Posted on 09/26/2005 8:32:01 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
~snip~
Do I sound disgruntled? I am also perplexed, left to focus on the inscrutability of such symbolism because the narrative thread of this presidency has become so hard to follow.
For example, Katrina isn't our only crisis. What's up with our borders, for instance? Why doesn't the president bring them under control? So far, the White House solution to the immigration crisis is to plot against border-control advocate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), conjure up visions of alien amnesty, and now -- final-straw time -- appoint a novice to head up the crucial U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "I will seek to work with those who are knowledgeable in this area, who know more than I do," 36-year-old Julie Myers told lawmakers at her Senate confirmation hearing last week.
It's not just that Myers' admitted inexperience fails to inspire confidence. It's not just that she is the latest in a string of what columnist Michelle Malkin has called "clueless cronies" appointed to Bush administration jobs in immigration and border security. (Myers is the niece of outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers, and she just married Secretary Chertoff's chief of staff, John F. Wood.) Downright scary is the symbolism of her appointment -- that President Bush considers immigration law enforcement a handy place to park a well-connected novice.
What's the president thinking? Maybe for the first time in his administration, I haven't a clue. What's really going on in the Middle East? I get the "staying" part of the "staying the course" in Iraq, but frankly the "course" could use some re-tooling to take into account the hard lessons learned (I wish) about fighting Islamic jihad.
And what's really going on with Israel? Having withdrawn from Gaza, Israel doesn't even get Washington lip service when it comes to its determination not to assist in Palestinian Authority elections that feature Hamas terrorists. Which begs the question: Whatever happened to George W. Bush's raison d'etre -- namely, that we oppose terror networks and the countries that support them?
Maybe the answer lies in what passes for tea leaves these days -- as in the fact that the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, who was most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's right-hand man on Iraq, has "roots in the Arab world so deep," reports The Washington Post, "that his beloved greyhound is named Kisa -- for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, his first posting in the Arab world." Explains Mr. Jones about his appointment, "Maybe they wanted someone who could provide the Arab perspective, too." Which is weird, at best. Of all countries, Israel certainly knows the Arab point of view, historically delivered at gunpoint. But why, oh why, is the American ambassador concerned with presenting the Arab point of view? Is the Arab point of view the American point of view? And where does that leave us in the so-called war on terror?
Earlier this month, the shocking plan for the memorial to the heroes of Flight 93 was released -- a memorial in the shape of an Islamic crescent. The only elected official to call for a better plan to honor these brave Americans (who, having saved Washington from further destruction on 9/11, plunged to earth hearing Al Qaeda hijackers cry, "Allah is the greatest") was Tom Tancredo. The president and the rest of our leaders were, of course, silent. Maybe we don't expect much more of them anymore, which in itself is symbolic. But if the symbolism is clear, the leadership is not.
No doubt, I woudln't be surprised if your computer keyboard laughs at you, every time you hit a keystroke.
I am not surprised, since logical keystrokes are beyond your current realm.
You are beating your head against a brick wall. There are ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum, whether they are paleo-cons or left wing anti-war zealots. They provide the evidence that the political spectrum is not a straight line, but a horseshoe, with the far left and far right closer to each other than they are to the middle. Their positions of isolationism and do nothing foreign policy are eerily similar.
Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is far more complex than the simplified put the military on the border approach. It has economic, social and political implications, not just nationally, but internationally. Short of building a Berlin Wall, with machine gun turrets every one hundred yards and bunkered border crossings, on the southern border, illegal immigration is going to occur.
It is the ideologues of the left that have led to the democrats loss of electoral power, make no mistake, the same can occur to republicans at the hands of the ideological right. The real key to political power in this country, like it or not, is the political middle. Right now, the political middle lies on the conservative side of the spectrum, but should policies initiatives get to radical, that political middle can easily shift the other way. Political reality requires a lesser of two evils approach while continuing to speak out in opposition to positions you disagree with. A vote for the 'high ground' or 'conscience' can often leave you with the worst of two evils. Of what good is one's vote of conscience if it leads to worst of two evils ? What good is one's integrity ? One's 'integrity' and 'good conscience' have led to a worse situation.
It's a game of political reality versus entrenched ideological idealism. The beauty of a free country is that ideologues, left or right, can speak their mind and express their opinions, they often go wrong when they think that freedom of expression includes freedom from criticism.
"You (Dane) are beating your head against a brick wall."
==================================
Beating one's head on a brick wall is as frutless as walking down a road that leads to nowhere.
"I just wish I could come up with a good definition of people who blindly support the leftward march of the GOP while pointing to democrats as the reason to support the leftward march."
K00laid drinkers.
Short of dawn-to-dusk curfews and a massive police presence on every street corner, gang violence is going to "occur". Is absolute full compliance your only criterion for whether or not to enforce the law against something? Are you a closet anarchist?
[[Is absolute full compliance your only criterion for whether or not to enforce the law against something? Are you a closet anarchist?]]
I happen to be a realist, you reveal the weakness in your argument when you have to engage in vituperative rhetoric. It has been my experience that those who engage in such polemicist debate have an inability to grasp the big picture, reason ruled by the narrow parameters of single issues, or unable to see the wider scope of that single issue.
Geopolitics, evolving technology require an ability to think ahead and not retract into the past. No one has said illegal immigration is not a problem, but the solution is not simple. The economics are complex, the political ramifications are very real, that if not pursued in a careful manner, could result in the overturn of any actions taken after the next election. Bush, while not perfect, and I have my share of complaints (Prescription Drug Bill to name one), is far better than the democrat alternative. Sometimes one has to swallow bitter pills to get the sweeter results down the line.
Political reality is that changes do not happen in one fell swoop, but in slow incremental stages. If you overreach, you risk losing any gains made and providing momentum to the opposite viewpoint. It will take time and a realistic approach to correct the socialistic direction the left and the democrats have taken this country since FDR and the 'New Deal' (some trace this movement back to Woodrow Wilson and the 16th Amendment and establishment of the Federal Reserve). Over half a century of political movement to the left cannot be undone in just one or two terms of a president. The entrenchment of the left in our education system, the judiciary and the old media are slowly being exposed and slowly being changed.
Fiscally, yes, I have complaints about Bush, but he does not control the purse strings, Congress does. Unless Congress gives him the line item veto, he is relatively hand tied. In order to veto bad spending, he would have to veto a larger amount of legitimate spending. It is just such a battle that could undo many of the gains made and give the opposition ammunition to swing the balance in the battle over the middle in today's polarized political climate.
What's more revealing, my little facetious nudge at you, or your ability to go through several paragraphs without touching on the pertinent question I asked you?
Again: is absolute full compliance your only criterion for whether or not to enforce the law against something? In other words, is it a waste of time, in your view, to improve border security unless we can be guaranteed to stop every last illegal entry?
[[What's more revealing, my little facetious nudge at you, or your ability to go through several paragraphs without touching on the pertinent question I asked you?
Again: is absolute full compliance your only criterion for whether or not to enforce the law against something? In other words, is it a waste of time, in your view, to improve border security unless we can be guaranteed to stop every last illegal entry?]]
Were your question anything more than rhetorical, you might have a point. It would require that nothing at all has been done to improve border security or is it that not enough has been done to satisfy you ? Your gamesmanship in trying to make the argument over 'full compliance' is misdirection. I clearly stated that illegal immigration is a problem and the solution complex. One with deductive ability would be able to surmise that I believe more needs to be done. Ergo, it is not a waste of time. Enforcement of the law is not the question, whether facetiously posed/nudged or not, but how is the best way to enforce it. You offer no ideas, merely complaints. Which political party does that sound like ?
Your little gotcha game, while amusing, does not further the debate or provide any answers. Let's hear some ideas from you and debate the merits of those ideas from all aspects. Maybe you endorse O'Reilly's idea of military at the border or deporting the over 10 million illegal immigrants immediately, I don't know, you have provided nothing substantive. I don't claim to have the answer because of the many complexities involved, but I do know knee-jerk reactions and ideological/political carping will lead to a non-solution that will make things worse in the long run.
You stated that illegal immigration would still "occur" even with a serious effort at border security. The implication was that making such efforts would be a waste of time, even if they resulted in illegal immigration "occurring" at a markedly reduced frequency from what it's currently "occurring" at. Is that in fact your position?
[[You stated that illegal immigration would still "occur" even with a serious effort at border security. The implication was that making such efforts would be a waste of time, even if they resulted in illegal immigration "occurring" at a markedly reduced frequency from what it's currently "occurring" at. Is that in fact your position?]]
I do not recall stating such an implication, so you might want to retire your crystal ball. I said illegal immigration will still occur, which it will, I made no comment about the rate or whether it would be a waste of time. Do you care to claim that statement is false ? You continue to divert from saying how you advocate dealing with the problem of illegal immigration. It is one thing to complain and another to offer solutions. Some solutions, possibly ones you might suggest, would be a waste of time, but not all solutions would be.
I would suggest you try to come up with your own position rather than try to divine incorrectly what mine is. I have said it is a complex problem (ergo if it is a problem, it needs a solution) and that I do not have the solution, apparently, neither do you, you just like to argue and hear yourself complain.
So in other words, you said what literally everybody in the country already knows, for reasons known only to yourself. Since you're not denying that illegal immigration would go down drastically as a result of building a barrier along the border like the one that already exists in the San Diego sector, and since doing so would involve a rather small cost, that part of problem isn't quite so "complicated" after all.
[[So in other words, you said what literally everybody in the country already knows, for reasons known only to yourself. Since you're not denying that illegal immigration would go down drastically as a result of building a barrier along the border like the one that already exists in the San Diego sector, and since doing so would involve a rather small cost, that part of problem isn't quite so "complicated" after all.]]
Your first sentence is a non sequitur and adds nothing to your point. At least, now you have gotten down to presenting an idea, but your idea is still based on assumptions, comparing a small segment of wall in a heavily populated and patrolled area to the many miles of sparsely populated and not as heavily patrolled areas is a making a great leap of faith. You assume the cost is minimal, what is minimal (small cost) ? What are the geopolitical ramifications ? Certainly Mexico and other Latin American countries would oppose it and Mexico sells us a lot of oil. What are the economic ramifications ? How much more will things cost due to higher labor costs ? That is provided this wall would make a severe inroad into illegal immigration. Do we then build a wall along the northern border, too ?
You open a whole new industry, shipping illegals to Canada so they can enter from the north. Where there is a will, there is a way, where there is a demand, there is a market. Rope ladders to get over the wall in the dead of night in sparsely populated areas. Tunnels under the wall with a fee for access. More boats seeking to bypass the border for illegals. What percentage that walk across the border do so only to work and return to their families versus those that come in smuggled in semis, boats or get through border crossings ? The wall would also certainly provide an impediment to return to Mexico once across. Sounds like a Berlin Wall isolationist concept, minus the guns to prevent people from escaping out of the country.
Don't get me wrong, it is a start for dealing with the issue, but I don't think it is the end all and be all that you seem to think it is. The only real solution, barring a cooperative agreement with Mexico, has to include significantly more border patrols, but that is not cheap.
Oh, Please.
You are constantly digging back into the grave to point out the two or three non-conservative acts of Ronald Reagan to justify the growing liberal track record of George Bush.
Doesn't it get tiring; constantly leaping to President Bush's defense? That seems to define your entire FreeRepublic career.
I personaly try not to look for something that someone else has done that is wrong to justify myself, or my group, doing the same.
As for the "11th" commandment, I'm in the clear. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. George W. Bush is not.
(Oh, and if you really want to "show me", and put me in my place with any response you may make, use one of your condescending, little "Uh"s at the beginning of the post...those really get to me.)
The only "comparison" that needs to be made for the purposes of this idea is how much illegal border crossing there would be with a barrier, versus without. Whatever the number would ultimately end up being, it's pretty tough to make the case that it's as easy to cross a properly fenced border than an unfenced one. Without doubt, it would be considerably more difficult.
You assume the cost is minimal, what is minimal (small cost) ?
Less than one half of one percent of one year's federal budget, if you extrapolate the cost of the fence in the San Diego sector to the rest of the border.
What are the geopolitical ramifications ? Certainly Mexico and other Latin American countries would oppose it and Mexico sells us a lot of oil.
Mexico and other Latin American countries would have a lot more to lose than we would by a cutoff of trade with us.
What are the economic ramifications ? How much more will things cost due to higher labor costs ?
The fence would do nothing to inhibit legal immigration. If current quotas are insufficient to keep the economy humming along right, then I have confidence enough that the American people can be persuaded to agree to set them at whatever level is necessary to keep the economy from tanking. But none of this is any excuse for circumventing the law. It needs to be enforced.
Do we then build a wall along the northern border, too ?
That option would at least be on the table, as far as I'm concerned. That still wouldn't break the budget.
You open a whole new industry, shipping illegals to Canada so they can enter from the north. Where there is a will, there is a way, where there is a demand, there is a market. Rope ladders to get over the wall in the dead of night in sparsely populated areas. Tunnels under the wall with a fee for access. More boats seeking to bypass the border for illegals.
Tell me something I don't know. All these things would make getting into the country more difficult, and hence reduce quite noticeably the number of people getting in.
The wall would also certainly provide an impediment to return to Mexico once across.
There are legal points of entry and exit, and I don't think our authorities are going to stop anyone from going out. But if they do find they can't go back very easily, that will be another deterrent from coming here in the first place.
Sounds like a Berlin Wall isolationist concept, minus the guns to prevent people from escaping out of the country.
Pure hyperbole. Every rational person knows the difference between a barrier designed to keep people out and one designed to keep people in. And having a barrier to illegal entry in no way isolates us from the fully legal trade and travel that goes on all the time between us and the rest of the world.
The only real solution, barring a cooperative agreement with Mexico, has to include significantly more border patrols, but that is not cheap.
Those aren't that expensive either, compared to the overall cost of the federal budget. We currently have about 11,000 BP agents on the border. Considering the millions of federal employees, that really isn't all that much. We could go to three times that number without any real strain on the budget.
[[I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. George W. Bush is not.]]
I've always found this type of comment to be the realm of ideologues, whether from the fringe left or fringe right. Such elitist rhetoric claiming their opinion of what is conservative or what is liberal is the only one, and anyone who does not meet their self-inflated opinion is not. Quite possibly you might want to be more specific in your attribution, my guess would be you are a paleo-conservative.
It is amusing there is not much difference between the far left and the far right, giving evidence to the theory that the ideological spectrum is not a straight line, but is shaped like a horseshoe, with both the far left and far right being closer to each other than to the middle. Both extremes attack Bush, both extremes are against the Iraq war (the left appeasers, the right isolationists - both are do nothing, head in the sand approaches), both hold elitist views of their ideological purity and use that claim to demean any who do not adhere/goosestep to their definition.
Everyone has a right to their political views, but claims of ideological superiority or purity are attempts at vacuous self-aggrandizement. To quote General Honore, any on the left or right who claim such superiority are 'stuck on stupid'.
"We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
You're free to decide how much that's been the guiding principle of GWB's administration. Others have certainly drawn their conclusions.
[[It's not like conservatism is some secret cult that only the properly initiated know the Mysteries of and everyone else has to guess. At least in the context of this forum, FR's homepage gives a pretty reasonable idea of what it is:
"We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
You're free to decide how much that's been the guiding principle of GWB's administration. Others have certainly drawn their conclusions.]]
But there is the whole in your argument as well as the crux. You seek to adhere to a narrow definition of conservatism, in reality, it covers a wide swath. Classical liberalism is a conservative ideology, not to be mistaken with the bastardization of the word by today's left. The basic tenet and foundation of classical liberalism is individual freedom and liberty, both economic and social, within the structure of a society and its mores.
You have paleo-conservatism, neo-conservatism and the list goes on and on. So any claim to ideological superiority or purity is simply hogwash and elitist. It is when one tries to narrowly define what are the correct ideals that one relegates themselves to minority status. That is political reality, unless one can raise a big umbrella under which many can fit, you achieve nothing.
You seek to chastise Bush for not meeting up to your claimed ideological purity and remove his claim to being a conservative. Is he not socially conservative ? Hasn't he cut taxes ? Hasn't he used conservative economic principles to spur the economy ?
IMO, the far left and far right have not grasped the change in the world 9/11 has brought about. The far right loses perspective in their analysis. Homeland Security, the biggest increase in government, was brought about by 9/11. I think the Patriot Act needs to be reviewed periodically and revised, it should not be permanent. I vehemently disagree with Bush's Prescription Drug Bill, but I also look at it from the perspective of what the democrats offered as an alternative being almost three times as large and including tax increases. It was all about politics and taking an issue away from the democrats. His approach to reconstructing the Gulf is a conservative approach - tax incentives, entrepreurship, etc, as well as his approach to addressing poverty - home ownership, etc. Weaning those who have been programmed to be dependent on the government out of that vicious cycle has to be an incremental process.
I am a constitutionalist, a free-market capitalist, a pragmatist and a political realist. I am not a globalist, I believe in sovereignity but also acknowledge the global aspects of economic interdependence. I believe the UN needs to go the way of the League of Nations, it is a flawed institution that gives equal voice to dictators and oppressors on the world stage. I believe in individual freedom and liberty, as my tag line espouses. I am every bit the conservative that you are, but I am a big picture conservative, I look at the end game and the realities of the process to get there. There will be times it is necessary to take one step back so you can take two or three steps forward after that. You can't turn around decades of systemically and institutionally ingrained leftist government in one fell swoop. The right is slowly eroding the three remaining pillars that prop up the left, the 'old media', academia and the judicial branch of government. Sites like Free Republic play a key role in the dissemination of information that was once buried from public view. Unless conservatives of all stripes can keep sight of the end game, they risk doing exactly what has happened to the left, becoming fractured and losing power. That does not mean being silent, it does mean being constructive rather than destructive in one's criticism, leave the demonization to the left. Slow and steady is the only way this government can be restored to what the the Founding Fathers intended it to be, as Ben Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it."
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.