You give Bush way too much power.
If Tom Tancredo was president the dems would still be able to block the house bill in the senate with the filibuster.
If the president doesn't have 60 solid republicans on his side in the senate he can't get anything done.
What kind of nonsense response is that? I was discussing something Bush said in a speech. The Senate Dems don' filibuster what he says.
All I get from you is one of the ten or so boilerplate responses from the usual suspects, many of which are used, like this one, completely out of context from the post in question.
And, once again, if Bush was against amnesty, it would take 67 votes to override his veto, as opposed to 60 votes to break a filibuster. So his positions DO matter.
That's true but at least Tancredo would make an attempt to enforce the law and then maybe we wouldn't be at this point to begin with.
At one time, there was something called "presidential leadership." It entailed telling people in your own party that if they didn't do the right thing they'd pay politically.
You've obviously mistaken the president for someone who cares about the American people---the Mexican people, yes---the American people, no.
Yes but if Tancredo were president he could execute existing laws against illegal immigration; Something that is in the presidents' power that's notably absent from the current executive.