The following commentary is a MUST READ for anyone interested in an HONEST, ACCURATE appraisal of the Bush presidency:
THE ESSENTIAL PRESIDENT BUSH
http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/05/22/the-essential-president-bush/
POLLING UPDATES:
We all know the polls are BOGUS; however, it can be instructive to note trendlines . . . and the trendlines for the President are UP:
GALLUP:
36% approve 57% disapprove
UP from 31% approve 63% disapprove in early May . . .
Important Stat:
78% approval from Republicans (up from 69%)
http://poll.gallup.com/
COOK/RT STRATEGIES
37% approve 57% disapprove
UP from 36% approve 60% disapprove . . .
Important Stat:
77% approval from Republicans
--only 27% approve of Congress (again, who should be running from whom?)
http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_poll_tl_june6.pdf
A little evil can undo a great deal of good.
It does not surprise me that he is a Christian man living a creed before he is a President, that he is a President before he is a Conservative. It seems to me precisely the right order of things.
You don’t have to agree with everything President Bush does; I don’t. But he deserves a lot better than he’s getting from his own side. He deserves, dare I say it, a spirit of compromise and workability, as opposed to the hard-line demand for a “perfect” solution (one which will never pass congress) to a problem no one else in government has even dared to even address.
This article speaks as if "conservative" is a political persuastion. It isn't, it's an ideology. There's no such thing as a "moderate" ideology. In this country the war is between "conservative" ideology and "liberal" ideology. "Moderate" is a temperament, and one that demonstrates a sheer and utter lack of taking sides for the most part trying to "get along" in "can't we all just get along" fashion while hoisting "compromise" as the standard in the interests of a temperament or attitude.
He deserves, dare I say it, a spirit of compromise and workability, as opposed to the hard-line demand for a “perfect” solution (one which will never pass congress) to a problem no one else in government has even dared to even address.
He deserves whatever he gets if he opens the doors to the destruction of this nation's sovereignty.
What a weak and pathetic line of reasoning this is. Oh, BOO-HOO, it won't pass Congress. It will in the House. Perhaps we ought to get the Senate on record as to exactly how they would vote on this issue so that Americans can take corrective action in the election this fall. Too much of a strategy I realize and not at all in line with Bush's "let's not rock the boat because I don't want to be perceived as a 'partisan' president" routine.
And at last check, wasn't Bush the president? Then why is he behaving like one of his cabinet members??? It's almost as if he hiding fearing criticism.
As to these ridiculous comparisons to Reagan with this strategy, if anyone truly believes that Reagan would sit here with his "Texas thumb" up his colon and essentially allow an open border with talks of opening this nation up to being overrun with Mexicans within a decade or two and one that would, in combination with liberals, EASILY control this nation politically, then they are smoking something really good.
The problem was not nearly this heightened or threatening to our very existence as the nation that we were created as, during Reagan's years.
By the same logic only going the other way I can put out that since we have no withdrawal plan in Iraq, and given the spread of the same exact types of problems now to other nations (whether Islamic or not), that we are behaving and holding the same views as the British Empire when they sought to control the world for the most part. Yet that's equally absurd.
Reagan did a "once and for all" amnesty and if his words are to be believed then he meant it. It wasn't for 20 million Mexicans and it did not provide for the entry of between 40 and 100 million more. In fact, it called for no more as the understanding that the problem would be resolved.
This issue within GOP ranks breaks down into two camps essentially.
The first realizes fully that Bush's plan, which is essentially the Senate's plan, paves the way for this nation to be somewhere between 30 and 50% Mexican within a very short period of time relatively speaking, perhaps between 10 and 20 years from now. (It's already reportedly over 15% and outnumbers the black minority demographic) Those of us seeing that realize that since these people would almost all be either from Mexico, that they would not have any particular allegiance to America, just as they now do not, and that the existing problem would merely grow to well beyond controllable proportions.
They also don't swallow the kool-aid being passed out to the party realizing that such a drink would be fatal and that "since when have politicians making promises" kept them.
The other side, I don't know, but it doesn't appear to look much beyond the '06 or '08 elections. Their primary goal seems to be keeping a GOP that has largely failed them in power over the long-term health of this entire nation. Either that or they simply don't see any issues with a general populace that is between a third and half Mexican, many of whom would like to see a good chunk of America returned to their homeland of Mexico.
They don't seem to believe that these people would ever have voting rights and therefore impose their collective will within the cities, counties, and states in which they live, perhaps even the nation as a whole.
Why not is entirely beyond me. It's not a difficult exercise when one looks at the rapid recent rise of the Hispanic demographic coupled with the birth rates and millions upon millions more to be coming here, with the nation on the verge of signing legislation, with Bush's blessing, to allow tens, perhaps even over a hundred million more in in the future. At some point the border wouldn't even matter as it'd be an open door. A North American union, shunned by most now, would end up being a "favorable outcome." Imagine!
Either way, US sovereignty as we know it would be kissed good bye forever! They apparently don't see/believe this. Why not is simply astonishing as there really isn't another logical outcome/conclusion to the matter when viewed realistically.
In the meantime, absolutely none of those on that side have given a moments notice as to how this nation, meaning all of us, are going to pay for the largest demographic of retirees (the baby boomers) in history while continuing to pay for the health care and other social costs of what are now illegals and which are well documented.
That's the difference. The first position is predicated on history, trends, solid analysis, and logic. The second is predicated on who-knows-what, but certainly not those things. All for what, to keep a GOP Senate that is complicit in all of this in the fall? Or what's the reason to sell out our entire nation and leave it's future to the will of people that never even grew up here, haven't a clue as to its history (Oh, I know, there all gonna learn American history, ... Right!), and may even have far greater loyalties to Mexico that it could easily spell disaster for America should that be the case.
Bush may have done some good things. But in terms of one of the single largest issues in the history of this nation, and the most threatening one to the continued successful existence of America as it was intended to be by those having laid the foundation for it, today, Bush is and continues to earn a big, fat F!
Meanwhile, those reflecting on "his achievements" don't seem to realize that they are focusing on the cheese in the trap just prior to having their proverbial necks snapped.
Prediction, the GOP will remain in charge after '06. But if we don't seal the border, then in 10 years, perhaps even less, all those favoring Bush's and the Senate's plan now, will have the biggest hangover of their lives in a decade or two and that hangover will be passed along to their kids and grand kids! And it's not going to be some simple political theme that can be changed with "getting the right people into power again" which will also be an impossibility given the demographical shift that will take place should a Bush/Senate plan or anything resembling it occur.