GOP platform pushes amnesty

NJ.com ^ | 8/29/04 | Paul Mulshine

[Afronaut]

If there are any deluded souls out there who still believe George W. Bush is a conservative, I invite them to examine the 2004 Republican Party platform on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Bush is for it. That makes him a liberal. Worse, he proclaims that the amnesty is not an amnesty. So he is not only a liberal, but a liar as well.

[Howlin]

Hit a nerve, did I?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The shredding of the 1st Amendment (standing by idly as CFR was enacted)."

President Bush campaigned against CFR, and Congress passed it anyway. It passed in the House 240-189, and in the Senate 60-40, preceeded by a cloture motion to end debate on it that was approved 68-32. It was a lost fight, and right now, the Swifties are hardly the poster children of McCain-Feingold's abusing the First.

"Surrendering the U.S.'s sovereign border to illegal hordes"

Worthless hyperbole. We stopped nearly a million people trying to cross our borders illegally last year, hardly a sign of any kind of surrender.

"Failed to fire ALL of Bubba Clinton's judicial hold outs"

That would make sense, wreck the stability of our Judicial system in the name of some sort of vendetta.

"GROWING the government in leaps and bounds and leaning heavily towards socialism"

Useless hyperbole.

"Me? I'll hold my nose and vote for the guy."

Don't bother, you're not needed.

[F16Fighter]

"So, you came up with four hyperbolic reasons to not like Bush to counter that list?"

Are you telling me you care not a whit about our unenforced borders during a time of heightened alert?

The surrender of part of our 1st Amendment rights which determine the Presidency?

The continuum of Clinton's dangerous judiciary appointees?

Dubya policies have been nothing short of puzzling.

Is that the best we can now expect from Dubya and the GOP??

[F16Fighter]

"We could seal the border if we wanted to, but apparently it's going to take a smuggled WMD exploding in one of our liberal cities to make that happen."

I wonder how quickly the borders would be sealed should that "liberal city" be D.C.?

[Guillermo]

I don't give the media as much credit for swaying elections as most do around here.

I think America would appreciate a President who stands firmly on convictions and avoids expediency.

Great men are never ones to stick a wet finger in the wind and govern from there. That's why Clinton is rapidly headed to the bottom of the Presidential barrel.

Great men take risks, and tough stances. Taking those risks often involve risking re_election.

Now, Bush did take a huge risk in Iraq, and it will take years to see if it paid off, and he will be judged by history largely in part of what happens there.

Maybe we should go to a one-term limit for Presidents, and term limit Congress, so they will be less apt to act expeditiously.

Machiavelli was right about Democracy. It's a gargantuan monster.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The vote was 240-189 in the House, and 60-40 in the Senate.

The vote was inches away from two thirds in favor in both the House and the Senate, and I am sure that President Bush was well aware of which way the vote would go if he decided to veto.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Are you telling me you care not a whit about our unenforced borders during a time of heightened alert."

More hysterical hyperbole; our borders are better watched today than during WWII.

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

"America is far too centrist for such extremism. 35% of Americans are left-of-center Democrats. 34% of Americans are right-of-center Republicans. Most of the rest of that remaining 31% are sitting on the center line."

That breakdown, even if accurate, does not apply to the border issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you don't like what it being accomplished by the GOP, then go elsewhere.

[Guillermo]

60 is not inches away from 67.

Even if it recieved 66 it would still have been veto-proof.

I have followed Congress long enough that people do not change their votes when it comes to overriding a veto. IN fact, the vote to override never would have had even the most miniscule chance of making it onto the floor of either chamber.

Even if it wasn't veto proof, which it was, comfortably, he still shouldn't have signed it. He should have put all the onus on Congress.

The fact is, he was for it, he signed it, it's his responsibility.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Why would "FR at Large" be interested in endless threads you guys present dedicated to the specific PROBLEMS of Cochise County?

We're the ones who take the initial brunt of the attack and soak up the initial damages. The rest of the country suffers the long term effects.

What kind of "backing" do you have for Graf? Money raised, spent, in the bank? What do you consider "plenty" unseeding a senior House GOP leader? Numbers please. I want to know how serious you are.

Since you don't live here, it's none of your damn business. We're trying to elect someone who represents us. We don't give a flying whatnot what anyone else outside the district thinks about the matter.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Unenforced borders"?

It would truly help you cause if you stopped the hysterical hyperbole; there were over 900,000 apprehensions of illegal aliens attempting to cross the Southwestern border illegally in Fiscal 2003. That figure does not take into account apprehensions at the Canadian border, airports, or sea ports.

Hardly the picture of unenforced borders you're trying to paint.

[WRhine]

I'd like to read the platform too but can't seem to find a straight copy.

And you won't until after George Bush's convention speech. The Bush Campaign doesn't want the rank and file to know what's in it until they spin it. This by the way is a RNC convention first. In ALL prior conventions the republican platform was made public before the convention. Kinda gives ya the warm and fuzzies about the next 4 years Uh?

[F16Fighter]

"If you don't like what it being accomplished by the GOP, then go elsewhere."

And get chased away by fraudulent "conservatives" like you? Heh!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Now you're engaging in fortune telling.

Why don't you simply admit that you are in FR campaigning against the re-election of George W. Bush and be done it?

[F16Fighter]

"Our borders are better watched today than during WWII."

"Watched," yes. "Enforced," NO.

That's the problem, amigo.

[Barlowmaker]

I stole your "Border Wedgies" label! Just because theft is the sincerest form of robbery! ;^)

[Southack]

"Great men are never ones to stick a wet finger in the wind and govern from there. That's why Clinton is rapidly headed to the bottom of the Presidential barrel."

Bush didn't do what was popular when he killed the ICC, killed the CCCP - U.S. ABM treaty, killed Kyoto, went into Iraq, or banned some research with human stem cells.

But the public has come around to most of those positions, and history will judge him for standing by his convictions, and rightly so.

Signing CFR should have been a no-brainer. It was illegal on its face, and the Supreme Court would veto it.

Who knew that the SCOTUS would suddenly decide to play politics themselves by ignoring the Constitution and ruling CFR legal?!

We should have gotten a formal ruling on the legality before that bill became law; it would have changed the process and would have forced the SCOTUS to say up front that they were going to toss it (the political angle would have been dead for them had we asked for an advance ruling).

So on that single issue, CFR, Bush was too clever by half. He could have gotten *everything* that he wanted had the SCOTUS simply ruled the way that they were legally and ethically bound to rule, rather than the backstabbing, unconsitution way that they ruled in the end.

Certainly, had the SCOTUS said that they would have approved CFR prior to the bill being voted on, things would have turned out differently.

It should have been a throw-away law; good for short-term political grandstanding, yet tossed by the SCOTUS.

What a pity that we can't predict *how* our judges are going to rule on our very laws...

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

"900,000 apprehensions of illegal aliens attempting to cross the Southwestern border illegally in Fiscal 2003."

More than 2400 a day? What's your source for that?

[FITZ]

our borders are better watched today than during WWII.

Then is the government deliberately allowing tons of cocaine and pot and heroin to come over from Mexico and the WOD is just a farce? And the million plus coming in every year to stay are being allowed in?