As much as I like the President, it has never made sense to me that he kept so many of the Clinton holdovers. It actually made he complicite in the mistakes because, in spite of knowing the tricks of the dems, he hung himself out to dry. Never, never, never will I understand why President Bush and the congress turn a blind eye toward democrat misdeeds, lies and distortions. And, if there is a reason I am not completely satisfied with Bush...that's it. He has the bully pulpit and if he gives illegalities a pass, it has to make you wonder why. If I ever got to speak with him, I would ask him that question first.
I have some answers - just hope I don't get banned over giving some of them (they do love President Bush here - as do I - but I believe talking about the problems are also okay)
I agree with you on the illegals issue - this is the hardest to take - but why must we go on taking it - ? It is wrong - no matter how you look at it. The illegals are breaking our laws. The people in the departments in charge of getting them and deporting them - are breaking our laws by not doing so. The American citizen is in the right on this issue - and if our government continues to ignor it - then it must be addressed by the people - and handled before it gets much worse.
I think President Bush is protecting his father more than anything(this covers a lot of territory)- he is not his own man, in other words.
If he was - we'd probably see some things change but probably not all because of other influences. The best thing to keep in mind is: A President is one person - the others in government have powers also - and a pecking order also comes into play with the club. To put it simply - Everyone in the upper status group knows the secrets of the other group's upper status - they are simply afraid of falling and having the power go from their hands - to like a third party. Like America getting one who is totally for America -
That's my opinion -
I also felt that way, but the dems made it pretty evident in his 2000 election that they were not going to give him a thing, and remember that they forced the then republican leaders to 'share' control of the senate...a slick device that Dashcle cooked up! He would NOT have gotten anywhere at the time in replacing the cabinets' long-term employees. Remember the threats about not letting the budget go through, then going to the streets to blame Bush? The republican leadership was a crock, so Bush played his cards slowly. He can still shake up some of these people in this term as he has nothing to lose now, if re-elected.
Yes, it was maddening for conservatives that Clinton holdovers were kept on in the Bush admin.
But we might conclude that the reason could have been to avoid making Clintonoids into "victims."
Remember that "victimization" is at the core of Dims' beliefs, by which they blame and find others responsible for their own personal failures, then expect taxpayers, deep pocketed ndividuals, or the courts to bail them out.
For Dims, it feels so good to be in the throes of "victimization" and either A) causing victims, B) concocting victims, C) playing victim, D) commiserating over victims, or E) creating another class of victims to bleed over.
If Bush had made the Clintonistas "victims," there wouldn't have been enough valium and vodka available to sedate all the hyperventilating Dims we'd have had on our hands.