Posted on 05/26/2006 5:55:18 PM PDT by Pokey78
FOR A PRESIDENT who is (allegedly) the lamest of lame ducks, George W. Bush had a pretty good month of May. Not quite a merry month of May. Certainly not a Lerner-and-Loewe-like lusty month of May. But a pretty good month, and perhaps a sign of better things to come.
To wit:
Congress extended, and the president signed, the wildly successful supply-side tax cuts on interest and dividend income originally passed in 2003. The new tax rates are now in force until 2010, providing helpful certainty for the economy and the markets, and forcing Democrats in this year's congressional elections, and in the 2008 presidential election, either to accept a core element of Bush's economic policy, or to be for raising taxes.
Speaking of the economy . . . last week the Commerce Department revised first quarter growth up to 5.3 percent. Not too lame. Then we learned that new home sales had risen in April, suggesting a reasonably soft landing for the housing market. And gas prices even began to drift down. How much longer can people talk themselves into thinking the economy's in bad shape?
They can talk themselves into a frenzy about illegal immigration, of course. But on this issue, the Senate managed--contrary to the conventional wisdom of late April--easily to pass a sensible and comprehensive immigration reform bill. And House Republicans now show some signs of coming to realize that talk radio is not always the best source of policy guidance. Enough of them may come to realize that passing legislation they regard as flawed would be better than going home to the voters having achieved nothing. So Bush could have an immigration reform signing ceremony to look forward to in the fall.
Meanwhile, on the personnel front, new chief of staff Josh Bolten seems to have improved White House performance, and Tony Snow took over as press secretary to rave reviews. Michael Hayden was easily confirmed by the Senate as CIA Director--as all the hoopla over warrantless wiretapping and data mining of phone records came to nothing. The imminent departure of John Snow as Treasury Secretary--though Snow has actually done a creditable job--will allow for the announcement of a fresher face (perhaps Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez) sometime soon.
The administration also got reenergized on the judicial front, shepherding Brett Kavanaugh through to confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If a Supreme Court seat comes open in a month, the administration seems prepared, with (sources say) a short list of well vetted and well qualified conservative candidates.
The silly flap over the FBI search, pursuant to a judicial warrant, of Rep. William Jefferson's office serves as a reminder that, for all the talk of the dire consequences of the Abramoff scandal for the GOP, congressional scandals are not limited to the Republican party. Indeed, Jefferson's refusal to yield to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's plea to quit his position on the Ways and Means committee suggests some disarray in Democratic ranks.
In the meantime, the May 15 deadline for signing up for the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed with some 90 percent of eligible seniors enrolled, and most of them telling pollsters they're pretty happy. Given early rumblings that the program might be a nightmare of red tape, this is good news for the administration.
What about the world, and the war? There is a new Iraqi government, and we saw an impressive display of resolution on the Iraqi front by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair at their press conference last Thursday night. The president seems to have resisted calls to draw down troops precipitately, correctly understanding that he will get no credit for losing Iraq with 100,000 troops rather than 135,000. The bad news is that there has been no apparent reconsideration of military strategy. There has been no attempt to take advantage of the existence of a new Iraqi government to launch a more aggressive counterinsurgency, with additional U.S. troops, in order to help put the Iraqi government and its army on a path to real progress and victory.
As for Iran, the State Department seems to remain in charge of U.S. policy, and unwilling to come to grips with the urgency and gravity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's challenge. Iran and Iraq are very likely to define the historical judgment on the Bush presidency. So these foreign policy splotches on the picture of a rosy May painted above are important. But if the president realizes he really isn't a lame duck, and that he has two and half years left, two and half years in which his foreign policy can either succeed or fail--he can begin to turn his attention to reenergizing that foreign policy in June.
--William Kristol
"Well, to be consistent, I would suggest that you should also blame Ronald Reagan.
In fact, if you look at the bill the Senate recently passed (a couple of days ago), the language in it is not much different than what was passed during the Reagan Administration."
We can blame Reagan for the mistake of the first amensty, yes.
BUT ONE WOULD HOPE WE LEARNED OUR LESSON. apparently we have not. I DON'T THINK RONALD REAGAN WOULD MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE.
"And this week I had 1,578 call in against the bill and 12 called in for it.
That's what I'm hearing everywhere I go."
Darn it... I never called or emailed her ... I would have made it 1,579 against to 12 for.
"OK, I'm sure poor Senator Hutinson has been spoofed by a bunch of border trolls..."
Here's the deal: Every Democr*p and RINO who voted for this... we just need to send a letter to the editor about how their brain-dead Senator just voted for the worst piece of legislation in decades.
The House passed a viable and responsible bill.
The Senate passed a vile special-interest-written sellout to open borders fanatics that is quite possibly the worst bill either House of Congress has produced in decades.
I hope in conference the House mostly gets its way. I think some of the Senate crap will have to stick.
What are the choices? I think it is better to pass this now. The Republicans will be seen as able to govern and to fulfill what was outlined in President Bush's well-received speech. Conversely, if it dies, Republicans will be seen as unable to govern. If the Dems win control, which I do not expect, but if they do, we will truly get the immigration bill from Hell.
No. It's not going to happen and you know it as well as I do.
"What are the choices?"
1) Pass HR4437 or something similar by reported such out of conference committee (and btw, why all the media attention on the House needing to budge... why not budgeing the *Senate*?!?)
2) Frist brings up HR4437 to a vote in the Senate
3) If we pass any sham-nesty like what's in the Senate bill ... kiss the GOP majority goodbye for a *generation*!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15165
4) Doing nothing is far far better for the country and the GOP than passing sham-nesty, so ... if nothing happens, so be it. Politically, the BEST way to 'do nothing' is for the conference to report out a very conservative immigration bill, and watch the Democrats vote it down.
The way to do that? - Simple: Eliminate the path to citizenship for illegal aliens, eliminate the full-bore amnesty and put in the Isaakson amendment so that it wont kick in until the eonforcement does.
... it would be a much better bill substantively, and thuis would be hated by Democrats.
"The Republicans will be seen as able to govern and to fulfill what was outlined in President Bush's well-received speech. "
Gawd, you seriously dont believe that, do you?
that was not a well-received speech and it was deceptive in many respects, in particular how it mischaracterized the Senate bill.
"Conversely, if it dies, Republicans will be seen as unable to govern. "
hogwash... failure to pass one bill does not mean that at all. If the GOP can get drilling in ANWR, *THAT* would show whether they can govern. PASSING A KENNEDY WRITTEN IMMIGRATION BILL IS NOT A SIGN OF GOP DOMINANCE!!
Have we learned nothing from the Medicare drug fiasco? dont they know passing poorly-written liberal laws does not help the GOP?!?
"It is clear the people who drafted this legislation had an agenda and the agenda was not to meet the expectations of the American people. The agenda was to create a facade and appearance of enforcement, an appearance of toughness in some instances. When you get into the meat of the provisions and get into the bill and study it, tucked away here and there are laws that eviscerate and eliminate the real effectiveness of those provisions. It was carefully done and deliberately done. This is a bill that should not become law. It is a bill that will come back to be an embarrassment to our Members who have supported it. I wish it were not so. I know how these things happen. You do not always have time to do everything you want to do. You try to do something you think is right, but ultimately in a bill as important as this one that has tremendous impact on the future of our country and our legal system and our commitment to the rule of law, we ought to get it right. We ought not to let this one slide by. It is not acceptable to say, let’s just pass something and we will send it to the House and maybe the House of Representatives will stand up and stop it and fix it. That is not acceptable for the great Senate of the United States." - Sen Sessions
Please go point by point and tell us which will or will not be possible.
I admit SOME of those things could happen...but not enough of them to be an effective deterant to illegal immigration.
I say we build the wall.
["I DON'T THINK RONALD REAGAN WOULD MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE."]
Yes, I don't think Ronald Reagan would make two mistakes in a row (that's a British interpretation of "row" albeit I'm a Serb).
Maybe, maybe not. If the House holds firm, and we get no bill, or an enforcement only bill, the stage is set for someone, anyone, to come along in 08 and claim this issue. In 1976, people said the Soviets were a fact of life, get used to them and find a way to accommodate. Then someone came along and said let's defeat them instead. I think encouraging 12 million people who are here illegally to leave can be accomplished a lot easier, by a mix of policies that don't have to be too draconian. Just enforce existing laws. When that is done, and the border is secure, then I would be among those who would love to talk about a program that allows temporary and seasonal workers to come here, if needed. There should be a showing that there can be no substitute for Mexican workers, not simply that Americans won't work for those wages.
Yes it does. Politics is never about doing the right thing. It's about self-interest and staying in office.
The Senate's bill is proof that the Democrats have the power in their chamber. That fact continues to escape people's attention. But, since we have elected the people that are in there then this immigration proposal is going to be all about compromise for the best deal possible. Since we are not starting with much then we get what we get.
Mike Pence's bill is the best that I have seen.
Be careful, Mr. Kristol. The President turns a corner and you're going to have a broken nose.
:^)
Those are amazing numbers.
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.