Just answer the question: What Presidential candidate even uttered the word "borders" in the 2004 debates?
Why was this not an issue?
Posted on 02/28/2006 8:58:32 PM PST by bayourant
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88747 As we prepare to welcome the leader of the world’s most powerful republic, it behooves us to make sure that we grapple with facts, not just biased opinions. It is unfortunate that so much of the information about the US is derived by our elites from the eastern seaboard, Left-leaning media who are on the opposite side of the American political spectrum from George W. Bush and who therefore have a vested interest in opposing and disparaging him.
The images of Bush they have succeeded in planting internationally are that Bush is dim-witted, a simple-minded religious fanatic, a supporter of a rapacious plutocracy. None of these are based on facts. But like all propaganda, there is a feeling that repeated often enough, loudly enough, it’ll become the accepted truth.
Let us take a look at the facts. The Bush family is as elitist as they get in America. Bush’s grandfather was a Republican senator from Connecticut. His son, George Bush Sr, took the decision literally to move the family “west”. This may seem like an accident. But what an intelligent and fortuitous accident it was. They moved to the southwest just as this part of the US was gaining demographically. The likelihood of a president of the US bobbing up from Connecticut, with its declining population, is pretty low. Texas on the other hand has been for the last 35 years on the rise economically and politically. The Bush family moved to Texas just as the state was moving from over a century of Democratic domination to becoming a bastion of the Republicans. Incidentally, a branch of the Bush family represented by the president’s younger brother has moved to Florida, another state with burgeoning demography and a flourishing economy. The family’s uncanny ability to anticipate the future and “move” to where the future will happen needs no better proof.
President Bush attended Yale and Harvard Business School. Critics will of course make snide remarks that this was on account of family connections. While that may help to some extent, to be dismissive of his attendance of top-class academic establishments would arguably be one more silly under-estimation of the man. Despite representing what is viewed by many as a political party committed to the white Protestant cause, Bush has reached out to the Hispanic community with intelligence and sensitivity. If nothing else, this represents another wise anticipation of demographic inflexion. The Republican Party would condemn itself to irrelevance if it fails to co-opt the growing Hispanic population. At considerable risk to his popularity with xenophobes within his own party, Bush has proposed a Guest Worker programme which is immigrant-friendly and responds to the concerns of the Hispanic voter. His ability to re-fashion himself as a “non-elitist” or to convert a marginal first term victory into a decisive one in the second round are not acts of the politically inept. Those who think of him that way seriously “mis-underestimate” him!
Bush has shown a broad-mindedness and inclusiveness in his appointm-ents that completely demolishes the argument that he is merely a mouthpiece for evangelical Christians. He may be a sincere, pious, believer in his faith, but he’s consistently stood for the separation of church and state and for the inclusiveness of all groups. This may be for principled reasons or because he his politically smart. The net effect has been positive. His executive and judicial appointments embrace Catholics (also new entrant into the stable of Republican supporters), Jews and African-Americans. Note that both his secretaries of state (the senior-most cabinet members) have been African-American. His surgical approach to Senator Trent Lott when he resurrected long-forgotten racial antagonisms is a classic example of heightened sensitivity.
In foreign policy, Bush has the reputation deservedly or otherwise of cold-shouldering Europe (or is it just Old Europe?) and reaching out to China and India. Again, one sees the same knack of grasping the future rather than swimming in the glue of the past. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and he have created an Indo-US CEO forum. Contrast this with Chirac’s clumsy response to the Mittal-Arcelor deal. China is the economic powerhouse of the future and India is headed the same way. Bush’s visit to China highlighted this despite the dozens of reservations and differences on Taiwan and other irritants. He was warmly received by the Chinese elite, an important lesson for his Indian counterparts.
As a betting man, the very fact that Bush is positive about India means that it is quite in order to go long on the Indian stockmarket. His ability to spot the trend has a tested track record. It is equally important to pay attention to the fact that almost instinctively he is on our side on a variety of issues, be it the approach to Islamist terrorism or the approach to nuclear power as a viable, even desirable energy source for the world. He has maintained a clear distance from ecology fundamentalists who would deny India nuclear fuel and at the same time hector us not to burn high-sulphur coal. How exactly are we supposed to provide for an energy-starved population who do not aspire to remain permanently poor?
The one argument I find most entertaining is that he is doing all this for the good of the US. Of course he is. That is what makes his approach so credible and self-sustaining. He has been elected by Americans to further their interests and that’s what he is doing. If he can find that doing business with India makes sense within that agenda, it seems to me that we have all the elements of a relationship not based on frothy rhetoric but on sound convergence of interests. It is in this spirit of intelligent practicality, conscious of our vital interests that we should “do business” with this pragmatic Texan.
Jaithirth Rao is chairman and CEO, Mphasis
PS: 'Shutting our borders' to a substantial and rich culture does not necessarily promote change. In fact, withdrawing into our country (and building a HUGE wall) really does not convey the best 'team-playing' attitude to the world.
"because he was being as Conservative a President as we had ever had."
Ever had? You might want to rethink that. Reagan was far more conservative than Bush ever thought about being.
I would like to think that his judicial appointees will bring the court back to the right but both parties have been screwed by their appointees.
I have voted straight Republican ticket since Nixon was going for his second term but you say I was wrong in doing that. So now you and I get what you want, I won't vote Rep except for Tancredo.
Like one posters tagline says "I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me." And until they start governing conservatively I'll look elsewhere for somebody I want to vote for. No more of this lessor of 2 evils crap. I am not a Republican Party patsy.
Why did you post that Scripture then?
The article pointed out that the Bush family seems to foresee events and make strategic moves ahead of them. It is that point with which I completely agree.
If you've got the money you can subscribe to 2 different weather services that do long range predictions that are 90% accurate not like those government released ones. Any brokerage firm will pay very high fees to either or both of these firms if they do any investing in food commodities like corn, soybeans, orange juice etc. There are other firms that do forecasting of trends that are happening around the world. I don't think the Bush's are that smart as a family period. They are advised by experts where those trends will be and how to take advantage of them.
"Don’t mis-underestimate Dubya"
There is no such word mis-underestimate.
Easier, I suppose, than admitting defeat.
No, just tired of debating with someone that applies logic as if using a hammer to apply paint. As well, it grows old having people come in midway and having to rewrite everything over. The combination of the two makes it a relatively futile and unenjoyable exercise, even for someone who loves a good debate!
You too, you are so far off, the same applies to you.
Your problem is that there is no such thing as practicality to you. Your entire realm of debate is within the realm of politics. I hate to break it to ya, but there is a whole other world out there than the one inside the beltway. Yet, speaking to you, you'd never know, eh.
Just answer the question: What Presidential candidate even uttered the word "borders" in the 2004 debates?
Why was this not an issue?
And therein lies your problem! You also most clearly have no practical understanding of Islam. Absolutely none!
Allow me to rephrase your question/statement above, and see if this helps. After that I am bowing out of this thread. This is high school level nonsense.
Here goes:
How can [Europe and America] remain one of the 'civilized societies that are tolerant' (which i think is a good thing) while at the same time shut out [X%] of the worlds population?
What if Muslims were Nazis? Because Islam is nothing short of Nazism. To deny that is to ignore the reality and "fruits" of the spread of Islam.
Again, I'm outta here!
I have to conclude that you want to be banned, considering that you're engaging in personal attacks rather than answering questions.
What Presidential candidate campaigned on closing our borders in 2004?
Name that candidate.
This is a test. There will be a grade.
BUMP
But, due to unfortunate experiences with unfortunate people on this forum of late, I have decided to give up 'debating' with bashers for Lent, so I will leave this thread with this thought only, and will not reply, should you respond with further insult.
"The President is an honorable man, and everyone here knows it. He would never do anything to endanger our lives, and everyone here knows it. God bless and protect him, as he seeks the wisdom from HIM to lead this country in the direction it needs to go. We are truly blessed by God's mercy in giving us this righteous leader. PRAY for him."
Nor am I. But I am educated enough to know that the Republican party was less conservative under Nixon and Ford than it is now, and giving up on the party now, having supported it in the 70's makes no sense.
As to the comparative conservatism of Reagan and Bush43, it depends on what you're looking at. From my perspective as a moral conservative Christian, Bush is more conservative. From my perspective as one who wants to end abortion, Bush is more conservative. From my perspective as a military Mom, and strong patriot, they are equals in building the military, defending America (other than one goof of Reagan's in Lebanon), and equals in fighting for the freedom of oppressed people.
But we can debate until the cows come home about this, and not resolve it. We will have to let history resolve it, but I think the movement of the court to the right already will prove to be the deciding factor. Reagan (albeit unwittingly) contributed to the Courts leaning left. Bush (wittingly) has finally moved it back where it belongs........to the Constitution.
For me, that's the bottom line here. No more debate for me. Thanks for the civil replies. It is increasingly rare around here.
I posted that Scripture because I attempt to live by the Bible and to see Christ's teachings in everyday life, viewing his parables in practical, daily situations as he did. Move your eagle eye to someone more deserving of your fastidious zeal.
"Move your eagle eye to someone more deserving of your fastidious zeal."
It was you and others who jumped on me when I posted my first post. You see, I don't care how you vote but you sure do care about how I vote and think or at least you seem to.
Here's what your President thinks of our Constituion:
http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/bush_on_the_constitution/
Au contraire. My first post was the Biblical quote about the prophet in his home town, on which you jumped. Read first, before slinging accusations.
You used a verse of Scripture that did not apply to the situation, that's why I jumped on it. And you agree you were not saying that Bush was a prophet. It's up to you to figure out why you posted that Scripture when you knew was not appropiate. Mishandling the Word of God deceitfully is what I call it.
You know, I was unaware that God had fired St. Peter and put you in his place as the judge of mankind. My apologies.
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.