Posted on 06/27/2007 2:30:44 PM PDT by neverdem
As is its right, the White House is certainly putting up a spirited defense of the Senate's immigration/amnesty bill. The Bush administration is making it quite clear that it has drawn a line in the sand on this issue and opponents cross it at their own peril.
I am a longtime admirer of George W. Bush. He is a good man, the head of my party and someone I had the honor to work with many years ago. Unfortunately, as I'm a Republican who thinks the president's "guest worker program" is really amnesty in immigrant clothing, my president has suggested that I "don't want to do what's right for America."
Going down the GOP line, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina generically suggested I'm a "bigot." Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff (who should be protecting our nation and not attaching his nose to the president's backside) basically said I would prefer to kill illegal aliens. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez suggested that I am in favor of "mass deportation," and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said I'm "anti-immigrant."
Wow. All of that invective hurled my way because I want to protect our borders and my country. What these highly educated men practicing lowbrow politics should understand is that nothing could be further from the truth -- both for me and the tens of millions of Americans opposed to this dangerously flawed plan.
In my case, I may have a bit more understanding of the issue than the mudslingers in the administration, as I'm married to an immigrant from Venezuela -- a woman, by the way, who not only stood in all the lines and did all the paperwork asked of her by this country, but who thinks this White House and these "Republicans" are slapping her in the face with their transparent amnesty plan.
My message to my president and his subordinates is this: Not only do I consider myself a patriot, but I'm not a bigot, I don't want to kill my wife or any other immigrants, I am strongly against the deportation of illegal aliens and I am very much pro-immigration.
Americans are sick of politicians because they can't say anything without spin. Every sentence is parsed with an eye toward personal or party advantage. The will of the people rarely matters when it's reelection time.
Knowing that, let's be brutally honest about the subject of illegal immigration. The reason so many Republicans and Democrats are pushing the amnesty plan is partisan self-interest and a blatant grab for the Hispanic vote in 2008. While Republicans like Graham and Arizona Sen. John McCain may actually believe their political rhetoric about losing the Hispanic-American vote forever if they don't pass their "comprehensive guest worker program," in reality what they and the White House are doing is creating a perfect storm that is going to batter the GOP for years to come.
While seemingly impossible to do, in the course of a few months, the Republican Party has managed to push away "white-collar" Hispanic-American voters, "blue-collar" Hispanic-American voters and the conservative base it needs to win local and national elections. How?
Simply and sadly, it has lost highly educated Hispanic-American voters like my wife and her friends -- a group rarely polled by the media or political parties -- who tend to lean conservative on many issues but feel ignored and belittled by the White House and many Republicans because they chose to proudly obey the laws of the United States. The party has lost "blue-collar" Hispanic-Americans who are moving en masse away from the GOP, in part because Republican "leaders" are falsely and suicidally portraying certain conservatives as anti-Hispanic. And finally, they are losing conservative voters who see Republican politicians put party or self-interest before the national security of our country as they shamefully pander for votes.
The White House and its backers are free to defame me and others over this illegal alien controversy, but maybe when they take a deep breath, they can answer these questions from my legal immigrant Hispanic-American wife: "What has happened to Republican principles? When did they stop believing in basic law and order?"
“Sure, put a woman in there and she’s happy?”
You’re saying that we screwed up the deal?
What deal? Where do you get such notions?
You seem to make a giant leap in assuming that you know what would make Ruth Ginsberg happy (as if it had any relevency anywhere.)
Were you or are you privy to some unspoken deal that had been conjured that had been drafted to constitute an even trade of Miers for Ginzzy? (as if it had any relevancy anywhere)
Ask her yourself.
Ask whom? Ginsberg? Miers?
Look, your the guy who sought to give the Liberals the edge they needed, so live with the guilt. Ginzburg is still there because of your misdirected anxieties, and it’s not likely we can replace her with someone even slightly less Stalinist in her thinking.
What are you talking about?? In the case of Miers, W gave croynism a bad name. When some of us (not me) opposed the Dubai ports deal we were ridiculed and pretty much called xenophobic by W. Now we have the amnesty bill. Are we supposed to march like lemmings to the current tune?
Please take a breath, don’t be so hasty and reckless, and explain for us just how someone about this forum “sought to give some Liberals the edge they needed.”
And this time, try not to use techniques ( that the rest of us aren’t up to speed on) like Ruth Ginzberg
mind -reading, or crazy -leap unsubstantiated- wild- assumptions to posit your reply.
“Your” should be “You’re” in one of your posts. The error may not have been made,if you had taken time to give constructive dialog a chance.
I no longer share this view.
You really don’t have a response do you.
The issue was about priority of loading/unloading, and was worth about $100 a year profit for each gantry crane involved.
In the end the Mob still owns the docks.
These are "Hispanics" who are or were already voting Republican.
You’ve been whittled down to half sentences now.
Come back some other time.
Miers is more conservative than O’Conner. Unfortunatelly, she is not conservative enough for the base.
Here's what W said about the Dubai ports: "I really don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East..."
When we opposed the Miers appointment we were sexist.
Quoting for the article that led to this thread: Going down the GOP line, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina generically suggested I'm a "bigot." Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff (who should be protecting our nation and not attaching his nose to the president's backside) basically said I would prefer to kill illegal aliens. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez suggested that I am in favor of "mass deportation," and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said I'm "anti-immigrant."
I expect language like the above from the libs I'm surrounded by in my job, not from a leaders of my party.
You say that like it's some kind of excuse rather than an illustration of the paucity the depth of your bench.
We’re out of smart guys? Well isn’t that a confident attitude.
Conservatives don’t need that kind of defeatism, and I’m not going to agree with it. Insecure attitudes like that are what’s driven the GOP to act like liberals and lose votes.
Messsage from GW Bush to all Hispanics: Hey amigos, we understand that you all risked your lives to come here and clean our toilets for us. Trent, Lindsay, Teddy, Laura and I want you to know we really appreciate it, too.
I doubt she'd gotten any warm and fuzzies with Meirs.
“You should also quit coming up with the Meirs nomination as instructive of anything whatsoever.”
Most would disagree with you. No parallels are perfect but then as now we see a White House with a ‘tin ear’ for the concerns of the base, and a base increasingly at odds with a White House that thinks it can buy off the base with foolish and unbelievable panders (example this week, the $4.4 billion on ‘enforcement’ which DeMint exposed as being partly use for the amnesty and which should be done in any case and not as a part of a ‘bargain’ on immigration).
Bush and the pro-amnesty Senators are living in a dream-world if they think only
‘anti-immigration’ people oppose this bad bill. I am married to an immigrant and work with immigrants daily.
I support legal immigration, including more employment-based immigration focus with a merit/point system,
along with curtailing/ending ‘chain migration’. I support limited temporary worker program as part of legal immigration.
I and most legal immigrants that I know oppose this bill strongly.
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.