Posted on 02/25/2006 2:30:07 PM PST by RWR8189
Like few presidents before him, President Bush was poised for a consequential and potentially quite successful second term. It hasn't worked out that way (so far). Bush made one strategic error in 2005, guessing wrongly that the country was adult and serious enough to reform Social Security. Now he faces at least two immediate challenges: immigration and the Dubai ports flap.
Let's start with immigration, which the Senate is slated to take up in late March. On immigration, Bush is not a conventional conservative or any other kind of conservative. His instinct is to sympathize with immigrants. Bush believes that whether they come to the United States legally or illegally, they come for the right reasons, chiefly for economic opportunity and the chance to shape their own destiny in life.
This has put the president deeply at odds with most Republicans in Congress and the army of conservative talk radio hosts and their listeners around the country. They regard Bush as a slacker on immigration. Their primary aim is to tighten security along the border with Mexico. And the legislation that passed the House last December would do exactly that, partly by erecting a 700-mile wall.
Bush had little influence in the House debate, though he wound up endorsing the measure. His mistake was having proposed in 2004, as his first major immigration initiative, a program to allow illegal immigrants to work legally in this country. Most Republicans and conservatives want stepped-up border security to come first. They're skeptical, at best, about a "guest worker" program.
Bush invited members of Congress and his cabinet, plus leaders of Hispanic groups, to his speech at the White House in January 2004 calling for more immigration into the United States. "The citizenship line . . . is too long and our current limits on legal immigration are too low," he said. But he devoted most of his address to illegal immigrants.
"Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow willing workers to enter our country and fill jobs that Americans are not filling," he declared. "We must make our immigration laws more rational and more humane. And I believe we can do so without jeopardizing the livelihoods of American citizens." His plan would "offer legal status, as temporary workers, to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States and to those in foreign countries who seek to participate in the program and have been offered employment here."
Note the size of the program Bush envisions: millions. It could conceivably cover all the illegal immigrants now living in America. This, of course, enrages Bush's Republican and conservative critics on immigration and makes them all the more dubious of his plans and of him.
How could this adversarial relationship on immigration have been avoided? "If we had to do it again, we probably would lead with enforcement," a White House official said. In other words, soften up the immigrant-bashers with dramatically increased border security and then, and only then, seek a temporary worker program in a year or two. That might have succeeded.
As things now stand, the president's hopes rest with the Senate. His strategy is to get senators to include a modest guest worker program in their bill--a program that could be expanded later. To get the House to accept it, the legislation would be larded with strong enforcement provisions. Who knows? This might work.
On the Dubai ports deal, the failure at the White House was in not seeing political trouble on the horizon. Foreign business deals involving American national security that are approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments normally draw little media or political attention.
But the purchase by a Dubai firm of the British company that manages terminals in six U.S. ports did. In fact, attacks on the deal for supposedly putting America's national security in jeopardy continued for more than a week before the White House responded. It had not consulted members of Congress about the deal beforehand.
The White House was firm and conciliatory in defending the deal but also tardy. The demagoguery on Capitol Hill had gotten out of hand by the time Bush intervened. Most of the criticism focused on the notion that an Arab country with past al Qaeda ties would be in charge of security at the six ports.
This isn't true. Security would remain in the hands of the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Service. And the personnel operating the ports would be the same. Only the company owning the terminals would change.
But the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is part, was the home of two 9/11 terrorists and banks there had transferred money to al Qaeda. This alone was sufficient to bar the deal for what seemed like most of Congress. Bush countered that the UAE had become a full-blown ally in the war on terrorism since 9/11.
The surprise in all this and the most worrisome aspect for the White House was the eagerness with which congressional Republicans broke into revolt against Bush. Without checking with Bush or his aides, congressional Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, denounced the deal publicly and insisted it be reconsidered or blocked.
The revolt showed that Bush's strength in Congress has significantly eroded as he begins his sixth year as president. In effect, his Republican base is no longer secure.
One thing could revive his standing among Republicans and salvage his clout on Capitol Hill: a Republican triumph led by Bush in the midterm election this fall. He did this before in 2002. But it was a long shot then, as it is now.
So, he's killing us, but we have to support him because the alternative is worse?
Post 99 - Because our own Bush Haters are only out to destroy our government..... We got to stick with this administration and demand real fixes and complete programs for all of these problems. This is no time to cut and run.
Huh?
The essence of epic tragedy is the inescapable truth.
Try it for yourself.
It is summed up by a fittingly ironic old Arab saying: I would rather deal with a fool that I know than a fool that I don't know.
By points I meant the fact that politician are trying to get our vote all the time. It happens with my local politicians. They try to score points with me. They try to impress me with all the things they have done or plan to do so that I will vote of them. That is what I mean.
About the Katrina point... that is when you reminded me of my friend - the master of detail, he knows everything - 3 days prior to the weekend when the army finally went in in force with all the helicopters picking up people.. he was convinced Bush had nothing to do with it...again details and more details... this was a state problem and the president did not to...etc etc etc. I told him, Bush better show his a** there, somehow and quickly or he will pay the price....because regardless of the details and technicalities, he by virtue of being the president, HAS A RESPONSABILITY to have done something in helping out those in Katrina, as he finally did. I was of course delighted when I saw the army in all its splendor doing a fantastic job helping those people over there... still, look at all the flack that Bush from that one. See, I am convinced we have entered into a new era of politics. I think it's because of the Internet mainly, that people can get together, organize themselves, just like we do here, apply more pressure where is needed, etc, etc. The "new media" as is called pay attention to what we say on boards like this.. after all we are the regular Joes, who can give them a feel for what is goin on. But one you are right, I am not one knows about rules, regulations, laws, etc... but one thing I know, I know politicians and what they are about :)
Take care.
As frightening and as depressing as this awful reality is, it will better to deal with the flawed administration we are saddled with, than the hopeless bunch of hate-mongering traitors who want to destroy us and our way of life.
It's a Hobson's choice.
The Frying pan. Or the fire.
Oh and another thing... And another concession! my English is poor and besides I write fast and miss words..sorry.
Again on Katrina... the example was meant to show that when one has, for instance, a flooded basement, one should close the source of the water first, before you start the get the water out... I did not mean that the "Federal Government" should go and push their way into "matters a state," etc, etc, etc.... :), I know that much about the government... sorry
To me it is obvious that we are offered a choice of fools, but I refuse them all, I resist.
Should there be a contest for the fate of our nation, I will join. Should there not, I will move on to somewhere else. The difference between America and the third world grows narrower all the time. If I must be ruled by idiots, I will at least choose my own idiot. One perhaps, upon whom I may have some small influence.
Fire is the choice of the young and the strong.
The strongest steel is forged in the hottest of fires.
To be led down the ramp to the slaughterhouse by the one you trusted seems to me the worst of fates.
Bush is, at best, the slower walk.
Your thoughtful reply is much appreciated. It makes a lot of sense.
Sorry,I tend to preach at people. It's an old bad habit.
I mean well. Being a big brother is not always easy.
What you say about the internet is probably true. There is a place for regular citizens here...not everybody has a Phd these days... and we are not blind to the silly games politicians are playing. We need our feelings heard and responded to.
Bush is our guy, for some time to come. We need to work with this administration to get the best for our country. (As bad as things are, imagine for one second how bad it all would be if Kerry or Gore were in office today)....Ay Caramba!
" ..., but only person has the bully pulpit and chooses not to use. I have never understood why this administration is so adamant that the media should be the ones to lead the countries thoughts on every issue..... He never wants to present the facts that would portray his decisions in a good light. It's almost masochistic...."
Exactly. The absence of any semblance of a White House war room and the " Mr Rodgers, Be Happy, When In Doubt Trot Out Bill Clinton " quality to their always belated responses is inexcusable .
Whew!
I almost felt like young David Carradine!
I expected you call me Grasshopper.
I wished we could all argued, and even get a little huffy, why not? But without trying offending or calling each other names. :)
Take care
I wished we could all argued, and even get a little huffy, why not? But without trying offending or calling each other names. :)
Take care
I held out my hand, but you did not grasp the pebble.
I expect more of you.
If this actually happens, it will be one of the greatest political comebacks in modern political history. Bush's political support has never been so low. His base is strongly disaffected and that is a killer in any election, but especially in low-turnout Congressional elections.
True, but the PResident did that here:
"The citizenship line . . . is too long and our current limits on legal immigration are too low,"
| shell game n.
|
The Bush Administration already admits that it misunderestimated conservative opposition to an open border, and regrets only that they didn't finagle and fool us well enough. They think they should have done a shell game on us. They think we are fools, but they are the ones with the plummeting approval ratings, aren't they?
Ding!
Well, Fred is incrementally coming around, I guess: He didn't tell his readers to "get over it" vis-a-vis Bush's plans for illegal immigration [amnesty] as he did, with arms folded over chest, a few months ago on Brit's roundtable program.
Get over it, Fred. While Bush may be the President, he is still a public servant. Did you put that in your book?
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.