Posted on 05/20/2006 5:11:47 PM PDT by gwb43_2004
As a candidate in 2000, George W. Bush was a Rorschach test. Country Club Republicans saw him as another George H.W. Bush; some conservatives, thinking wishfully, saw him as another Ronald Reagan. He called himself a "compassionate conservative," which meant whatever one wanted it to mean. Experts from across the party's spectrum were flown to Austin to brief Bush and reported back: "He's one of us."
Republicans were desperate to retake the White House, conservatives were desperate to get the Clinton liberals out and there was no direct heir to Reagan running for president. So most conservatives supported Bush as the strongest candidate -- some enthusiastically and some, like me, reluctantly. After the disastrous presidency of his father, our support for the son was a triumph of hope over experience.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Not to be picky but Dick Morris stole this from Jesse Unruh, Democrat-California. This from Capital Hill Blues Blog.
from the May 19, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0519/p09s02-cods.html
Bush may be losing his base
Conservatives are openly dissenting from policies of Republican leadership.
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - The term "base" is not in William Safire's political dictionary, but he tells me it will be included in the next edition. "Base" refers to that solid core of political supporters who will stick with you through electoral thick and thin as long as you are perceived as advancing their principles. Most often, the term is applied to religious conservatives.
Something seems to have gone off the rails between President Bush and his base, judging by a recent Gallup poll that shows his support among conservatives down from a long-standing 80 percent to a current 50 percent.
Religious conservatives have found the administration and Congress falling short on issues such as same-sex marriage, obscenity, and abortion. They have expressed disappointment that the president has not been more active in seeking a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The issue of the week is immigration. In what he called a compromise proposal in his television speech on Monday night, the president sought to allay the criticism of conservatives by proposing to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops along the Mexican border.
There may be less there than meets the eye. The Guard troops will be mainly in support roles. The arrangement may not last more than a year. And the president, who also has a business base, felt compelled to propose a "guest-worker" (not amnesty, repeat, not amnesty) program.
At the same time, the administration was trying to shift attention to consensus Republican issues such as tax cuts and judicial nominations. But, the dissension within Republican ranks was evident. The $105 billion war-spending bill, passed by the Senate, was called "dead on arrival" by House speaker Dennis Hastert. When Senate majority leader Bill Frist called Gen. Michael Hayden the "ideal man" for CIA Director, Speaker Hastert announced his opposition to having a military man in the job.
Influential conservatives have begun speaking openly of their reservations about the Republican leadership. Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, has said that he might turn critic of the administration unless it does more to deliver on conservative goals.
At this point, the thunder from the right may be in the nature of admonition. But I can recall a time when evangelicals shunned the ballot box. If that were to happen again, it would change the face of American politics.
for anyone still under the impression that Bush is right on immigration reform:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961389340&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Former President Bill Clinton on Sunday said President George W. Bush is doing a good job on immigration reform, praising his call for better border security and moderation in dealing with illegal immigrants.
"I basically think President Bush has done a good job with this," Clinton told a convention of shopping center developers. "I'm different with him on nearly everything, but I think he's done a good job with this."
except
A WORD OF WARNING...ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT A RETURN TO THE YEARS OF BUBBA CLINTON...
OK, let me get this right...
President Bush, who has always been forthcoming in expressing his views, somehow betrayed the conservative base? Is that the (true, Goldwater & Reagan) conservative base, or the self-important Conservative pseudoparty, (read Buchanan, et al)?
Second, better to teach the GOP a lesson and allow the selection of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Harry Reid as Majority Leader, then to vote for a Republican Party you don't agree with 100%!?
A vote for a third party or a non-vote IS a vote for the Democrats. YOU want that? NOTHING will get done except repeal of tax breaks, shameful abandonment of Iraq, and impeachment of President Bush. You want that?
So, if you want a Democrat House and Senate, impeachment of President Bush, abandonment of the GWOT in Iraq, and economic recession, then don't vote Republican this year.
A lot has come to pass since that speech in 2000, and we've had the opportunity to learn a lot more about GWB's views and beliefs, as has he. Do you consider that 2000 speech more significant than "We will not tire. We will not falter. We will not fail." This is my president, and I am proud and grateful to be able to support him without equivocation.
The socialist revolutionaries leading the demonstrations were from this country, not from Central or South America. Our own leftists were getting out in front of those demonstrations to express their own views and to try to form solidarity with the illegals. The president wants a bill passed by Congress that will improve the situation, and he can't get that without getting something through the Senate. He is going to get the best result he can. He needs it to be consistent with our long term fight against terrorists.
b.s. he can enforce existing laws for the time being. he can stop the flow of illegals. all he has to do is pick up the phone and say "go."
and yeah. it is that simple.
no. this is a ruse. a deception. a ploy by el presidente supremo jorge abusto (and bill clinton, and the senate demonrats, and their rino enablers [and you, too, by the way]) to import one to two hundred million non english speaking welfare recipients and demorat voters, and forever change this country for the worse.
In a way, yes. It shows where Bush's mindset has been about illegals from the start. He has kept that mindset even today.
I doubt you could misunderstand the president so badly as to think he aims to empower the Democrats and change the country for the worse. If you actually believe that, you are deceiving yourself; it's not something the president has done.
Presently, we get some public support from the British and the Italians in the war on terror. We get some non-public support from the Germans and the French. Each of those countries is losing native populations rapidly, and their immigrants are largely muslim. Who will our allies be if the islamo-fascists conquer Europe? We are fortunate that those entering our country are essentially Christian who share our values that treasure life and prosperity. The president is not seeking no borders among American countries, but he does seek improved means of dealing with the immigration issues. To get anything done, he must get it through the Senate, which means satisfying a lot of primadonas.
When he referred to the Minutemen as 'vigilantes.'
The writing was all over the wall back in '99. Ignoring the Trotskyite nature of the Neo-Cons is the real betrayal of liberty. Like a dog shaking the life out of its prey, the masters of the Hegelian dialectic are whipsawing the last vestiges of liberty out of existence. When a fire that's not hot enough to fell a building destroys the foundation of the law it's time to check your premises.
Nice job on your profile page.
Thanks. Nice to hear from you. The profile page is in want of an update, but I remain intransigent with respect to my philosphy.
You are correct in your assessment of the neocon moveement. It's discouraging to me to see how many are willling to see our Republic die the death of a thousand cuts while denouncing those of us who call things by their proper names 'single issue' conservatives.
There are none so blind asthose who refuse to see.
perhaps you remember rose bird, former chief justice of the california supreme court. voted out of office because she wrote stuff like: "the intent to commit murder cannot be assumed merely from the fact that the defendent stabbed the deceased 42(?) 47(?) times."
i am not making this up.
well, you know, bush has the same credibility problem. the numbers, the massively changing demographics are there for all to see. still he persists. the violation of principles (rule of law, rewarding lawbreakers, etc.) is there for all to see. still, he persists. 80% of the citizens of this country do not, for good reason, want what george bush is shoving down our throats (and, sorry, but it's OUR country, not his), but still, he persists.
i'm sorry, but unlike rose bird and others, i do draw fair inferences from facts.
Massively changing demographics? If that is what is concerning you, let's consider them. European countries have birthrates about half what is required to maintain their populations. The U. S. birthrate is about equal, not quite, to maintenance level (about 2 per woman). The U. S. has about 300 million population, about a third of whom are willing to fight for national interests. Another third is more or less neutral, and the remaining third is antagonistic to U. S. interests. The world muslim population is about 1.3 billion, and many muslim countries have birthrates in the range of 7-9 per woman. The muslims have not bought into the "woman's right to choose" promoted by the European and American Left, which essentially seeks more space left to those of us who actually get born.
Immigrants to Europe are largely muslim, although I don't have specifics. If you want to see massively changing demographics, I suggest you look at Europe. For those complaining about our immigrants being insufficiently European (yes, I've seen some such complaints), just how are we going to expect large numbers of Europeans to come to the U. S. if they can't populate their own countries? Oh yes, I see, they will be abandoning their own countries to the muslims.
The islamo-fascist radicals are being sponsored by muslim states who cannot confront the U. S. through conventional warfare. They have us sufficiently outnumbered that they consider any one of them who dies while taking at least one of us with them has done the necessary deed to prevail entirely in the end. Facing that kind of game plan on the part of our terrorist opponents, with sometimes spectacular successes on their part such as 9/11, the U. S. is fortunate to have friends to the south who are will to share our goals and aspirations. There may come a time when those in the U. S. who have aborted their own children will welcome a friendly brown face willing to fight for their protection and survival.
but, in your case, i will make an exception, because you raise some interesting points.
alas, however, it is late 3:00 a.m. my time, and i've been, er, imbibing, so i'm really not up to the task at the moment. however, i will get back to you tomorrow. in the meantime, i thank you for the first at least worthwhile argument contra on the subject.
Its 5:00AM in Cancun, Quintana Roo province, Mexico. Not out on the glamorous barrier island, but back in the gritty barrios of the city. In the sultry, predawn darkness of the ‘El Yanqui’ barrio, a streetlamp casts a feeble glow on a group of men huddled by the edge of the vacant, corner lot. Although immaculately dressed in suits and ties, and perfectly groomed, they glance about the streets like hunted animals. The merest whisper of ‘federales”, and the entire group will scatter like a flock of pigeons sighting a cat.
Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades slowly cruise the street corner, their drivers observing the men, while the men preen and posture. One of the SUV’s stops and a swarthy Mexican emerges. “Su y su”, he says, pointing out two of the men. The two men quickly climb into the back of the SUV, hearts pounding, gratitude evident. The SUV drives off in the direction of the dawning horizon.
The men on the corner are known as the ‘manageros‘, American hotel managers thrown out of work by rising gas prices and declining occupancy rates in the U.S.A. Desperate for a job, they have illegally crossed the border, and made their way to Cancun. Picked up in the pre-dawn hours by the hotel owners, they will manage a hotel for a day, a week, a month, a season. We talked to one.
“Thank God for Mexico and Cancun.”, said Dave, age 50, a former hotel manager from Omaha who has managed the PanContinental Beach Hotel for the last six months. “Back in Omaha there’s nothing for an ex-hotel manager my age, unless you want to work in a fast food place for minimum wage, no benefits, and only 12 hours a week. How can you live on that? Here in Mexico I make three times what I would in the States, I’ve got full medical, dental, and life. I can stay in any room that’s not occupied, and I’ve got free run of the hotel’s restaurants and bars.”
Dave sends two-thirds of his pay back to his family in Nebraska. “I support my wife, two sons, a daughter, their spouses, and five grandchildren on what I send back.” Dave admits that his Mexican work visa is ‘iffy‘. “If the federales ever looked at it too closely, I could be sent back across the border in a heartbeat.” Dave is saving to help his sons sneak over the border. One is a new car salesman, and the other a television news producer. They too hope to achieve success in Mexico, and expect to bring over the entire extended family eventually.
The hotel’s owner, Enrique Gonzalez, defends his hiring of Dave. “A guest needs more towels, the American manager makes sure the towels are there pronto. A Mexican manager says, ‘manana‘. Reservations screwed up? The American manager gives the guest an upgrade, and sends up a bottle of champagne. The Mexican manager argues, and sends the guest to a room above the hotel dumpster. Hurricane coming? The American manager is battening down the hotel, evacuating the guests. The Mexican manager is doing a Clinton in his office with the housekeeping staff. Hotel management is work that Mexicans just won’t do!”
Across Mexico, the debate over the “illegalles” rages. “These people are changing the face of Mexico”, fumes Adolfo Alvarez of Michoacuan. “Just drive through their neighborhoods. No trash in the gutters! Houses painted! Yards trimmed! This isn’t the Mexico I know. This isn’t the Mexico I love.”
Jaime Lopez of Mexico D. F. agrees, “These ‘yanquis’ just don’t fit in here. They won’t join gangs. They don’t believe in siestas. If this keeps up, they’ll turn us into a first-world country, and I, for one, am not going to stand for it.”
Indeed, Mexican police authorities are extremely concerned over the illegal Americans’ attitude toward the law. “Its just sickening,” remarked officer Jorge Arbusto of the Durango policia. “There must be thousands of them right here in Durango, and not once, in all the time they’ve been here, have they offered me a single bribe! Not once! Can you imagine it?”
Despite the antipathy of the vast majority of the Mexican population to the Americans, Presidente Fox would like to see more come into the country.
“There is a serious problem with employment here in Mexico, with jobs that need to be done, and that aren’t being filled. We need bankers, accountants, teachers, engineers, chemists, systems analysts. The jobs Mexicans don’t want, and I can think of no better way to fill them than with gringos from the Estados Unidos. We must face the fact that Mexicans only want to do certain high prestige jobs such as futbol star, or narcotrafficante. I welcome all Americans to come as guest workers to our country, with the exception of lawyers, who will be shot on sight.”
On the other side of the border, President Bush assured reporters that he would do everything possible to assure that the maximum number of Americans could emigrate to Mexico. “My administration’s main, indeed its only goal, is to make certain that every American citizen has the opportunity to achieve a Mexican standard of living, and I will be tireless in that regard,” stated the President from his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
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.