In our old age, we will look back on these days with great bitterness, and our children will curse our generation for squandering their great national legacy.
Posted on 06/04/2007 6:14:33 AM PDT by theothercheek
In an interview aboard Air Force One last week with Ron Hutcheson of McClatchy Newspapers, President Bush said:
"I'm deeply concerned about America losing its soul. Immigration has been the lifeblood of a lot of our country's history. And I am worried that a backlash to newcomers would cause our country to lose its great capacity to assimilate newcomers. And I believe that a newly arrived adds to the vigor and the entrepreneurial spirit, and enhances the American Dream."
These sentiments, coupled with Bush’s suggestion that opponents of his compromised immigration compromise "don't want to do what's right for America," are driving conservatives to apoplexy. The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan contends that Bush broke faith with conservatives, not the other way around:
Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place. …
You don't like endless gushing spending … Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
Noonan makes the case that it’s déjà vu all over again:
[T]he Bushes, father and son … are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. … Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. … [H]e raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. ….
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. …
There’s only one thing conservatives and Republicans can do now, says Noonan: “[W]in back their party.” She adds that “breaking from those who have already broken from [you]” and “letting go … will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.”
The question is, how?
Deep down – maybe not so deep down – conservatives always knew Bush was a pretender, mouthing the right words and making the right gestures. But conservatives voted for him anyway, the first time to pre-empt a third Clinton term and the second time because the thought of Kerry as a post-9/11 Commander in Chief was nightmare-inducing.
This was a shot-gun wedding and after eight years of Bush, conservatives are understandably gun-shy. But holding out for an imaginary ideal of ideological purity is not the answer. And allowing Hillary Clinton to capture the White House by staying home on Election Day is not an option.
There may be a third way: A new conservative coalition that crosses party lines to include anyone who considers himself center-right. Such a coalition could as easily support a conservative Republican as a “Blue Dog” Democrat. Since neither party would be able to count on the bipartisan bloc’s vote, both will court these voters and neither will take them for granted. As an added benefit, the sheer size of this bipartisan bloc may be an equal and opposing force against the inexorable leftward pull the moonbats are exerting on the Dem party platform.
Of the 19 declared presidential candidates as of this writing, Rudy Giuliani is the most logical choice to forge this new coalition of conservatives. He is enough of a social liberal to attract Reagan Democrats, and tough enough on crime and terrorism – with the added bonus of being fiscally conservative – to attract conservatives who are putting social issue on the back burner this time around.
Over the next 18 months, several home-grown Muslim terror plots are likely to come to light - such as the thwarted plan to blow up aviation fuel tanks and feeder lines running underground from New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport through surrounding residential neighborhoods in Queens. Each time, more social conservatives will conclude that preventing the aborting of the lives of those already born in acts of terrorism is at least as important as preventing the aborting of unborn babies.
No, but he can surely sign the law the Democrats will send him. And the SC will certainly find it constitutional just as they have in limiting private property rights and political speech. Rudy may not come to my front door in person for my guns, but he will gladly turn me into a criminal with the stroke of a pen.
If you expect Rudy to tell you the truth, which statements that he's made are you going to believe? How about judging him on what he's DONE previously? You don't seem to have any trouble applying that standard to Romney. Why not Rudy? (P.S. Don't turn your back on either one of them, or McCain for that matter.)
BTTT
I think we are on the same page.
WWII and this are two different situation and I assume that your talking about our poor not illegal poor.
Peggy did not say that. Read it again carefully. Also, if you have not, read Peggy's post on its own
To me this is entirely different than offering sanctuary to a person that is being persecuted, i.e. Jews during WWII and Christians in Arab countries. It is a perversion of sanctuary as these people will not be harmed.
Yes, I suppose it is. But I can grab my baby and kids and run.
I baby in his Mama's womb, has no place to run or hide when his Mother decides to hire a hit man to kill him.
And no one else is allowed to save him.
Peter King (R-NY) is as staunchly pro life as anyone on this thread. He is putting abortion on the back burner and supporting Rudy because he thinks Rudy is the strongest on national security issues.
I believe the same things you believe: abortion is wrong, embryonic stem cell research is wrong, we must beat back Islamofascism, all of us collectively have second amendment rights not just those in militias, immigration is good but illegal immigration is destroying our country, etc., etc., etc. But when you rank the issues in importance the numbering on my list has changed. Number One is beating back Islamofascism. Same list, different priorities. Next election the priorities may well change again even though the list won’t.
I am making a distinction in my mind between conservatives and republicans. That’s why I am willing to entertain the idea of conservatives of both parties banding together to vote for whichever candidate in whichever party is most likely to govern as a conservative.
I saw what Rudy did on 9/11. I also saw a city mired in failed liberal programs and going bankrupt under the weight of their staggering cost. I saw Rudy save New York from the liberals and save it from the terror that the 9/11 hijackers sought to inflict. There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip and Rudy may yet do something to get me to reconsider my inclination to vote for him, but I will most assuredly be basing my vote on what he’s done.
OK - all the libs I know told me from the beginning that Bush was stupid and had no brain. Could they possibly have been correct all along?
At the end of the day though, I still think it highly likely she will be the next president due to her celebrity, the novelty of a woman president and the high level of Bush-hate creating a weariness in the voters and a desire for "change." (But I have a skewed, low, opinion of American voters generally).
Of course, that depends a great deal on whether the Republicans can unite behind a successor candidate, and that candidate is one that can match her celebrity and talk and campaign circles around her. If that happens, because this election will be very close, like 2000, then the Republicans could hold the White House in what will appear a great upset.
Unlike “moderate Muslims” who don’t exist IMO, I do believe that moderate and conservative Dems exist. Don’t you think they are alarmed at the immigration bill for the same reasons we are? Don’t you think they want to win the war in Iraq as badly as we do? Don’t you think they are as G-d fearing as some of those on this thread? Don’t you think they are sick and tired of the moonbats setting their party’s agenda? Tell the truth: If a younger version of Zell Miller were to come along wouldn’t you jump across party lines to vote for him? I would - if the Republicans did not field anyone else to my liking.
These illegals are just here for economic advantage, not refugees or persons at risk for life and limb. And the Good Lord knows we have enough of our own poor to worry about.
the newcomers have no interest in assimilating... and the libs think it's wrong to want them to assimilate... this is why the US has lost its identity... i'm 42... as a child, i felt i knew what it was to be an American... i was proud of our country... even just 30 years ago, there was still an identity that Americans shared... it's gone... now everything is multicultural... nothing is American...
In our old age, we will look back on these days with great bitterness, and our children will curse our generation for squandering their great national legacy.
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.