Posted on 05/09/2006 7:50:33 AM PDT by Incorrigible
"And my position is that Bush MUST drop his call for a guest worker program, or else Bush could well erode support for the GOP House and help a Dem victory."
I apologise, I have gotten the horse before the cart. I submit that when the House does compromise with the Senate you will probably be on the 'throw the bums out band wagon.' With so many people in this country illegally, we must do something beyond closing the borders.
One of two things can happen:
1) Compromise
2) No immigration reform.
I am thinking 1 is still better than 2 if we get control of the border. So in reality the drop the guest worker program thing won't fly.
Interesting article that deserves a response.
Bush has been, in my mind, a very good President. I'd rate him second-best after Reagan in my lifetime and would argue against any who say otherwise.
But Bush has not been a very good conservative.
His 'compassionate conservative' is another way of saying he's a sometimes conservative who is more than happy to stray off the reservation when he feels like it, especially on fiscal matters.
And therein lies the rub.
yYu can cite numerous cases where Bush should or could have been more conservative. But you can also cite cases where Bush has done things the right way - From Chief Justice Roberts to significant tax cuts to an energy bill that finally after 20 years will let us build nuclear power plants again.
Bush, for all the tons of ink the New York Times has spilled to blacken his name on Iraq and the war on terror, has pursued it exactly as he promised in the days after 9/11, and has done his best under difficult circumstances and with critics who are in many cases hypocrites, liars and frauds (from Ray McGovern and Cindy Sheehan extremists to the political machinations of Biden, Hillary and Howard Dean). Much of his political baggage is the reality of the DIFFICULTY AND DANGERS OF WAR ITSELF. He is given 100% of the blame but none of the credit for navigating through these difficulties.
Bush's lack of adherence to conservative orthodoxy makes him a maddening figure to some on the right ... especially the trust-nobody paleo-con types who abhor his nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and think Dubai Ports World is a terrorist front organization.
Politics at its best is the politics of addition - groups with different views come together for common goals ... at worst, it is substraction, where the Bush coalition is peeled away by groups griping that their views arent heard, forgetting of all they got from the coalition.
Some leader will have to put humpty-dumpty back together again, or there will be a conservative crack-up. After the crack-up will come wilderness years, and to see that so soon after we hit the Trifecta in 2004 ... GOP House, GOP Senate, GOP President elected ... is a travesty and a tragedy.
For that political blunder, to come so low after being so high - yes, we can partly blame Bush.
Bush has had a tin ear for years to key conservative issues - the Harriet Miers fiasco and his continued failure to grasp political realities on immigration being the two most salient... but Bush was also the one who forced, yes, forced conservative Congressmen to vote for the prescription drug package, a deal that looked wrong even when it was being voted on, and looks like bad politics and bad policy now. It can be said that every attempt made by Bush to 'triangulate' to the middle has been a political mistake. The best he did was NCLB - No Child Left Behind - which gave him 'credit' for advancing standards in education, but satisfied no educator, with them whining about 'unfunded' programs, even though Dept of Ed spending ballooned.
It took Bush to actually make liberals dislike the Dept of Education and be for states rights! Amazing! All from a bill that was a 'bipartisan compromise' with Kennedy.
Let's make a simple rule: If Kennedy is a co-sponsor, it's a bad bad bill!
Why can't Bush veto stuff... not everything but just, say, prok barrel 'bridge to nowhere' funding, or that egregious McCain-Feingold campaign regulation bill, that Bush himself stated he opposed.
But Conservatives, we have to blame ourselves too.
Can we stand by principle and our President at the same time? Can recognize the wheat from the chaff, the important from the trivial? Can we stop ourselve from the madness of groupthink and hyperbole? (After the Dubai ports world, I think not).
"I have met the enemy, and it is us!"
I submit that you should start debating what I'm actually saying. And quit pretending it's Bush's way or the Dem's way when a third, GOP-conservative backed way has already passed the House.
I am thinking 1 is still better than 2 if we get control of the border. So in reality the drop the guest worker program thing won't fly.
And I am saying that ANY approach to dealing with illegals in this country, from amensty to a guest worker program to deportation, will fail and fail utterly until such time that we have significantly improved border security. I don't care what your positions are on immigration reform - that can be debated lately. But even the coyotes are reporting a large uptick in business as long as a guest worker program is being discussed, let alone passed, without better border security.
My guess would be because the Republicans have been in charge of Congress. Few presidents are going to use the veto pen a lot against their own party. Also, Bush has needed congressinal help with the war on terror, in which he used a lot of his capital.
Heck, it's gotten to where a lot of people seem to forget the veto even exists. Reagan used the veto 78 times, mostly in order to restrain spending.
Well, Reagan used the veto pen many times for social issues such as when he vetoed the civil rights bill, which was promptly overridden. His major spending vetoes were all (As I recall) overridden. Some smaller ones were not, but not sure that the issues weren't transfered to one of the 13 appropriations bills.
So when 141 marines were slaughtered in Lebanon, you would not have cut and run? That trajedy may have been popular with a Democratic House, but provided a legacy that when combined with the inaction of Clinton for 8 years helped explain the growth of terror as a tool to achieve the ultimate goal of an Islamic empire. Until George Bush, we had completely failed to respond adequately to terrorism.
Cutting taxes? Given the Republican majorities in both houses Bush's tax cuts were weak, back-loaded and sunsetted.
And designed to encourage investment, which it did and turned around a recession. Given the war on terror, and the President's resolve not to give up on the tax cuts in spite of the massive costs associated with that effort, I would say, they were hardly weak. After 9/11, any Democrat and many Republicans would have quickly passed tax increases. I think it likely that any President will use the veto pen when the House belongs to the opposition party. Someone did a study or a book that looked at spending when the same party was in total control (as now) and when there was opposition in the Congress. Amazing findings. Didn't matter what party it was. Spending increased with the same party in control. As for Reagan's vetoes, yes he vetoed spending bills, but most of the large ones were overridden with no change. Other small ones were simply shifted to one of the 13 appropriations bills. But no argument. Spending did not increase under Reagan by anywhere near the same % as Bush. And no, I don't know that any Freeper would have done what Bush has done on the WOT. Cannot speculate...neither can you.
Reagan's 9/11 was the Marine barracks in Lebanon where known terrorists killed 221. In response, Reagan cut and run, and instead invaded Graneda. After 9/11, Bush defeated the terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan, and then took on Iraq, in addition to numerous other actions in the war on terror. Reagan was completely in control of when and where to take action. Bush was not. After Lebanon, I don't think that Reagan's legacy will be reflective of a strong CIC. He was able to spend enough to get the Soviets to cry uncle, but let's face it Afghanistan was really their achilles' heel, and combined with a disasterous economy, finally proved their unravelling.
Reagan built up the military to overwhelm the capabilities of his adversaries before they were needed. Bush is rebuilding the forces after he committed them.
See previous response. Washington was not prepared in any way to fight the British; Lincoln had to build an army quickly; Our military was totally unprepared for WW2, and the military inherited by Bush was not ready for 9/11. But every president that had to face war had to build on the run. Most stepped up.
Reagan had the patience and strategic genius to outmaneuver the Soviets before he ever engaged them. Bush jumped in first and then scrambled to put together the details of his plan.
See previous rebut. I won't take anything away from Reagan, but it's no secret that his spending was one of the keys. Afghanistan and the Soviet economy certainly helped tremendously.
Reagan controlled spending in conjunction with tax cuts. Bush threw money at everything in sight.
Reagan's deficits were out of site, and he had no war on terror to fight. I won't argue that Bush cannot control spending, but neither can a Republican controlled Congress. Any president will use the veto pen when the opposition controls the House. No period when Congress and the presidency were controlled by the same party has been able to control spending, Republican or Democrat.
Reagan pushed the envelope of his authority with finesse. Bush pushes it with with a bulldozer.
LOL. Finesse? I completely approve of what Reagan did with Iran/Contra, but would hardly call it finesse. When push came to shove, and the Democrats put the Boland Amendment in a continuing resolution, Reagan chose not to veto it, but simply to ignore it. Bush is doing his job, if that means using a bulldozer, so be it. No one complained when FDR used a bulldozer.
Reagan was effective because he thought out his strategy and then executed it with the precision of a scalpel. Bush impatiently bashed away with a sledgehammer and left the details to others to figure out after the fact.
As reflected above, Reagan was good as a peace time Republican in full control of the timing of all of his actions. Bush has had no such bed of roses. All presidents rely on others to develop the details. But the good ones will make the hard calls. Some prove correct, others problematical. As for the WOT, I would take Bush over Reagan any day.
Reagan would have fought the WoT primarily with intelligence and covert ops. He would have dumped the CIA on its ear and rebuilt it before engaging them, not afterward like Bush is doing.
I agree that Reagan would likely not have reacted to 9/11 as did Bush. Perhaps that's how Reagan would have fought WW2 after Pearl Harbor. I do think you give Reagan way too much credit for something that he showed he was not up to...fighting terrorism.
The meek may inherit the earth, but they have no place on the battlefield.
I know Reagan's methods and I know Bush's. Bush is no Reagan.
You're right. One is a good commander-in-chief, and one was lacking.
I think it is you who need the reminder that Clinton wrecked his party. Sure, he stayed in power, but he lost them Congress, eventually the Senate, and left them no viable candidate for President. He was also followed by Bush, who ran as (whatever he has actually turned out to be) a middle-of-the road Republican (really only less conservative than Pat Buchanan and such), as opposed to a liberal one like McCain.
Clinton paved the way for Bush by giving birth to the MoveOn.org Democratic party.
I agree and have said seal the borders. Yes the House has a Bill. Problems arise with the Senate, They will shut down the whole thing without some dumba$$ 'Path to Citizenship'. Compromise must have some legalized method in it. There will be no deportation. That is clear if nothing else. The best we can hope for is actual border security. The President has proposed as item one control the Border. I say take him at his word (say what you will, he tries to do what he has promised).
The Rats want Amnesty or the closest thing they can get to kill our base. It also is electively advantageous. They have proven that they can block even modest changes to the Senate version and will crush anything like the House version coming from the Conference. They win with a Bill like this or by not getting any Bill. (They obviously see that 'Do Nothing Congress' polls in their favor but pissed off border nazis are their most promising allies.)
I will be there in November to vote for the best choices available to me. I will be there for the primaries and every other election. I will do what I can, when I can. I will never knowingly help a Rat to win because I know one thing for damn sure, I will not agree with anything the leftists have to say.
Pi$$ing on everything the President does is not going to fix any problems that you have and giving Pelosi and Reid control will only make things worse. Complain all you want but; Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid with Pix of these two and Hillary should be on every available bullitin board for years to come.
We must continue to have sufficient conventional forces to support NATO and UN commitments, but the war on terror will likely require resources to be committed to locations better served by special ops and air assets. Should we come to blows with Iran, our naval assets will be absolutely essential.
I can't stand Bush because he won't return my phone calls.
As far as I can tell, there is a die hard segment here that will not cut Bush slack unless he says I'm making border jumping a felony, rounding up every illegal, and shipping them back.
Bush is not going to do that because he thinks it's a real bad idea. Why? Because it is a real bad idea.
It becomes a felony to be an illegal. A policeman finds one. He arrests one. He arraigns him before a district judge. Bail is set. He can't make it. He's hauled off to county prison. A preliminary hearing is scheduled. What, he doesn't have a lawyer? Well, the county will provide one at no cost. Now, times that by 11 million.
Then of course they go to trial with jurors being picked and courtrooms being put in use. Now, let's say they are all convicted. Well times that by 11 million.
Well, you might say we don't have to arrest and convict them all. You can just arrest them? What next? Isn't that what we are doing now?
There are solutions to the problem. One is passing federal legislation prohibiting tax dollars (schools, Medicare, Social Security) from being given to illegals. That wouldn't cost us a thing (and actually save us money) unlike trying to enforce a felony law.
Still, it's not likely to solve the problem. Which leads to amnesty/guest worker, and as much as many/most here hate it, it still beats the status quo.
As far as I can tell, there is a die hard segment here that will not cut Bush slack unless he says I'm making border jumping a felony, rounding up every illegal, and shipping them back.
Bush is not going to do that because he thinks it's a real bad idea. Why? Because it is a real bad idea.
It becomes a felony to be an illegal. A policeman finds one. He arrests one. He arraigns him before a district judge. Bail is set. He can't make it. He's hauled off to county prison. A preliminary hearing is scheduled. What, he doesn't have a lawyer? Well, the county will provide one at no cost. Now, times that by 11 million.
Then of course they go to trial with jurors being picked and courtrooms being put in use. Now, let's say they are all convicted. Well times that by 11 million.
Well, you might say we don't have to arrest and convict them all. You can just arrest them? What next? Isn't that what we are doing now?
There are solutions to the problem. One is passing federal legislation prohibiting tax dollars (schools, Medicare, Social Security) from being given to illegals. That wouldn't cost us a thing (and actually save us money) unlike trying to enforce a felony law.
Still, it's not likely to solve the problem. Which leads to amnesty/guest worker, and as much as many/most here hate it, it still beats the status quo.
Correct. But they aren't going to vote Democrat, so they can put the champaign away.
Things are close enough that they can in fact hoist a glass of bubbly. Speaker Pelosi is a very real possibility if we sit this one out.
There are some hardcores in that regard. But there are far more people who say secure the borders first, and then we'll talk about what to do with the people here. And that is a rational position held by folks such as Krauthammer who think we should have amnesty for those here already.
Which leads to amnesty/guest worker, and as much as many/most here hate it, it still beats the status quo.
Passing amnesty or a guest worker program before the borders are much more secure will only make matters worse by increasing the flow of illegals - just as Reagan's amnesty without border security did the same, and Bush's talk of a guest worker program has caused illegal immigration to jump significantly.
And that makes sense, of course, but even there you have to think about it.
Besides the real and high cost of building and maintaining fences and such you have the problem of possibly damming the fish in the pond.
Tom Coburn has expressed skepticism about the border control plans on the table as I understand it. Still, this is not something unresolvable.
Bush's big problem is that he has trouble talking with the American people about these issues. It's the big weakness his father had too.
Reagan and Clinton were both very good at it.
Oh, IMO we can come up with ways to let out the fish that are already here who want to leave. Heck, I'd support bus rides back over the border for any illegal who wants to leave of their own accord.
But a wall would keep more fish from coming into the pond.
I agree there are a lot of details to work out. But you have to start by agreeing on the eventual objective, and border security affects both illegal immigration and our own domestic security needs during a time when terrorists wish to come here and attack us.
Agreed!! And some kind of fence is probably a good idea.
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.