In 2004, as the successful leader of a nation at war, and as an apparent friend of Mexican President Vincente Fox, Bush's percentage of the Hispanic vote should go up, nationally. The "amnesty" provisions in the House version of the immigration bill are not the be-all and end-all of this equation, but just a small part of it.
While I thoroughly agree with those who say, if we're somehow allied with Senator Byrd that something's wrong, I think Byrd's opposition will cause this "amnesty" to be tightened down from the 20% deal that the House passed to maybe a 10% deal.
In the real world, that's okay. We are simply not going to round up and deport all illegal Mexicans in the US. Looked at in purely selfish terms, too many American businesses and farms would fail due to losses of their lowest paid employees -- even here in the mountains of North Carolina -- for that result to be tolerable.
By the way, your equating of the black vote and the Hispanic vote is entirely misplaced. Blacks vote as a block; Hispanics don't. The best Bush can possibly get in 2004 is about 15% of the black vote. But that's okay. Every 1% of the black vote that Bush gets above 10% slices 1% off the margin for any Democratic candidate.
If Bush gets 40% of the Hispanic vote and 15% of the black vote, ANY Democrat in 2004 is dead meat, road kill, yesterday's news, an asterisk in the history books. I think Hiilary! knows that, which is why she'll sit on the sidelines and watch Al Gore auger in and burn, again.
Being an effective President doesn't mean doing everything perfectly in the views of your core supporters (if that were even possible, given the disagreements of various groups). It means picking up the cards you're dealt and playing them better than most.
In war terms, it means winning most battles and losing few soldiers. It does not mean winning evry battle and losing no soldiers. In civilian terms, it means getting most of what you want through Congress, and preventing most of what you don't want. It does not mean getting all that you want through Congress, and preventing all that you don't want.
So far, I give Bush a B+, which is a far cry better than Clinton, who earned something lower than an F, but there isn't any lower grade.
As an earlier poster mentioned, this is chess, not checkers. You only win by concentrating on the 8th or 12th move ahead, not just the 2nd or 3rd one. Bush has grown into the Presidency, which I discuss in my column this week. I'm sure that part of his preparation to get results is the chess strategy of Carl Rove, behind the scenes.
Congressman Billybob
Those numbers don't work well. In 2004, Hispanics will be a majority in Texas --maybe sooner with this amnesty because just like last time, many will come pouring over the border to get in on it. The more recent immigrants from Mexico are far more likely to vote Democrat than the Hispanics who have lived in the SW for generations and the Mexicans who came over around 1910 after the Revolution (when it was Conservatives leaving Mexico en masse). When the majority votes 40% for a Republican they lose.
I always like to read your analysis. I agree with this 110%
A B+ for Bush from you is high praise in my opinion.
Jen