Posted on 06/07/2006 7:19:31 AM PDT by george76
When President Bush nominated Gen. Michael Hayden to run the CIA, the press focused on disapproving Democrats and even some Republicans who were dubious about confirmation.
A month later, when the Senate confirmed Hayden by a 78-15 vote, the story was given much less emphasis in the media, which had moved on to other stories critical of the Bush administration.
Similarly, when Bush nominated one of his aides, Brett Kavanaugh, to the federal judiciary, the press was filled with reports about Democrats threatening a filibuster because Kavanaugh once worked for special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in the case against President Clinton.
Last week, there was much less media coverage of a Rose Garden ceremony in which Bush presided over the swearing-in of Kavanaugh, who had been confirmed by a 57-36 vote.
Bush has quietly been racking up small victories like these that seem at odds with the medias conventional wisdom of a presidency on the skids.
In addition to success with his nominations, Bush also is presiding over a booming economy and ...
The White House remains convinced it is not getting a fair shake from the mainstream media.
President Bushs leadership is achieving a steady flow of results that do not always dominate the days headlines on their own but that together represent real progress for the American people, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
************
That was a very pleasant surprise after all the media spin.
Yeah, you should have voted for Kerry and Gore.
Something needs to be done about it but don't expect a 50 year problem to be solved in a short while.
Too early not enough coffee yet.
We didn't have the extent of the problem nor was the problem that we did have highlighted to a fraction of what it is now post-911 either.
We didn't, couldn't have, and shouldn't have expected Clinton to do the right thing regardless of the circumstances during his term. But we should have been able to expect it from Bush.
Anyone reflecting on the "little victories" don't seem to be able to reason past the notion that if this country sees the loss of over 100 million of its current citizens, namely the baby boomers and older, the baby boomers of which make up the single largest demographic group in the history of the US, along with the same number (or so) replacing them of illegal (or legal) Mexicans will necessarily change the fabric of this nation permanently.
What's so tough to see thru here.
Present population: ~ 300 million
Loss of ~ 100 million over 30 years with nowhere near the birth rate to replace on the parts of "traditional Americans" = 200 million plus birth rate for what, a fraction of that in replacement.
Add to that 100 million Mexicans in a scenario in which it appears as an open door policy practically speaking, along with a birth rate of those currently here that very substantially exceeds that of "traditional Americans," and we're looking at approximately a nation with:
...about equal numbers of Mexicans and "traditional Americans" in about 30 years, and that's if others from all over the world don't get in on the gig.
So we'd have ~ 60-160 million Mexicans and high 200-and-some million "traditional Americans" with an enormous proportion of those Mexicans being "shoe-in" Dim voters. Add that to the already guaranteed lib voters plus the morons in this nation, and well, it'll be more than the swing that's needed to set the tone for reducing our Constitution to piece of arse-wipe.
Even if the figure is 40 or 60 million, it's still going to destroy our nation as we know it. They'll all end up voting and we can all then kiss conservative representation in anything even approaching a majority right out the window permanently.
And what happens when the voting majority in some southern states supports the "return of that state to Mexico?" Then what? Can't ever happen, right. Sure.
We'd all better begin to learn Spanish too, because I'll wager my life's savings that there will be absolutely no practical reason that Mexicans will ever have to learn English. As well, once this goes down, anything resembling the W/Senate immmigration plan, it will only open the door to future such policies, not the opposite.
These people won't ever really have to pay any back taxes as who's going to collect them if they don't? What, are they going to throw 20 million into jail/prison for tax evasion? Or more?
They won't ever learn Enlish witness that largely hispanic areas now where only spanish is spoken. Anyone thinking that they're going to be forced to learn American history and will is delusional.
It is stunning the number of supposed conservatives, or perhaps simply GOPs, that truly believe that additional laws that the feds say they'll put on the books will actually be enforced. If they were enforcing the ones we have, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
Vive Le U.S. of Mexico! /s
and I agree with you wholeheartedly, (though I am a little young to remember 1986!) But it is this kind of debate and airing of facts and opinions that I believe is healthy. But all the name-calling and insulting of Bush based solely on immigration (and soon, Iran) is getting old.
Looking past the ONE issue (and noting that the guy mentioned two, not one), I see:
- McCain-Feingold
- RKBA neglect
- TSA
- $8T debt
- 50% total tax rate
- $250B to NOLA
- and many more.
There are a few positives - trivial contrasted with the above.
Just do 3 things:
- lower taxes
- balanced budget
- full BoR protection.
As for the immigration problem that has been building for years Something done about it but don't expect a 50 year problem to be solved in a short while.
Huh? The vast majority of the nation is behind exactly that.
As to being a 50-year problem, I don't think so. It's been a potential problem for 50 years. It's only been a real problem since Mexicans, many of which are known criminals, began pouring over our borders in quantities that were far too great for us to absord without running the risk of altering this nation for the worse forever.
As well, we don't have 50 years to correct it. The more that come, the less likely the chances that any real action will be taken. I believe that Bush realizes this and is buying time by not acting immediately on this. We're close to the tipping point now.
Within 10 years you'll/we'll begin to see enormous regions of this country in which primarily spanish is spoken. Signs in many regions will read in Spanish only. Political representative will begin to mmore and more reflect the desires of a formerly Mexican populace with no serious loyalties to the U.S. The ones that are here now and have lived here for a while aren't loyal to the U.S.
Just wait. Many of those backing Bush on this are going to be scratching their noodles in 2010 or 2015 saying "WTH were we thinking!" But by then it'll be too late.
You can always halt something such as this an then reverse it in the future. You cannnot continue on in ignorance of the future and try to do then what they say is impossible now, namely deport millions upon millions. What, we're gonna try and deport 20% or more of our nation in 10 or 15 years? Right.
Fruitbat, keep writing....you ARE the voice of reason in the thread!
Top 11 Things That Anti-War Protesters Would Have Said At the Normandy Invasion on D-Day ( Had There Been Anti-War Protesters At Normandy )
11. No blood for French Wine!
7. The soldiers are still on the beach, this invasion is a quagmire
5. We are attacked by Japan and then [ we ] attack France? Roosevelt is worse than the Kaiser!
4. Why bring democracy to Europe by force and not to Korea or Vietnam? I blame racism
3. This war doesnt attack the root causes of Nazism
2. I support the troops, but invading Germany does not guarantee that in 56 years we won't have a President who's worse than Hitler
http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/top-11-things-that-anti-war-protesters.html
I'm witchoo.
To begin with, no one with an IQ of a soapdish really believes the war in Iraq has anything to do with oil.
7. The soldiers are still on the beach, this invasion is a quagmire
I think the world knows we squashed any Iraqi military machine in about 72 hours. The cluster flub now is the administration's blind eye to the bumb rush our troops are experiencing with all the yahoo, jihadists allowed to run across the borders and blow up everything. Why that little sub-plot wasn't thought out is a real brain twister.
5. We are attacked by Japan and then [ we ] attack France? Roosevelt is worse than the Kaiser!
Ok....I bought into the "We are facing a imminent nuke/bio attack" ploy. But I get why we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. I still feel deep inside my knower that we are staged in the area to face an Iranian threat. Rummy knew it might blow up while we were there ... but it just didn't happen.
4. Why bring democracy to Europe by force and not to Korea or Vietnam? I blame racism
Again, I got the bringing democracy thing to the region ... but I'm over that fantasy now. It's not unlike having to watch the south Vietnamise spit in our faces back in the 60's.
3. This war doesnt attack the root causes of Nazism
The only thing that'll stop radical Islam...is non-radical Islam. Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
2. I support the troops, but invading Germany does not guarantee that in 56 years we won't have a President who's worse than Hitler
La la land .....
And I am of the opinion that Bush had one of the largest mandates handed any major leader of the free world to clean house and he screwed the pooch.
...and I'd rather swallow your socks than vote for either of those two pigs...or any dim. Aren't you tired of having to vote non-democrat? I am.
Time will tell. Prior conservative appointments turned liberal.
Now try addressing my other points, rather than drawing more lines in the sand.
oh I was alive in 1986! one-year-old though...
I should read up on that some more. Guess I'll hit up my favorite source...LexisNexis... =)
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.