Posted on 05/12/2006 11:52:13 AM PDT by Icelander
sarc/off
"I am rather confused about your term of 'Border Bots.'
Can you clarify your definition?"
"BorderBot" started somewhere as a pejorative term, like "BushBot" is used by some on FreeRepublic to describe a mind-numbed pro-Bush robot, who will say and do anything to support the President, no matter what the President does.
Likewise, "RepubliBot" gets used as a pejorative here for folks who are fierce Republican Party devotees.
Well, in the fierce cut-and-thrust of the debate over the Mexican Border, a couple of days ago I saw a "RepubliBot" write angrily that the 'unappeasable border bots' are going to give Congress to the Democrats.
BorderBots...a term that was intended to be pejorative, and to mean folks who are obsessed with the Mexican Border/Illegal Immigration issue.
I liked the term because it filled a need. I've been writing about the border issue for awhile, but didn't have a good simple term to refer to Border-and-illegal-immigration-focused conservatives. I called them "Border Republicans", "Anti-illegal Immigration folks", "Border Conservatives"...but then I saw "BorderBot", and it was perfect.
That the term was intended to be a sneering denunciation of the Border Conservatives by RepubliBots made it doubly delicious.
And so "BorderBot" was born. I use the term affectionately, as shorthand for: "Conservatives who believe that controlling the Mexican Border and stopping illegal immigration is the most pressing concern of all, and who will withhold financial support and votes from the Republican Party if the Republicans won't fence the border." That's a BorderBot. And they will determine the outcome of the 2006 elections.
Either Congress will appease them and give them the Fence they demand this year, at which point the BorderBots will flock back to the Republican colors, contribute, volunteer and vote in order to preserve the gain they've made in the Fence...which will mean the Republican majority endures.
Or Congress will give them the stiff arm and refuse to give a Fence this year, which will cause the BorderBots to wipe the dust from the soles of their feet concerning the Republicans, fold their arms and their wallets and stay home...which will mean that the Democrats pick up both houses of Congress, that tax hikes are proposed, an Iraq withdrawal is precipitated by a cutoff of funds, and President Bush will be impeached.
Now, I'm not a BorderBot, but my own view is that what they want to be appeased, a Border Fence, is not very expensive or unreasonable. I think that, in order to save the REST OF the Republican agenda, these people need to be appeased, and FAST. So, I think Congress and the President should cave in now and give the BorderBots their fence, even if they don't want to.
My current tagline is to that effect.
Henry of Navarre was the last legitimate heir to the throne of France after the exhausting French Civil War between Protestant Huguenots and the Catholic League. The Protestants had gotten the worst of it, but were by no means completely defeated. The country was exhausted and craved peace, and the only LEGITIMATE King possible was Henry of Navarre, of the House of Bourbon. He was well-viewed by many on both sides, and everyone knew that he needed to get on the Throne for the Civil War to end.
Problem: he was a Protestant, a Huguenot. The only legitimate heir to the Throne, the only man who could bring peace to the country by ascending the throne, was not eligibile for the title of "His Most Christian Majesty" because he wasn't Catholic. If he mounted the Throne a Protestant, the Papacy and the Church would not accept him as legitimate, and the Catholic League would continue the long, dreary civil war. Protestants would suffer even more, because they had already lost the primary war. They would slowly be cleaned out of every last stronghold, with untold horror for everyone. Bad result. So what could he do?
Henry of Navarre pondered the issue, and finally concluded "Paris vaut bien une Messe" - Paris is well worth a Mass, and converted, rather insincerely, to Catholicism. Now, everybody knew that the conversion was insincere. He didn't much change his opinions. He immediately issued the famous Edict of Nantes that tolerated Protestant Religion across France. He pretended to be a Catholic King, because it was the only way Henry of Navarre could become Henry IV and all of France, Catholic and Protestant, have peace.
So, he outwardly compromised on his religion, and put on the necessary SHOW to allow the Catholic party to accept him, while at the same time issuing the laws and edicts that ensured that his former Protestant co-religionists had peace and were allowed to resume their normal lives in France. ONE man compromised on his fundamental morals, his religion, in public, so that millions could live and have peace. Paris vaut bien une messe. Paris is well-worth a mass.
I think that the Republicans are in a similar position right now vis-a-vis the BorderBots. It's clear that Bush, McCain, Frist, others, really do not think it is moral to have enforcement without amnesty. They are morally committed to the idea of amnesty. They don't think a border fence is necessary.
But if they don't give in on this point, if they will not compromise their morals and scruples on the issue, then the BorderBots will defect completely and the whole Republican agenda will be lost as Congress is lost.
I have concluded that Congress is well worth a Wall: le Congres vaut bien un mur.
Therefore, Paris vaut bien une messe...et le Congres vaut bien un mur.
Sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.
>>>If at Monday's address to the nation President Bush does anything less than put the Guard on the border, his approval rating will drop another 5-10 percent and rightly so.
I agree. His wording will be very important. Parse the language carefully. Watch for Clinton-type weazel words. Look for words that signal pieces of paper being shuffled, or commissions to look into things, or the military to "look into" sending the military to the border.
Instead, what we want to see is wording like "Next Monday x divisions will be moved to the southern border and will be under the command of y." or "Next Monday the Corps of Engineers will release design/construct contracts for building an Israeli fence along the southern border."
Look for action statements. Look for things that happen "now" and not in the future. Anything else will be too late or pandering to the conservatives. Please, may he choose wisely.
Can't vote, no consevatives running, how about this:
If the election were held today who would you vote for?
George W Bush ()
Tom Coburn ()
or maybe:
George W Bush ()
James Senssenbrenner ()
or maybe:
George W Bush ()
Tom Tancredo ()
Get beyond the name recognition factor, and see how well your boy does if he ever had to run against an actual conservative.
"Get beyond the name recognition factor, and see how well your boy does if he ever had to run against an actual conservative."
My Boy! Give me a break!
I was a Barry Goldwater supporter. And I remember Ronald Reagan's speech in support of Barry. Ok?
If you don't...well...
Sending troops will not solve the problem.
Troops can be sent, and withdrawn.
A FENCE is the only permanent solution.
That's what they've got to do.
If they talk about troops but no fence, they are trying to deceive people that something is going to be done, but they don't really intend to follow through and close the border in the end.
The only thing that will appease the BorderBots is a PERMANENT BARRIER - a Fence, a Wall. Troops are good. But troops without a wall are a temporary political ploy that is INTENDED to dupe.
The words that will determine the November election will be in that speech: either there will be a Wall the WHOLE LENGTH of the Border in the speech - THAT'S the alpha priority of BorderBots - or there will be something less than that, in which case Bush may as well not make the speech, because it will only infuriate the BorderBot base all the more. Troops with a Fence is best of all. But if there's no Fence, there's no border control in the medium and long run. And there will be no more Republican Congress after November.
The only words that ultimately matter in that speech will be "a Fence (or wall, or barrier) from sea to shining sea", or words to that effect. If that's there, the Republicans win in November (and the country wins long term). If it's not, bonjour Speaker Pelosi.
In reality, they've got no room to maneuver. I hope they realize the EXTENT of disaffection in the BorderBot base, and the talismanic effect of those words "Continuous Wall" or "Continuous Fence". If those words are there, the speech will be a raging success. If they are not, Bush is impeached next year by Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid prepares for the impeachment trial.
That's just the way it is.
"He'll be in office longer than that...it will take the Democrats until about May of 09 to wrap up the impeachment proceedings. It's coming, and Dubya only has himself to blame for not getting out the truth instead of letting the MSN frame the debate."
That makes no sense.
Crush. Kill. Destroy!
I wasn't arguing the math but the constant degrading of a strong economy. I personally don't care what the debt is because most is public debt and the rest gets taken out in taxes because the government won't cut discretionary spending that the President wants. There's too many Rats and Rinos in congress right now to do it and '06 can be the year for change if instead of trying to rid Republicans because "we're angry" get rid of the Rats and then the Rinos will be crowded out. Don't tear up a whole yard to rid some weeds.
Fining employers that hire illegals, building a wall on the borders and begin deporting illegals that have not yet begun to deport themselves along with drilling oil in ANWR and building new refineries should raise these 2 numbers drastically and we will have less of a nailbiting campaign this year.
Unless this is the Harris poll I saw yesterday, this is the second poll I saw this week with Bush at 29%. Anything under 30% indicates that he lost his base. No wonder he's coming on tv monday.
>>>If they talk about troops but no fence, they are trying to deceive people that something is going to be done, but they don't really intend to follow through and close the border in the end.
Insightful post. You are most likely right on the fence being the core requirement.
Sadly, I'm betting that he'll use weasel words on Monday based on his prior statements ("doing jobs Americans won't do", etc.), prior action (supporting phased amnesty), and based on my guess that they don't appreciate the disaffection in the ranks (as evidenced by many posts here on FR) and the amount of time it takes to show action through bureaucracies.
But we can always hope he makes a conversion on this issue -- not a gesture.
Ok, I'll go put on my flame retardant undies now.
"Sadly, I'm betting that he'll use weasel words on Monday"
In which case he will lose Congress in the Fall, be impeached next year, and lose the War on Terror as well, when Congress cuts funding.
If he will not cave and give the Fence, he will politically destroy the Republican Party and his Presidency.
That's just the way it is.
Give a sea-to-sea Fence, and the Republican Party comes back together rapidly and dramatically; his polls surge.
Leave out the Fence, and he will be an impeached President who lost Congress and a war.
There is only one smart move here: Congress is well-worth a Wall!
I was reading your very long post, and before I even scrolled down to see what the name was I knew it was you. You have been very level-headed in this whole thing.
The tableau is set, the pieces are in place. Each side is one move from check-mate, but the President has the next move.
IF Bush proclaims a sea-to-sea Fence on Monday, and issues an Executive Order to start construction, the Republican base surges back together. His polls soar, and the Republicans keep Congress.
Any other move, and the Republicans lose it all.
Says who? You?
I'm one of those who believes that there is no issue more important than who gets to become an American and under what circumstances.
To the GOP party faithful I would say good luck trying to get any future legislation passed (let alone get yourselves elected), good luck trying to fight future 'Wars on Terror', good luck with those tax cuts, etc etc once 30 million dirt poor illegal aliens from a socialist country complete their 'path to citizenship'.
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.