Why No Bush Support?(Illegals)

The Washington Times ^ | May 26, 2006 | staff

[kellynla]

For a sense of why President Bush has been unable to sway conservatives on his immigration policies, look no further than Stephen Dinan's front-page report in yesterday's editions: "The U.S. Border Patrol increased at a faster rate and apprehended more illegal aliens per year under President Clinton than under President Bush." Mr. Dinan goes on to report that the Clinton administration increased Border Patrol agents and pilots by 126 percent during his eight-year administration, which came to an average of 642 per year. In contrast, the six-year Bush administration has averaged 411 agents per year for a total increase of 22.3 percent, according to a Congressional Research Service report to the House Judiciary Committee.

Put plainly, when Mr. Bush talks tough on border security and enforcement, conservatives don't believe him, and they have the facts to back them up. Last week's address to the nation, during which Mr. Bush proposed adding 6,000 Border Patrol agents by 2007, wasn't the first time he's made such a promise. When one considers that it was just a couple of years ago when Mr. Bush promised to add 2,000 agents every year for the next five years, only to submit a 2006 budget calling for only 210, it's no wonder why conservatives remain wary.

[kellynla]

"the administration should stop advertising how many illegal aliens it has apprehended and start telling Americans how many it has deported. Mr. Bush's trumpeting of his administration's arrest and deportation of 6 million illegal aliens is actually a decline compared to any five-year period under Mr. Clinton. Once that number begins to rise in a significant way, then the administration can claim progress.

Action, not words, will convince conservatives that the president is serious about border security."

[kellynla]

ping

[Citizen Tom Paine]

IMHO President Bush was elected with Hispanic votes as the Governor of Texas and with those same votes to the Presidency. He is not going to do anything to muck up his support with them.

[Yo-Yo]

That's what President Bush thinks he's doing with his untenable position on illegal immigration, but only Hispanic citizens can legally vote, and that demographic is also against illegal alien amnesty.

So he's losing his conservative base of all colors. This Plame Leak investigation must have rattled Rove for him to be so tone deaf to the American Electorate.

[KeyLargo]

I am leaning toward not voting in the upcoming elections, but there are a few reasons to hold my nose and vote for the Republicans. I will wait and see how this border protection issue develops. I just don't want to send a message to Rinos that is ok for Bush to declare war on his base.

---

The Solution to the GOP's Problems Isn't More Democrats

by John Hawkins
Posted May 24, 2006

Over the last few weeks, the conservative blogosphere and punditocracy have been aiming a wave of venom at the GOP in Washington that’s so wide and deep that you could practically surf on it. The grumbling over out-of-control spending, the Gang-of-14 compromise, Harriet Miers, the Dubai Port deal, and most of all, illegal immigration, has become ceaseless and increasingly bitter.

The dismay at the performance of Congress has gotten so bad that a conservative stalwart like Peggy Noonan has actually begun speculating that the “White House has decided it actually doesn’t like the base,” while in other quarters, the idea that the GOP might benefit long-term from losing power in the elections later this year has already started to jell into conventional wisdom.

This is understandable because the GOP in Washington, President Bush included, have been “stinking it up” since the 2004 election. To be fair, the House has shown some signs of life on spending and illegal immigration since Rep. John Boehner has become Majority Leader, but the same can’t be said of the Senate, which has performed abysmally—or Bush, who, in his second term, has shown about the same level of political competence as a fourth grader running for hall monitor.

Since that’s the case, it’s not hard to see why so many conservatives have become dispirited and angry about the performance of our elected representatives. However, if there’s one thing I’ve learned about politics, it’s that the solution to the GOP’s problems is never, “more Democrats.”

That doesn’t mean that we conservatives should engage in a bunch of fake “rah-rah” or refuse to criticize Republicans if they deserve it, but it does mean that when November rolls around, conservatives should show up at the ballot box and pull the lever for the GOP.

Philosophically, that doesn’t sit well with some conservatives. They believe, with some justification, that if we don’t punish these wayward Republicans, their performance will continue to disappoint. But that’s only half the equation. It’s not about just the Republicans who’d be losing, it’s about the Democrats who’d be taking their place. Would we be better off replacing the most wishy washy Republicans with Democrats who believe that taxes are way too low and that Rep. John Murtha would make a fantastic Secretary of Defense? I think not.

Now, some people point to the divided government of the nineties and believe that if we once again had different parties in power, that we’d see less spending as a result. But, what people need to remember is that was a unique situation. Newt Gingrich’s revolution featured Reagan Republicans getting into power for the first time in decades, in part because they promised to restrain government spending and, indeed, they were highly motivated to wrestle down government expenditures.

However, the Democrats, being Democrats, believe in bigger, more expensive government, not shrinking the size and cost of the beast. So, if they got in power, we’d be much more likely to see a situation like the eighties, where we had a President who believed in smaller government overpowered by Democrats who just couldn’t spend enough of our money.

We also must keep in mind that Republican philosophy up on the Hill has changed for the worse as well. Today, if the Democrats want to spend $100 million—instead of saying, “no way,” the Republicans are more philosophically inclined to say, “How about $50 million instead?” Then after the new boondoggle becomes law at $50 million, they pat themselves on the backs for, “taking an issue away from the Democrats,” and “saving” the taxpayers $50 million. That is not exactly a formula for reducing the size of the budget, especially when we have a President who has never vetoed a single bill for having too much pork in it (or for any other reason).

So, what can we do to get the deficit under control? Fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment? Good idea. Support members of Congress like Sen. Tom Coburn and Rep. Mike Pence who’re fighting tooth and nail against pork? Yes. Insist on having a presidential candidate in 2008 who believes in cutting spending? Absolutely. But, replacing spendthrift Republicans with Democrats who’ve never met a program they thought was overfunded? Let’s just say that’s not the best way to handle the situation.

We also can’t forget about judges. The “Gang-of-14” deal is no longer in effect after the November elections. If Stevens or Ginsburg retires and being willing to pull the trigger on the nuclear option turns out to be the difference between getting another Samuel Alito through or having to settle for an Alberto Gonzales, do you want more or less Republicans in the Senate?

Then there’s impeachment. The liberals in Congress are absolutely chomping at the bit to impeach Bush for anything and everything they can come up with. That’s not only because they absolutely despise him, and because their base is demanding it, but because they want payback for Bill Clinton. Would two years of politically motivated impeachment threats be good for the country?

How about taxes? Do you think they would go up or down under a Democratically controlled Congress? Do you think Bush’s tax cuts, which have helped revive the economy and have been one of his greatest achievements domestically, would survive if we had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

Perhaps most importantly, we shouldn’t forget about the war. Could we see the Democrats put enormous pressure on Bush to force him to pull out of Iraq before the situation on the ground merits it? Sure. It might destabilize the country and render the sacrifices our troops have made meaningless, but they could blame the resulting disaster on Bush—and quite frankly, that’s probably all that would matter to a lot of the Democrats in Congress.

Here’s my advice: set your emotions aside and think long and hard about what a Democratically controlled Congress would really mean. Is the satisfaction of, “teaching the Republicans a lesson,” worth the price? Think back to the Clinton years: conservatives certainly stuck it to Old “Read My Lips,” but the price turned out to be eight years of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In my book, that wasn’t such a great trade-off and keep in mind, when you’re talking about congressmen and senators, it could be worse. Incumbent politicians are tougher to get rid of than a cockroach infestation and 40 years from now, do you really want to be sitting around, remembering how you stayed home and helped the next Robert Byrd get into office? Folks, be mad at the GOP if you don’t think they’re doing a good job. Call your senator, call your congressman and give ’em hell if they deserve it. But, when November rolls around, make sure to vote because there’s more on the line than you might think.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15096

[skeeter]

I'm not sure how he plans to take advantage of the vast reservoir of support he's built within the hispanic community from this point forward.

BTW in hindsight the hispanic block did not support his two presidential runs quite as heartily as his campaign had hoped.

[rottndog]

Action, not words, will convince conservatives that the president is serious about border security.

Judge him not by his words, but by his deeds. Under this standard, it is simply undeniable that Bush is anything other than and Open Borders Sovereignty Sellout.

[tigtog]

We already know that the Dems are non-responsive to voters. By your logic letting Republicans be non-responsive to voters is a benefit. Maybe a few years in the wilderness will remind Republicans they don't get to play the game like Dems. The issue presented to me is what do I do to teach them to listen to me? Our best bet is to have a standoff conference committe between Senate and House going into the election and allow immigration to be the national issue for voters to decide. Yea I know 2/3rds of the Senate will not be running, but they will be watching, especially those Senators with Presidential ambitions. The House Republicans can force this issue into the election. They would be wise to do so.

[BIGZ]

NO AMNESTY, NO AMNESTY, NO AMNESTY.

PENCE FOR PRESIDENT!

[Coldwater Creek]

In case you haven't noticed post after post stating,President Bush is not running for any office.

[Coldwater Creek]

If you don't hold your nose and vote, you sending a message to the Democrats as well. Get used to Speaker Polosi!!!!!

[drpix]

"...stop advertising how many illegal aliens it has apprehended and start telling Americans how many it has deported."

Agreed. Those Americans who truly care about our sovereignty should be suspicious of all immigration statistic. With the policy of "catch and release" in effect for both administration, the number apprehended IS meaningless.

But so to are some of the "deported" numbers. When that number includes Mexicans caught at the border and who voluntary elect to have the Border Patrol shipped back to the other side of the border - and not to the interior of Mexico were most come from - we have similar problem. The fast majority will only return to the hundreds of Mexican towns on the border that are hubs for illegal crossings. There they will start again and recross until they are successful. [ If any of you get the opportunity, ask a Border Patrol Agent about how many in each group caught admit multiply attempts. ]

[P-40]

why President Bush has been unable to sway conservatives on his immigration policies

Because you can't polish a turd. The Senate can pontificate all it wants but there is no way to gloss over the complete failure of the federal government over the decades to deal with the problems caused by the unchecked illegal alien situation.

[ClaireSolt]

This is very dishonest. Clinton may have had more border patrol, but he let the WTC get bombed twice. So, his priorities were wrong. Maybe you remember that after 9/11 the first concern was finding out who the loose Middle Easterners were. Find and prosecute 500 terrorists. Reorganize Homeland Security. Get biometrics on everyone entering and leaving the country and tighten visa process. Cracking down on criminal illegals. Now, we are at the end of a highly prioritized list of measures and should not act as if nothing has been done. Oh, yes I forgot that deal about tracking all the cargo to 27000 shippers. That, too.

[TomGuy]

why President Bush has been unable to sway conservatives on his immigration policies

Because Mabeline doesn't make enough lipstick to disguise that pig to make it anything but amnesty, no matter what Tony Snow, Press Secretary, tries to rename it. 'Linguistic precision'? A pig with lipstick is still a pig. Bush's immigration policies are still allowing lawbreaking illegals to flood into the US.

[mjolnir]

Maybe a few years in the wilderness will remind Republicans they don't get to play the game like Dems.

It was a mistake for conservatives to not get behind President Bush 41 and Bob Dole--- I hope we don't make that mistake again. A Democrat Senate will be a disaster and time in theh wilderness will only teach the ousted Senate Republicans they should be more like whoever beat them in the general election.

[kellynla]

If I were you, I would vote.
We just need to focus on electing CONSERVATIVES!

The Gelding Old Party needs a testicles implant.

[reelfoot]

On immigration, you know Bush is lying when you see his lips moving.

[skeeter]

If you don't hold your nose and vote, you sending a message to the Democrats as well. Get used to Speaker Polosi!!!!!

We should all remember that, while the president and all but 4 senate democrats voted for the 'comprehensive' immigration monstrosity, 34 republicans voted against it.

There are many in the GOP still worthy of our vote. But we need to do our homework to determine which ones.

[P-40]

This is very dishonest.

Yes. The MSM is very selective in what it takes from the very government reports that spell out that the focus right after 9/11 to recent months has been very, very different from the decade prior. The Bush administrator has been incredibly lame on pointing this out.