Immigration Vote: End of a Presidency?

The buzz around Washington today is that the proactive phase of the Bush presidency is over.

This analysis was prompted by the 46-to-53 Senate vote Thursday that ended the debate over immigration, most likely for the remainder of George W. Bush's term in office.

"You could make the case that the Bush presidency ended this week," a former White House adviser to Ronald Reagan told U.S. News. He points out that not only did Bush lose his main domestic priority for his second term, but he also faces a revolt within his party over his Iraq policy.

That was driven home when Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio broke with the administration and said it's time for the United States to start disengaging from Iraq.

Bush aides are trying to persuade the GOP dissidents not to stray too far and to give the president's Iraq policy longer to work. But it's unclear whether those arguments will work.

On immigration, Bush argued Thursday that the American people realize that the status quo is "unacceptable," and he expressed disappointment that his compromise measure failed.

But its loss was caused at least as much by opposition from conservatives as from liberals, and it caused a rift between Bush and his base that may be irreparable. White House officials are trying to shift blame to the Democratic majority in Congress.

Bush advisers say Democratic leaders will now be unable to show any progress on immigration, raising questions about whether they can govern effectively.

He's alienated the very base of support he needs to conduct the war--now many of us who were dubious about the attempt to democratize savage tribes of demented death-cultists are feeling much freer to express the doubts that we kept quiet out of faith and trust--he was willing to dispose of that suppor. for love of Vicente.

Well said, Mamzelle.

It was folly. How are we supposed to trust a man to conduct a war who refuses to protect our ports and borders?

I have been one very saddened Pubbie.

now many of us who were dubious about the attempt to democratize savage tribes of demented death-cultists are feeling much freer to express the doubts that we kept quiet out of faith and trust--he was willing to dispose of that support for love of Vicente.

Democracy and Islam don't mix. There are plenty of Muslims who aspire to live free and democratically but the savage Muslims usually seize the reins of power. We now know Saddam was the perfect beast to rule Iraq's querulous religious factions. Muslims like dictators and authoritarian rule because that's what Muhammad their false prophet was. And Allah is just big ol' dictator in the sky

The prescription drug program made it worse. Medicare’s Financial Condition: Beyond Actuarial Balance

RR flipflop on Soc Sec only made things worse. Only created a larger problem, burdening a further generation into the largest wealth stealing scheme ever (within the US).

Your notion that because it would go into the red, there is nothing we could do? I guess then we should just be committed to the largest wealth stealing scheme forever until FICA taxes reach 100% and unlimited income ceilings.

That is just foolishness. RR should have began the process of private accounts (thus taking us down the path of doing away with Soc Sec for all but a limited few who would choice to stay on it). He simply kept us in the Gov't ponzi scheme.

You still haven't answered my question, "Why hasn't Bush secured the border since 9/11?"

Because no border or line is ever fully secure. But more is happening with our ports & borders then is openly talked about. Again, you don't have to like that fact, but it is a reality. Just like you didn't have to like the fact that more was going on with the monitoring of conversations (without your knowledge....or the Minuteman's) but it was happening nonetheless.

If you want to pretend nothing more is happening with regard to our ports and borders concerning NS (then is openly known to the public)....go right ahead if it helps you sleep better. Pretending that you and the minutemen are our true defenders.......Th adults who are actually doing it provide you with that luxury of ego indulgence.

RR flipflop on Soc Sec only made things worse. Only created a larger problem, burdening a further generation into the largest wealth stealing scheme ever (within the US).

Reagan didn't flip flop on SS. Where did you get that notion? No politiican in 1980 was calling for the privatization of SS.

Your notion that because it would go into the red, there is nothing we could do?

Not politically. The USG and SS had to keep its legal obligations to the people. What would you have had Reagan do?

I am strongly for privatization, but Reagan couldn't do it by himself and he would have undermined his own political agenda, including rebuilding the military. Based on your comments, I suggest you learn a little bit more on how SS works. I have done my homework.

One of your silliest statements yet. So since no border can be made fully secure, we shouldn't try to make it secure? The reality is that Bush has done very little since 9/11 to secure our borders. We know the bad guys have been coming in because we have captured some of them.

Reagan didn't flip flop on SS. Where did you get that notion? No politiican in 1980 was calling for the privatization of SS.

R.R. was a firm believer in private accounts prior to becoming POTUS. You clearly haven't read much of the man's writings.

Not politically. The USG and SS had to keep its legal obligations to the people. What would you have had Reagan do?

Lead! Talk about the necessity of private accounts (which he favored prior to be POUTS). The reality is far fewer people were collecting Soc Sec in 1983 then today (and had far more years until they would be collecting). It was absolutely the right time to lead on the issue. To stop the terrible system of the stealing of wealth from every American family (especially the poor-middle/class).

The Soc Sec scheme was simply at a much more manageable level (especially to start-up private accounts) in the 80s. Doing it now (which GWB has pushed for) will be a much more difficult process.

RR simply refusing to increase FICA taxes would have been the best option. Show the American public it was a ponzi scheme. Show the value of private accounts.

One of your silliest statements yet. So since no border can be made fully secure, we shouldn't try to make it secure?

It is fine to have a conversation...but only if both sides are willing to be intellectually honest during it. I never suggested the above. I simply stated a fact to your question of "why isn't the border secure".

Telling you that no border can ever be made fully secure is completely different then your suggestion that I inferred "we shouldn't even try" or "that the GWB isn't trying at all".

That is pure hyperbole BS. Reality is more is happening on our borders then you are giving credit for....along with surprise, surprise more then the public is aware of in terms of NS (at our ports and borders).

And let me add to our discussion - That RR did not lead on Soc Sec. That he increased FICA taxes on all Americans (and businesses)at at time when the system was at a more manageable level.....That doesn't mean I believe him to be a bad POTUS. Or a sellout. Or not a "true" conservative.

He was a hell of a POTUS, a fine man, a leader (more often then not) and d*mn good CINC. My problem is today, way too many in our base are holding GWB to a much higher standard then held to RR. RR would be the first to call bullsh*t on that.

So tell me, what should RR have done in 1983 with SS running in the red? What was politically possible with the Dems holding an overwhelming majority in the House?

I told you. I believe he should have held firm. Not increased FICA taxes and shown the Soc Sec system for what it is....A ponzi scheme from which the Fed Gov't gains power and a constituency (while stealing tremendous wealth from each and every family). He should have talked up private accounts over and over, he was popular, the problem was at a much more manageable level....yet he took the easy route and pushed what he KNEW was going to be a tremendous problem down the road.

But here is what shows you hold GWB to one standard (a higher one) and RR to a much lower one.

You point out how RR gave amnesty to all illegals in 86 (one time event) and GWB should have LEARNED from this mistake. That he didn't shows him to be a sellout, blah, blah, blah.

Yet within this very same discussion you and I have been having you openly acknowledge (as an excuse for RR) that the failed notion of raising FICA taxes (some 40 times PRIOR to RR) never solved a d*mn thing....other then to further burden the next generations into the wealth stealing scheme of Soc Sec.

So where RR had 40 opportunities to learn from....Ahh, no, he just made a mistake continuing to do the same. Yet, where GWB only had one mistake to learn from, to use a a reference....HE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED! D*mnit! That RR had over 40 chances to learn...Hogwash, he was a true conservative so he is given a free pass (even though he held a larger majority in the Senate for more years than did GWB).

Pure nonsense. He would never have been reelected in 1984. Mondale made the mistake of saying he would raise taxes. Imagine if RR said he was going to privatize SS and in the meantime he was not going to approve the 1983 bill to keep it solvent. LOL. You can't be that politically dumb. There was/is a reason why SS is considered the third rail of American politics. RR also didn't have the benefit of such programs as IRAs and other tax exempt private pension plans.

You are hopeless. Even RR couldn't solve the problem of SS because it is going to have to be bipartisan solution. The issue will be demagogued.

I used the example of the prescription drug plan to demonstrate Bush's failure to reform the entitlement programs. This was the greatest increase in social welfare programs since the introduction of Medicare. Bush is responsible for it. It was not an old program like SS, but a new initiative. Big difference.

Right. RR had these issues when they were at much more manageable levels...Yet he couldn't stand firm (though he had a larger REP majority in the Senate then did GWB)...But these issues were "third-rail" and called for "bipartisan" solutions. He did have a bipartisan Congress didn't he? Enough to get large tax-cuts passed. Enough to increase our military, No?

Yet those same type "restrictions" you allow for RR...You suggest aren't there for GWB. When the reality is these problems (immigration, Soc Sec and other entitlement programs) are much larger problems in size then back in the 80s.

We have a political atmosphere that has never been more partisan (Novak, Cook, G. Will, all these old timer's attest to this). We have an era of 24/7 news, openly & overtly bias MSM, 527 groups (Moveon.org, etc) throwing more money into the political environment then ever before....

Yet, GWB didn't have these same "restrictions" you provide to RR. Give me a break. The political atmosphere is more contentious, more politicized today then ever before.

Again, you allow for RR not to have learned from 40 examples that raising FICA taxes did nothing other then to further steal wealth from American families along with pushing the problem down the road (I.E. creating a bigger problem). This while have a large Majority in the US Senate no less).

Yet, GWB should have learned from ONE example (RR 86 immigration bill). GWB has one chance to learn, RR has over 40.....But you aren't holding them to different standards.

I got it.

RR needed to do certain things in order to be "electable" in 84. But GWB didn't have these same difficulties (IE. The need for education reform in 2000...when soccer mom's were demanding such).

Demand a border fence! Build it NOW!! Beef up the border patrol and close our borders!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Toll free to the US Senate:

1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)

Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!

I don’t know about some of this stuff, but the No Child Left Behind Bill has been a disaster. The drop out rate has increased dramatically; states are resorting to giving dumbed down tests in order to meet criteria-complete waste of time and not conservative. My daughter got a 90 on the Georgia end of course test. I’m telling you, I taught Algebra for 15 years-no way she deserved a 90. I tutored her and was praying for a passing grade (hates math) As for kids sitting ‘still’, they don’t have to. Special ed students can not be punished for talking. You have to teach while ignoring them. Mainstreaming is really fun too. You get a class of 30 or so students-eight of them can be (and are) special ed. You have to make 9 preps per day- one for ‘regular students’ and one for each of the eight. I taught science so I had to alter all my labs in the same way as above. This is why I now work in business.

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.