Posted on 06/16/2007 6:40:40 AM PDT by kellynla
During a speech last month to Georgia law enforcement officials, President Bush opined that opponents of the stalled immigration reform bill “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” If they only understood the bill’s provisions, he implied, they would see the light. But, alas, they hadn’t “read the bill” and could only “speculate” about its complex provisions. He warned them to stop trying “to frighten people.”
These unscripted remarks unleashed a torrent of criticism from the president’s political base. Conservative talk-show hosts, pundits, bloggers and grassroots activists seized on the criticism as an opportunity to educate Americans on the bill’s many flaws. Constituent mail and phone calls poured in. Ultimately, a hardy band of conservatives forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the bill after two weeks of angry debate.
Last week, the president ventured to Capitol Hill to dine with Republican senators in a high-profile attempt to revive the bill. But he converted no one. With congressional leaders scheduled to consider other legislation guaranteed to further annoy and divide the president’s supporters (e.g., reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act and approving the sovereignty-stripping Law of the Sea Treaty), the question arises as to whether the president’s immigration dilemma -- having to thread the needle between openly hostile conservatives and the usual assortment of Bush-haters on the Left -- will be the norm for his remaining 18 months in office.
Several recent polls underscore the extent of his challenge.
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, the president’s overall approval rating fell six points between April and June (from 35% to 29%). But the drop was most intense among Republicans (from 77% to 65%), including conservative Republicans (from 86% to 74%), and Independents (from 34% to 22%).
Another poll, conducted by Gallup after Bush’s Georgia speech, found a similar drop in his standing among GOP loyalists, where his positive rating hit a near-record low of 70% (alarms sound whenever a politician scores below 80% with his core supporters). According to Gallup, the only other time Bush’s GOP approval rating was so low was about a year ago when -- you guessed it -- the Senate was angrily debating comprehensive immigration reform. Hmmm.
“It was the debate over immigration,” pollster Scott Rasmussen confirmed last week, “that cost the president support among his base and pushed his approval ratings to new lows.”
Political operatives are well aware that the disenchantment over immigration has settled primarily on Bush and those lawmakers who have led the charge in the Senate. Sen. Reid’s approval rating sunk 7 points in a month, to a microscopic 19%. John McCain (R-Ariz.) fell in many presidential polls. Yet the national GOP emerged unscathed, and may even have benefited, from the turmoil.
A month ago, Rasmussen reports, Democrats enjoyed a 14-point advantage (47% to 33%) as the party best able to handle immigration. Following the Senate debate, however, the Democrats’ advantage shrunk to only five points (40% to 35%). “Immigration,” he concludes, “is now tied with taxes as the GOP’s strongest issue” and is “the only issue on which unaffiliated voters trust Republicans more than Democrats.”
What explains the intensity so many Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents bring to this issue? My guess is that this is yet another manifestation of the ideological divide that separates Red from Blue America. Because Republicans are more reflexively pro-American than their Democratic colleagues, they place a much higher value on U.S. citizenship and therefore are more likely to vigorously oppose policies they perceive as granting citizenship too freely, especially to lawbreakers.
For example, polls demonstrate that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they are “very patriotic” and more likely to see America as a place where “most people living in other countries would like to live.” Also, by a 2-to-1 margin, Republicans believe “we should be willing to fight for our country … right or wrong.” A majority of Democrats disagree. Finally, Republicans attach more importance to the rule of law than Democrats do. Republicans are much more likely to want to penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and banks that offer them credit cards.
The disenchantment with Bush can be summed up in an L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll, which asked Republican primary voters whether they want the next Republican nominee for president to continue Bush’s policies or move the country in a new direction.
They opted for a new direction by the overwhelming margin of 65% to 27%.
That way, my friend, lies paranoia. This "shadow government" is not so much a conspiracy, as it is sheer lack of will and intellectual laziness.
This kind of thing happens when you have career politicians who have had no experience outside government before taking up a suzerainty granted them by a local political machine. The concept of "citizen-legislator" gets lost, and the retention of the seat for a lifetime becomes a way of life.
This entitlement to a seat is especially strong in urban Democratican machines, but there is a tendency for any seat long held by either party to lapse into this renewal by default.
Any political organization with a lick of sense would be constantly grooming replacements, and quietly removing the long-term holders of office every six to twelve years. No Senator should hold a seat more than two terms, and no Representative still serves his district more than three terms, without it becoming more about himself (or herself) than about the best interests of of the district or constituency.
“This may be the first time someone has labeled Human Events as part of the MSM. Congrats. :)”
LOL! I didn’t catch that! Human Events any part of the MSM!?!?!?! That’s as right as calling Dan Rather fair and balanced!
If I had read your post 18 months ago, you would look like you were off your meds. Now I see how plausible this is. Take the riot in Los Angeles. Those weren’t just bottles being thrown at the police, they were urine filled bottles.
Antonio VillarMEcHA was conveniently out of the country, knowing full well what his compadres were up to, imo.
I don’t blame the cops for kicking ass this time. Of course, they paid for it. It’s going to get uglier, and Martial Law is a definite possibility. Guess who is going to carry it out? Not our servicemen, but the UN. Bet on it. Any sane American wants America out of the UN, and been saying that for years. California wants to pass a bill limiting ammo purchases, and having to register what you actually are “allowed” to purchase. Stock up and bury it.
Interesting about the Clinton/Bush connection. I thought Mena was a cocaine drop, but low and behold, it was also a military training encampment. I most definitely agree with what you stated about a “no confidence vote”. I will vote for whomever is selected to run against the Beast come November. There are many good choices running in the primaries. If Ron Paul is selected(talk about a long shot), I would certainly cast my vote for him. Our number one priority is to defeat the Beast.
We are in deep sh*t.
A jackass that goes QUACK ;-D
I don't see the NYslimes or the Washington Compost heading on this article. Just because it is from a news source doesn't make it the MSM. Besides, only a fool would be so naive as to believe the majority of Bush's base isn't pissed off at him right now and many have had it with him completely.
Jorge has stabbed me in the back, insulted me.
I will never defend/support him again.
Looks to me that this immigration issue is clouding the more important part of the problem. The real threat to America is the Democratic socialist party that is trying to destroy what is left to America. Most socialist colleges, MSM, Hollywood (for the most part), dedicated socialist, and the RATS that are really taking the Country to a sad place. The immigration part, which is very important, but a small part of the total destruction. If this sad piece of legislation is passes, it will eventually add at least 20 million socialist Democrats to the voting public. Then there will be no doubt socialist Democrats will run both the Senate, House, and the Presidency. Wow, or what some of the FR’s have been saying, WTF.
They will self-deport if there were no jobs here. And if a fine of a couple grand per illegal were enforced, every housewife would only hire American housekeepers. Every home would only employ American gardeners. And every construction contractor would only hire American workers. Poor and young Americans could do honest hard field labor again. Factories and farms could hire teens and poor Americans. Heck, you could even understand the fast-food workers over the microphones again.
Seriously, if effort were made TOMORROW to go around fining everyone with an illegal in their employ, the government coffers would be so full Trent Lott could buy a better toupee.
The sales for lawnmowers would hit the sky as gardeners were fired everywhere. The price of lettuce would go up a couple dollars but you could get in on a weekend to get your injury bandaged in the emergency room! Your children could progress safely and quickly through the public schools! Restaurant prices would go up for a while, but the chances of you getting viruses and hepatitis from eating out would greatly decline. And park janitors would find picnic waste in the park’s TRASHCANS for a change.
Somehow the debate reminds me of the bussing ussue long ago. Remember bussing to achieve racial intergration? People didn’t want it, it didn’t work but it was forced down people’s throats. If I can guess, we will get the Bush plan, like it or not. Perhaps a few states should threaten to leave the union....
Slavery worked really well for the plantations’ economies too. That pesky morality kept butting in, though.
How did that famous quote go again? “America is great because America is cheap?” No, that’s not it. “America is great because America is hypocritical?” Nope. “America is great because America is arrogant?” Anyone remember that lovely quote? Why are we great, again??
I’m not much into this, but Leo Wanta could be his problem. Barbara Bush was said, ( I have no link and put it in the category of we’ll see) that his signing some agreement with Wanta has distroyed what his dad had started. Again I put all this in the we’ll see category, but strange things are happening. Just look up Leo Wanta and discern for youself what’s happening. I really have no opinion on this one, I’m in a wait and see.
Yo George, think of what could be accomplished if the laws already on the books were enforce? Baffles the mind, huh? Then no new laws that won’t be enforced would be needed.
You sound like you’ve got the makings of an 18th century slave master. Have you always reflexively harbored such a condescending attitude about people of any stripe who may actually enjoy a kind of work that you seem so prone to demean?
I won’t disillusion you and mention how the MIL was raving about jimmah and his latest book on my last visit. Oh, she also misses Rosie on the View, says it’s boring without the poor dear misunderstoon mom. LOL - I do love her though.
misunderstood
I did not say permanent. No one is trying to create a "permanent" underclass. Just "stable", in the short term.
Of course your suggestion assumes that these 'undocumented Americans' are either unwilling to or incapable of moving out of the lowest levels. Why? Because they're Mexicans?
See above. It is not permanent. Over time, they (their children, etc.) are expected to move out of the lowest class. This has happened with all previous generations of immigrants(Italians, Irish) who were assimilated. Hopefully it will also happen with the Mexicans.
The first generation of immigrants starts out as immi"grunts" doing low level jobs, and subsequently, within a generation or two, achieves some level of prosperity. Nothing in Jorge's approach is precluding that possibility.
I understand what you are saying. I know you are mad at him, and want to accuse him of something. All I am suggesting is that instead of accusing him of some bizarre thing that is almost impossible, why not accuse him of something obvious, that is much more likely to be possible, such as the fact that he is beholden to big business and the cheap labor lobby.
Thanks for the laugh.
I am sorry, but I don't see where I displayed a condescending attitude toward anyone. I was stating (what is to me) an obvious truth, without any malice towards any group of people. In fact, I am supportive of the poor, hard-working Mexicans who come here to eke out a living. I am in favor of the guest worker program.
And by the way, I know this may not square with the politically correct propaganda that most of you receive in American public schools, but there is something worse than slavery. And that is dying of hunger. A significant portion of the world's population would rather be slaves in the US and make subsistence wages than die a sorry death in their homelands.
Depending on the amnesty vote and the 2008 primaries, we may not be for long however.
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.