decided it actually doesn't like the base."
Enough said.
I think her worst moment was her article about the Reagan funeral where she trashed some of the former colleagues who were presidential speech writers.
I've been thinking about this: Without us doing anything, there will be a gradually larger portion of the legally-voting population who will be personally sympathetic to the illegals' cause -- the anchor babies.
I remember that. She even took a "leave of absence" from writing her weekly column (how much effort does it REALLY take to write a weekly column?) to work "full time" on Bush's re-election.
And yes, she made sure we all knew about it, too.
Many are confused with the president and certain senators on this issue. Many think these politicians:
1) have a heart for illegal immigrants- WRONG! or
2) are reaching out to illegals and trying to build their respective constituencies for the future- MOSTLY WRONG!
In their worldview, it's a world of business and sovereign nations only serve to restrict business operations. Who needs borders? Free trade, cheap labor, and open borders for all! Yep, they're all one world government whores sold out to their big business constituents. That's the only explanation that is consistent with their actions over the last 20 years. In truth, they've all sold us down the river for big business and a one world government which will benefit.... you guessed it.... big business. Wake up, sheeple!
Ouch.
Both are technically proficient wordsmiths, but they just can't keep their bitterness and self-centeredness out of their wiritings.
Noonan hasn't contributed anything positive to the conservative dialogue for some time.
Moreover, I blame her soft, treacly, feminine rhetoric ("kinder, gentler", "a thousand points of light" etc) for the "wimp" appellation which was hung on Bush 41 early in his term.
Looks like Peggy agrees with my post #30 in this statement.
higher brotherhood= big business + one world government advocates
Conservatives piss and moan over the encroachment of government in our economic lives but not nearly as much as the absolute level of convulsions that take place of the socially conservative issues. What's that really say about today's conservatives? To me it says that the real drive of today's conservatives is not to produce economic freedom: to me it says that "traditional values" are far, far more important of an issue to take up.
Count me out!
A couple of what?
I've never thought Dowd was a good writer. It's abundantly clear once you've read Steyn, then you realize, "Ah, that's what she was trying to do!"
Sadly to say it... but that is the way I felt it too...
"If it passes, we can definitely say that Bush is more liberal than Clinton on domestic policy.
Yeah, Bush has increased taxes and looked for every opportunity to promote abortion. (/sarc)"
You forget that under Clinton we got tax cuts in 1997, tight fiscal budgets for FY 1995-1999, and conservative welfare reform. This was Newt Gingrich policies, but Clinton signed them. Those were the most conservative policies since Reagan.
Other than the 2003 tax cuts, the 2 biggest pieces of domestic legislation is this immigration bill and medicare drug bill, which is now estimated to cost about $700 billion over 10 years. The amnesty of 10 million, with a likely immigration increase impact in the next 20 years of additional 30 million, will be a huge factor in moving our politics to the left and our Government towards a bigger welfare state.
Agree with her or disagree, that's a bit over the top. Having said that, could we at least get some 'mo do' pics out of the deal? =)
"She thinks she should be writing his speeches"
Given what he said on Monday, which convinced nobody, she may have a point!
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.