And he would have done it irregardless of a veto proof majority or not. Unlike spending or other issues, this issue is way too important to not make a stand.
“...that upwards of 70% of the American people are vehemently against...”
Please. The immigration crew is not the majority nor has it ever been the majority. The proof is in the pudding because every time America had a real chance to curtail illegal immigration (Operation Wetback, 86 Amnesty, 96 immigration reform, sanctuary city laws) either the situation is worsened or it remained in status quo. Coupling this with the consistent failure of nativist and anti-immigrant movements in the past, it is clear that the majority of Americans are either lackadaisical or actually supportive on this issue. There is no outcry for reform. The only reason this bill got tabled is because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And boy was it squeaky. The average American couldn’t care less about this issue. It’s like the war protests. It looks large but only because most people don’t care enough to voice out strong support or condemnation.
” twisting arms”
That’s kind of what a party leader does. Nothing sinister.
“insulting opponents”
No, he insulted the intransigent and the fanatical. I read the speech, his ire is towards ““THOSE INTENT TO FIND FAULT” in the bill not “those who actually find fault”. If you cook a nice meal and all the food critic does is looking to criticize it rather than objectively judging it, well, that’s not very nice or productive is it?
There are a number of people who came to oppose the bill by examining it and finding faults, not by doing it in a prejudiced and unobjective manner. These people the President doesn’t have problems with.
And the insulting? It’s not like he called them traitors, racist in disguise, in bed with Buchanan, or any other equivalent of the popular catch phrases slung his way PRIOR to the “oh so aweful” speech.
“waiving tax $$ around”
The old saying about the sausage factory applies. A lot of this is like the Miers and Dubai fiasco, people reacting less on solid evidence and more on perception and cheap emotionalism, which is plainly evident all over the net. In the end tabling the bill might be a bad thing, but we’ll never know because accurate counterfactuals are God’s domain, not ours.
“and promising who knows whom goodness knows what (dumping Pace?) to get his priority passed.”
Not Pace, not even close. We wouldn’t even hear about Pace if it weren’t for the DEMons being invested in the failure of the war. Besides, what wouldbe the point of negotiating to remove Pace if he’s just going to be replaced by somebody just as dedicated/capable. For a guy who nominated Rice, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Roberts, Alito, and dozens of other justices and quality people, finding a suitable replacement for Pace shouldn’t be a problem.
“A little, just a little of that passion and effort could have been spent on keeping a good, solid JCS Chairman in place during wartime. But no, “wouldn’t be prudent” to tick off the Dems right now.”
An accomplish what? A Phyrric victory? Correction, it wouldn’t even be a victory. It would be a massacre. But hey, we made a stand! Pace is definitely not the hill to die on, esp with Mullens in the wing who could prove as good or better than Pace. Why have two hearings instead of one in a time of war?
“The war isn’t on Bush’s front burner these days. He’s on to other things.”
Through no fault of his own. Do you actually want the President to micromanage the ops in Iraq and Afghanistan? There isn’t much for him to do except leave it to the generals. Besides, it’s not like war is the only issue. He still has to contend with N. Korea, Iran, Sudan, this bill, and a thousand other issues. The war is pretty much on auto-pilot. Keep the DeMs away, let the troops and generals do their thing, lather, rinse, repeat.
“Having been a troop with my backside on the line”
Well God bless you, but doesn’t mean you are correct or beinf fair on this issue.
Here is the problem. Instead of chalking these things to matters of opinion, it always boil down to principle. That’s ridiculous. Just because the President doesn’t see things eye to eye doesn’t mean he has no character. I have plenty of libreral friends and they are by no means deficient in morals or character. Just because you disagree with him on how to do XYZ doesn’t make him or you a bad person. The tendency to associate character weakness or, worse, malicious intent to every move the President makes is grossly unfair. If the average person is put under the same “scrutiny” as the President, then it’d be quickly apparent how truly vile and ridiculous such a perspective is.
In fact, considering the fact that he has access to intelligence, black ops, links and leaks inside hostile countries, congressional insiders, aides and informants on the ground in the halls of government, I’d be hard pressed to assume that I know better than him what to do on a certain issue. Of course, he’s still human and can make mistakes. But with all that info available, the threshold for screwing up is most likely significantly smaller than the average person.
“Here is the problem. Instead of chalking these things to matters of opinion, it always boil down to principle. That’s ridiculous. Just because the President doesn’t see things eye to eye doesn’t mean he has no character. I have plenty of libreral friends and they are by no means deficient in morals or character. Just because you disagree with him on how to do XYZ doesn’t make him or you a bad person. The tendency to associate character weakness or, worse, malicious intent to every move the President makes is grossly unfair. If the average person is put under the same “scrutiny” as the President, then it’d be quickly apparent how truly vile and ridiculous such a perspective is.
“In fact, considering the fact that he has access to intelligence, black ops, links and leaks inside hostile countries, congressional insiders, aides and informants on the ground in the halls of government, I’d be hard pressed to assume that I know better than him what to do on a certain issue. Of course, he’s still human and can make mistakes. But with all that info available, the threshold for screwing up is most likely significantly smaller than the average person.”
Which explains why Clinton and Carter did almost everything right, of course. And that the very few mistakes those two fine statesmen made were due to their just being human (obvious, scathing sarcasm). Yes, the President has better information than you and I, but to say the President necessarily uses that information to the country’s best advantage is naive. History is replete with examples to the contrary. Which is why character matters. Greatly. Which is why the electorate should be able to trust that a candidate means what a candidate says on the campaign trail. Among the many campaign promises Candidate Bush made were the promise that under his command the US would not engage in nation building and that he would not grant amnesty to illegals. Hmmm...
To say that criticism of the President is unwarranted is contrary to everything this country stands for. Criticism of the government by the citizens is not only acceptable, it is essential. It is how free citizens keep their government in line without resorting to violence. I am simply using a modern forum, unknown to the Founding Fathers, to petition my government for redress of grievances. That you do not like my opinion does not delegitimize it in any way.
Hero-worship all you wish; it is your right. But when this or any other President is wrong, I will call him on it. That is my right and my duty.
The President is wrong as wrong can be on this immigration bill.