Replies

You know what I’d like to see Drudge do? Have a guest or two to discuss: why is our president absolutely blind to the illegal fundamentals? Pro or con, no matter what your feelings on the subject, all of us agree (I think?) that current laws are not being enforced, and would likely be abolished entirely if the current administration had its way. The amnesty bill is only dead because the people are so against it — it’s certainly not because of the president.
This is a question I would really like to answer in my own mind.
The only thing that makes sense to me is something pretty off-the-wall -- like THIS theory from jebeier:

Was Amnesty Bill a Strategery? - VANITY
FR ^ | 6/9/06 | jebeier
Posted on 06/08/2007 12:18:29 PM PDT by jebeier

Perhaps this whole Amnesty business is a sublime and supremely cunning strategery.
Now, I know you all may want to dismiss the possibility out of hand, but bear with me for a moment...

By promoting this bill, in one fell swoop President Bush has managed to:
a) Get almost the entire Democrat caucus in the Senate to come out in favor of Amnesty, which is very unpopular,
b) Forever link his old arch-nemesis, John McCain, to this very unpopular bill,
c) Get somewhere close to 80% of Americans to oppose Ted Kennedy, and
d) Kill the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform for the forseeable future.
And all it has cost him is a few points in the public opinion polls, which is irrelevant because he will never run for office again.

Now the Republican field (except John McCain) can run against the President of their own party in 2008 by opposing him on this issue. The 800 pound Iraqi gorrilla has been replaced by a 1600 pound illegal immigration gorilla. And the vast majority of Republicans (besides John McCain) are in a much better position to debate on this issue.

Sarkozy just won in France by running against Chirac, who was the head of his own party. Perhaps the White House has taken that lesson to heart.

If it is strategery, it is exceptionally subtle and devious, and would be a masterpiece. But they really couldn't possibly be that clever, could they?
Or could they? One thing we know about President Bush is that he has a long memory and likes to get even with his enemies. Look at the seven Republican Senators who are going to come out on the down side of this deal:
Graham (R-SC)- Led efforts to extend habeus corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. Member of Gang of 14

Hagel (R-NE) - Led charges against Iraq, Patriot Act, Rumsfeld, the Surge and Karl Rove

Lugar (R-IN) - Led efforts against intelligence operations against foreign agents in the US

Martinez (R-FL) - Leaked the Schiavo memo, but otherwise does not fit the pattern

McCain (R-AZ) - Back stabbings too numerous to count

Specter (R-PA) - Ditto. From “Scottish Law” onward

Voinovich (R-OH) - Led charge against John Bolton and the Surge
All of these Senators are going to be hurt by taking a position on the wrong side of this issue, and all of them, except Mel Martinez, have been thorns in President Bush’s side for a long, long time.

One has to ask oneself, cui bono? Who benefits?
I submit to you that the biggest beneficiary of this debacle is none other than President George W. Bush himself...
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread