Posted on 06/11/2007 8:32:49 PM PDT by indcons
US President George W. Bush was confident Monday that the most sweeping overhaul of US immigration laws in two decades will ultimately clear Congress once he gets home from his European tour.
Speaking in Bulgaria's capital Sofia, Bush acknowledged disappointment that the legislation -- aimed at bringing 12 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows -- collapsed Thursday in the Democratic-controlled Congress.
"Listen, the immigration debate is a tough debate. I'm under no illusions about how hard it is," he told a news conference.
"There are people in my (Republican) party that don't want a comprehensive bill. There are people in the Democrat Party that don't seem to want a comprehensive bill."
But he said that he would, upon his return to Washington, get in touch with leading Democrats and Republicans who do support the legislation to get it firmly back on track.
"I'll be going to the Senate to talk about a way forward on the piece of legislation," he said.
"I'm going to work with those who are focused on getting an immigration bill done and start taking some steps forward again. I believe we can get it done. I'll see you at the bill signing."
Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, withdrew the bill Thursday after senators, seeking to add amendments, voted twice within nine hours not to move it towards a final vote as he had demanded.
Billed as a "grand bargain," the proposed law would grant a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, establishing a merit-based points system for future immigrants, and create a low-wage temporary worker program.
It also envisions a border security crackdown, punishment for employers who hire illegal immigrants and an attempt to wipe out a backlog of visa applications from those who have gone through legal channels.
Bush, who has made immigration reform a top priority of his second presidential term, is due to attend a Senate Republican policy lunch on Tuesday following his trip to Europe.
Well, we can't go back. But if Candidate Bush had campaigned saying he wanted to grant the Illegals in this country an automatic path to citizenship and if he had said we couldn't deport them, there is no way I would have supported him even running for POTUS.
We're doing that now. We're listening very carefully to the candidates. And yes, I think Bush would fall on his sword to pass this Comprehensive Immigration Reform (aka amnesty).
sw
I didn't stay home but I sure left a space or two on the ballot blank in protest because I could not vote for the RINO of the election shoved down our throats by GOP media apologist spinmeisters and the RNC. If a person does not deserve to be elected then they don't deserve it. It's just that simple. Don't vote for them and take the loss and re-build quickly.
I don't care who's party they are and I sure don't care about for the sake of the party voting. That is what keeps RINO's in office and our nation in a mess. I left the ballot blank the last time Bill Frist had ran and I left it blank for his replacement Chattanooga Chaffee. I voted Independent against Bush's hand picked Senator Lamar Alexander who's claim to fame was being a Big Government shill Cabinet Member for Poppy Bush and before that not being a bad a governor as the previous felon he replaced.
Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of the problem now is those handpicked RINO's "Yes Men" Bush himself shoved down peoples throats? Remember Bush himself pushed his senator pick Darling Arlen back in for another term when a conservative who deserved the seat ran against him. Time after time Bush has done this to purosely Rockefellerize the GOP. When the Conservatives running against Bush Long Time Family Friends did win the primaries Bush became dis-interested in the race real quick. GW Bush has nearly destroyed the GOP by splitting it down the middle with his liberal policies pandering to the DEMs namely Ted Kennedy.
Bush lied or sold us out about a bunch of things including nation building but yes he has been pro-illegal allien from day one. The urban legends created about what a great conservative Bush was before the 2000 elections in places like this forum was staggering. No one dared challange it despite the proof in his own words. If a person had read the text of what he said Bush was about as liberal as Al Gore and even stated the very fact himself to the nation but the party ticket punchers didn't believe that either even with Bush himself stating it. He did not get elected either time on my vote.
The same thing is happening again this election as well. A mayor who just happened to be in office on 9/11 or an ex-senator whom after the senate trial many in here were calling for his resignation due to his bungling and disinterest in hearings he chaired with John Glenn may run. Many actually cheered his I'm not seeking reelection announcement. Few will likely admit it though. Records? What record? By golly he looks good on TV that's what counts these days as being worthy for office. Records? We don't want to remember their stinking voting records. He's a Republican dadgumit.
There simply are better choices out there IF People would stop being slaves to the Republican Party and their Globalist Liberals running it these days. I vote GOP ONLY if the person running for office actually deserves it based on record and stands on issues.
I think it's more of a hallucination, or maybe a pipe dream.
Yes, I would have voted for Pres.Bush, and DID, despite his insistence on “guest worker”/amnesty BS. He has proven many times over that was the correct decision. Imagine the only two real alternatives: algore or sKerry! I suspect we would have had even worse bills out of Congress giving amnesty to illegal aliens years ago. I just wish we could have kept a Congress alive that would keep him more in check on this issue.
I do not think Pres.Bush will do any E.O. stuff on this issue.
Congratulations.
You apparently are getting what you want.
No I voted for conservatives because they were the right choice. In 2000 I voted for one the persons who helped start the Conservative movement of the late 70's on for POTUS because he was right on issues. Unfortunately a sizable majority are very eager to let the RNC and media shills do their thinking for them. What is your excuse? The DEMs will win? Well I got news for you. The DEMs won the White House in 2000 and 2004. They don't get all they want out of Bush but sad enough they get more than what an energized and united Conservative GOP would permit a DEM. The GOP with the Rockefeller Republicans will never stop the DEM's now think about that.
The GOP is now two parties within itself which must part ways for the good of the nation. Having two Liberal Parties in power is destroying us. Rockefeller Republicans have taken the GOP to a point of no return.
Evidently, you are comfortable with Republicans being grouped together. The truth is there is now a discernible Kennedy wing of the Republican Party, and Jorge is carrying Teddy's water on amnesty as he did with No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drugs. Secondly, I cannot get too mad at the Democrats because they are the best hope against the amnesty sell out of the American people and the unprecedented expansion of the social welfare state that amnesty will cause. I trust Democrats to be politicians and to be able to count votes and do whatever takes to get reelected. That is how politics works, you represent the people who voted for you. The facts about amnesty are NOT all democratic voters are for it. And there are Democrats in the House who understand that voting for amnesty will cost them their seat because there will be a backlash if amnesty passes.Dingy Harry Reid and Pelosi are a weary of amnesty because IT can hurt their majorities particularly the House. Plus they are little mean-spirited people who feel if amnesty passes if will allow Jorge to claim a victory even though a victory which comes with the near destruction of the Republican Party as we have come to know it is hardly cause for celebration, but the President has become a loser. A loser is someone who cannot tell friend from foe, victory from defeat and so it is with Jorge he is in bed with Teddy Kennedy and all who wish him harm and would vote to convict him of impeachment on trumped up charges in a nanosecond. It is sad for him, it is sad for the country, it is even sadder for the future of the Republican Party. But this is the reality we face, I am trusting House Democrats to vote to save their seats and we are left to ridicule our President which gives me no pleasure whatsoever. But I DO NOT wish the harm that those with whom he stands on amnesty do.
On the O.E., don't think so either, but . . . .
“President Bush made a “guest worker” program one of his major campaign issues in 1999. He’s doing exactly what he’s promised to do in this area, and fulfilling a campaign promise to us.”
If he wants to fulfill a campaign promise, how about school vouchers or getting rid of the IRS... haven’t heard squat from him about THOSE issues.
Then again, he’s gotten our votes already and couldn’t care less what we think.
Purist “conservative” ideologues are more destructive to the conservative “cause” than honest liberals.
You insist on your fantasy that there ever was a “conservative Senate” or a “conservative GOP” in the Senate. That has never been true. Conservative Senators have to work WITH the NE Republicans and other “moderate Republicans” as possible to move the nation in a more “rightward” direction. It’s remarkable how well we’ve been able to do.
People from the heartland of America just can’t comprehend how different the political atmosphere is in the NorthEast, I guess. It is EXTREMELY difficult to get any type of person who has even moderately conservative credentials on a ballot. Example: Guilliani, clearly “liberal” to the rest of the nation, gaining the “Republican” nod for NYC mayor. You may not like it, but he was FAR more “conservative” in any respect than his Demodog and Green and Socialist opponents. Example, again NYC: Bloomberg changing parties a couple months before the election to run as GOP. It is not that there weren’t more “conservative” candidates in the mayoral race, it is simply that those candidates can’t even win the Republican nomination because they are “too conservative” for the NYC Republicans! Yet, they were both more conservative than any D opponents, and had far better chance to win election as an R than otherwise.
If NE Republicans fail to nominate people like these, or like Spectre who votes “right” 60% of the time, the result is almost never getting someone like Santorum on the ballot and winning - you instead get someone like Casey who votes in a “right” manner 5-10% of the time. Thus, the “conservative cause” weakens, and debacles like this immigration bill come to pass.
On the other hand, it is possible to cobble together temporary coalitions of those RINOs in order to pass legislation (or prevent it) in a way that it is impossible to manage with the lock-step liberal Demodogs! For a current example, compare in the following:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN01348:@@@S the “Record Votes” #198-206 on the immigration bill & amendments. Check out the way the two RINOs Snowe & Collins and the Independent Sanders shifted votes depending on their stance about that specific amendment and compare that behavior with some of the really scary NE liberals like Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton. Choose some other examples of your own, if you like (Byrd is amusing). The fact is that the Demodogs like those will WIN every “conservative vs. liberal” race in the NorthEast. Those are the types of votes you’re getting by defeating RINOs - you won’t get a Sessions or Cornyn from the NorthEast... and those “RINOs” are the only thing standing between the where we are now in the US and true socialism.
Every NE (or similar) RINO who is defeated by a Demodog weakens the conservative cause, and that weakens America, as election 2006 has shown. There really is NO alternative to working with them other than communism or succession.
Oh Goodie goodie another lecture on how conservatives must bow to the MINORITY Rockefeller Republicans because they have all da party money. I say end the GOP NOW and get the train wreck over with. Let the Liberal RINO’s go back home to their DEM Party from where they came from.
Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan won because they were Midwesterners and ran somewhat as outsiders, although in Truman's only election he beat a very EASTERN NEW YORK POLITICAL HACK and former PROSECUTOR as close to a Giulani clone as anyone who has ever run for President. Fred Thompson will probably win the election on the basis of his geography and the fact he has been out of the Senate long enough that he does not smell of Washington insider as does Hildebeast and Osama Obama. The argument you make is moot because of something called the electoral college. George Wallace was smart enough to know that one does not have to kowtow to the eastern elite to win election. He was shot in 1968 when he had More Popular votes than any Democratic candidate at the time. Richard Nixon, no political dummy in his own right, was paying attention and formed a winning strategy called the Southern strategy.
The news to you is that the sun in this nation does not revolve around the east coast liberal elitism as you think. The dolt Bush has ceded a good part of the Republican Party to Teddy Kennedy another elistist draft dodging drunken fratboy like himself. We now call those boys and girls the Kennedy wing of the Republican Party. But I am an optimist not a hand wringer like yourself, and my political hero Ronald Reagan ceded not part of the Republican Party, he annexed part of the Democrat Party for his own, and we called them Reagan Democrats. Therein lies the paradigm, you are an apologist for Jorge and his Kennedy wing of the Republican Party, and I on the other hand say if Ronald Reagan could claim part of the Democrat Party to call his own, then it CAN be done again.
You offered me a rambling rant, sir, I return your serve.
The GOP needs to get over the idea of Dems vs Them as many DEM's are conservatives looking for a good reason to vote for a conservative. If the GOP runs DEMLITE they stay in their own party. Reagan managed to pull Dem Conservatives for a landslide victory not once but twice.
When the GOP goes liberal it looses. I think a number of congressmen last election were booted out not on their record but rather a dislike for Bush policy. They knew they were mad but not mad enough to see just which RINO's needed booting out and which conservatives needed to stay.
I can not imagine anyone thinking we need Arlen Specter for any reason or Orrin Hatch yet some seriously thought Hatch would have made a good USSC Justice. Ones who think this call themselves conservatives?
The one point I disagree on is I think Bush won solely because Gore had too many scandals. I think any other DEM would have taken Bush in a landslide. Bush before the general election was already telling the conservatives to kiss off and was heading for more liberal venues. That almost cost him the race. In 2004 Bush had another close race. Again it wasn't the policy of Bush people were cheering on but the insanity of Kerry turned them off. Bush also by 2004 had angered a substantial portion of his own party.
Liberalism does not unite DEM votes getting behind GOP candidates but Conservative Republicans get substantial DEM conservative votes.
Gore lost for a good reason. As far as I know, no one has ever won the Presidency who lost his home state. Had Gore won Tennessee, he would have won the Presidency. You see my point of geography again comes in to play. As the good people of Tennessee know Gore was no Tennesseean. He was raised and educated in the elite suburbs of Washington, and was private school, all the way. Bush had the ability to take on the Texas swagger, and play the cowboy even if he was as they say in Texas all hat and no cattle. Both Bush and Gore were Ivy League snobs from elitists families. Gore never met a person he was unable to lecture and talk down to and that was his undoing. When Bush ran against Kerry, you have two Skull and Crossbones Ivy Leaguers, who were East Coast elite snobs all the way. But whereas Bush married the town librarian, Kerry marries the second time around a millionaire pickle princess, who is the epitome of the snobbish rich. But the difference between Bush and Kerry was told in one picture , who can forget the arrogant unsociable Kerry in spandex windsurfing. And as Jay Leno so insightfully quipped, even his hobbies depend on which way the wind is blowing.
To: cva66snipe
Congratulations.
You apparently are getting what you want.
105 posted on 06/12/2007 2:58:23 PM EDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
You are NOT a Conservative... you are a foolish libnut Hitlery supporter.
But to your point: Yes, I’m making regional distinctions. They are HUGE. I’ve lived for at least two years and taken part in presidential electoral politics in the South, the West, the MidWest, and I grew up in NYState. Most of the country believes that the GOP is a generally “conservative” party, and that IS true in the South and the MidWest. It is less conservative in the West (CA, especially) and it is a mixed bag in the East, but in the NorthEast, Guilliani is a good example of the “middle” of the GOP political spectrum. He is by no means the most “leftward” GOP politician. Chaffee and Jumpin’Jim Jeffords demonstrate that contention. I don’t know much about NorthWest GOP politics, but I believe it is pretty similar to the MidWest.
I AGREE with EVERYONE who believes we must do all we can to do prod, push, pull, kick, etc., the GOP national party as “rightward” as possible. I have no problem at all with telling them, very vocally, “I won’t donate a single buck to the national GOP if (illegal immigration, Chaffee, queer rights, etc.) is supported”. However, that then REQUIRES that you do what you can do to:
>1. Financially support individual “conservative” Republicans in lieu of the national party even if they aren’t running for office in your state (as I do) and let the national GOP know that you’re doing so.
>2. Work your tail off in the primaries to get as “conservative” a Republican in the general election AS IS ELECTABLE in your state.
>3. Keep in mind that it is almost always more likely that a ANY Republican from your area will take a more “conservative” stance on an issue than ANY Demodog elected from your area. The ONLY time you should sit on your hands during an election is on the rare occasions that you estimate it to be quite likely that a Demodog you “allow” will be a one-termer... this is VERY RARE the way Congress has rigged their re-election chances (and why I support term limits). This means your area must be VERY conservative and is now being represented by a liberal Republican, who must be defeated. Chaffee is one of the very few RINOs in recent years who were so liberal voting that it didn’t much matter who they would be replaced by, even long term.
>4. Keep in contact with your CongressCritters - visit their local offices - and let them know where you stand on the issues, and put a face on their public. Base decisions about #3 remembering that your office time will be prove more valuable with a “liberal” Republican than any Demodog (as I tried to show by referring you to the immigration votes of liberal Republicans Snowe and Collins) so, in general, vote and work for their election anyway if they gain the nomination... (I’m suffering in this respect right now since my somewhat liberal CongressCritter, who I at least had great respect from regarding the illegal immigration issue, was replaced in ‘06 by a super-liberal Demodog)
Realize that EACH and every RINO that is replaced by a Demodog YANKS the country left, given the iron-fisted control the Demodog leaders have historically exerted. The best hope of going “rightward” is to replace Demodogs from more “conservative states” like the Dakotas, etc., with Republicans... it is NOT to get rid of the NE RINOs or abandoning the Republican party - if we do that, we’re gonna have 3-4 Ginsberg clones on the Supreme Court faster than you can say “Jack Robinson”. Hopefully, at some time in the future, the national party will be sufficiently dominated by “conservative” R’s that more conservative, party discipline can be demanded. That is not now the case in the GOP, and it behooves conservatives to recognize that, live within those constraints, and keep plodding away to change it rather than getting depressed by that.
I’ve been following this advice for over thirty years now (since Goldwater) and by following this path, conservatives have made remarkable strides rightward in many respects, and this country would CERTAINLY have been much more socialist if sKerry and Kennedy Demodogs had been elected instead of the NE (and other) RINOs. As Conservatives, our major focus right now has to be replacing the Dems in the “Red” States with Republicans, and stop focusing so much on the NE RINOs- you CAN’T replace them with “conservatives”.
Like it or now, in this business, the perfect is the enemy of doing good, and in the game of national politics, it is critical to keep in mind that the USA is NOT as conservative as many on this web site would like to believe.
I COMPLETELY AGREE with you about THIS post#113 - in _presidential_ politics, the GOP and the country is better served by running more “conservative” candidates. I believe that the more liberal of them will be defeated, including “moderate” McCain. I believe that many of the GOP candidates now being mentioned would prove able to beat all of the Demodog clones.
However, Congressional politics is more pertinent to this article, and in that venue, this is NOT the case since so many big states are overwhelmingly liberal, and it is nearly impossible to elect any Republican to state-wide office who is much more conservative than Guilliani, Snowe, or Collins. For that reason, my point: that we have to learn to live with and work with the RINOs insofar as possible, and realize that “Republican” does not mean “conservative” in a good portion of the country.
You might just want to check my posting history since 1999 you Simpleton. All who know my post know I do not support Hillary. Where was you Buddy Fred during the senate hearings BTW? I hold him responsible for his vote of Not Guilty how about you? I supported good Conservative House Managers in re-election for office whom Bush helped run out of office like Ed Bryant-R. How about you? In your sense no I'm likely not a NYS Rockefeller So Called Conservative like yourself. I lean toward the Constitution Party Platform and that Mr. Chuckles is about as Constitution anchored conservative as one can be politically. Got a Bust of Nelson Rockefeller in your den per chance? Or does his picture hang on your living room wall along with Jerry and Poppy?
Big North East Liberal Republicans cost us the 1996 election remember? Who were those two women keynote speakers at the 1996 convention? One a former NY state congresswoman and the other a Liberal former New Jersey governor. Where are they now? :>} You see it doesn't hurt to get rid of RINO's.
Conservatism is strong enough to win the majority IF RINO's are dealt with as needed. It's when they {meaning GOP Liberals} take over the house and senate leadership as well as the White House we all loose. They join and fight with the DEMs against the conservatives just as Bush and his puppet McCain are doing now on immigration.
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.