[Dialup Llama]

Bush won IN SPITE OF, not due to, his abominable, unconscionable position advocating open borders.

The fact that our borders have not been secured years after 9-11 is gov't malpractice. If we ever get "hit" again (as Homeland Security keeps telling us), it will no doubt be due in part to lax border controls (as it was with 9-11). If such a terrible event were to happen again, there would be a serious move to oust whoever the sitting President is with the charge of deriliction of duty. (That is the President has a positive duty to protect the borders. He does not have a Constitutional requirement to make Mexicans or ethnic rights groups feel happy.)

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I don't see what President Bush's problem is.

Evidently, he doesn't realize that his duty is to uphold the United States Constitution, and to do his duty to protect Americans, not to placate La Raza, or Maldef, or LULAC, or Naleo, or the virulently racist, anti-Semitic Mechistas, or anyone else from the Reconquista brigades.

[rimmont]

"The fact that our borders have not been secured years after 9-11 is gov't malpractice.

The fact that 9-11 happened at all is evidence of government malpractice, as is the colossal negiligence on the border issue, the failure in New Orleans, etc. I fear that what we are seeing here is ongoing evidence of something far more serious than "malpractice". Could it possibly be evidence of a complete breakdown in the proper functioning of the system which has already occurred?

We have legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions, a completely ossified two party domination of politics, totally disproportionate influence of various "lobbies", certain topics about which no debate is allowed to take place, an increasingly ignorant and apathetic population. If the system is trying to tell us that it is broken, is it any wonder why?