Replies

You shouldn't trust ANY politician, be it Bush, Tancredo, or whomever. Politicians by nature are power hungry and untrustworthy.

I think an enforcement first approach is a good first step. I suspect that opponents of this bill are planning to vote for it now and kill it in appropriations. That's how they handled the "2000 new border guards" issue.

There is a very large and powerful coalition of dems and money republicans who do not want enforcement and who do want an amnesty program. What makes this issue difficult is that about 70% of the public supports the enforcement approach but a much smaller portion supports a "comprehensive" approach. But about 90% of the dems and the business R's want the comprehensive approach with as little enforcement as they can get.

So it's a very strange political battle, with citizen (not politicians) dems and R's aligned against establishment dems and R's. The battle is far from over and, yes, the opponents will try to accomplish in appropriations or in "certifications" that the border has been closed what they have failed to accomplish politically.

I would prefer Tancredo had not phrased it in a way that can be read to impugn the President's honesty. But in the end, he's right. The President will almost certainly try to undo what this bill accomplishes. The President thinks its a bad bill. He will sign it out of political necessity. But he really believes it's a bad idea and I believe he will try to undo it. I don't regard that as a trust issue. It's a difference in political opinions issue.

So stylistically, I would have preferred it differently. But on substance, Tom is right and the president is wrong. That doesn't make the President bad. Just wrong.

But he really believes it's a bad idea and I believe he will try to undo it. I don't regard that as a trust issue. It's a difference in political opinions issue.

That's a good way to put it. But it could also be seen as not trusting the President to do the right thing and/or to do what his base wants. I can see both points of view. Perhaps it's more a matter of preference of semantics than anything.