David Brooks: Bush has crashed through the 45-45 partisan divide

Star Tribune ^ | Published January 18, 2004 | David Brooks, New York Times

[farmfriend]

Can you redo this? Hard to read, thanks.

[nevergore]

Insightful article....

Points toward a Bush lanslide in 2004....

Good catch...

NeverGore

[Reagan Man]

In a Bush-Dean matchup, 20 percent of Democrats would vote for Bush, according to a CBS poll, while only 3 percent of Republicans would vote for Dean.

It would appear there is some level of sanity among the Demlibs afterall. But I don't know any Republican that would consider voting for Howie Dean.

[Texasforever]

Are you saying that the dynamic does not exist?

[krb]

The first result is that the Republican Party is more unified than ever before.

Was this written before the amnesty thing? I would have believed it 2 weeks ago, but I think the Republicans got one heck of a jolt with the illegal immigrant measure.

[krb]

3 percent of Republicans would vote for Dean.

Who are they?

[Texasforever]

Why? It was a proposal to address the issue. By the way. "amnesty" as used in the illegal immigration sense, is an immediate grant of permanent residency status as was done in 1986. This proposal does not meet that standard. We can't debate the issue if ther terms of the debate are not properly defined. In fact the issue itself has not been debated at all around here. It has been a lot of people talking past each other.

[Reagan Man]

Maybe they meant 3 Republican's, not 3 percent. ;^)

[krb]

Yeah, I continue to hope that Bush has pulled off a master stroke. But he is smarter than I am, and I don't see it yet.

[squidly]

Bush's proposal is just that and nothing more. It's not an executive order. Over time, what actually does or doesn't happen on that front will do more to coalesce or not coalesce conservative support for Dubya.

[Reagan Man]

>>>By the way. "amnesty" as used in the illegal immigration sense, is an immediate grant of permanent residency status as was done in 1986.

That's simply not true and you know it. The immigration reform proposal that PresBush laid out, specifically mentions offering legal status to illegal aliens. There is little difference between what PresReagan signed into law in 1986 and what PresBush proposed recently.

In his speech Bush said:
"This program will offer legal status... to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States..."

"[U]ndocumented men and women..." aka. illegal aliens.

The definitions of pardon and amnesty are quite clear.

pardon: "a release from the legal penalties of an offense"
amnesty: "the act of an authority by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals"

Bush spoke of no legitimate penalty that would fit the crime and in my book, eight million illegal aliens constitutes a large group.

Let's have some intellectual honesty on this issue. Going around misrepresenting the factual truth serves no good purpose.

[Let's Roll]

"...but I think the Republicans got one heck of a jolt with the illegal immigrant measure."

Here's the thing about Rove pandering to the Hispanic vote. IMO most Hispanics did NOT expect GWB to make a move like that and so would not have resented it if he continued to do nothing ... but boy GWB's base sure resents his doing it. In other words, it wasn't that broke, Karl.

[Texasforever]

That's simply not true and you know it. The immigration reform proposal that PresBush laid out, specifically mentions offering legal status to illegal aliens.

That is VERY different from immediate green card status. The only "amnesty" involved is the opportunity to register as a guest worker and at some point down the line apply for resident alien status which by the way is far from guaranteed. In 1986 almost 6 million illegal immigrants were granted IMMEDIATE permanent residency. There is no comparison.

[My2Cents]

Oh please. It's true that a lot of Republicans aren't happy with the immigration proposal, but for the vast, vast, VAST majority of them, it's not going to determine how they vote in November. There are too many other big issues at stake in this election for immigration to be a deciding factor.

[My2Cents]

but boy GWB's base sure resents his doing it.

Anyone who's loosing sleep over Bush's immigration proposal, or whose vote will be affected by the immigration proposal, were never part of Bush's base to begin with. I can understand that it has upset the Buchanan base, but that's not much to worry about.

[My2Cents]

Good point. An "amnesty" with conditions is not "amnesty."