Nov 17 2006
The Bush Conservatives
It seems I and many other conservatives need to just step back and re-assess the political landscape. As I mentioned in the post below on immigration, I do not see the Republican Party offering a very palatable form of conservatism any more. So let me describe what I think is an attractive conservative vision. It begins with supporting and respecting our President and all his accomplishments. And since I and many others still have unflinching support and admiration for the man, I decided to steal some from the commenters here and dub this conservative view “Bush Conservatives”.
Bush Conservatives not only believe in Reagan’s 11th commandment to not speak ill of fellow conservatives – we live it. From the Gang of 14, to Harriet Miers, to Dubai Ports World and to the immigration issue – there has been a brand of Republican which eschewed the 11th commandment. So let the Republicans be defined by that group – Bush Conservatives will be defined by their antithesis. Bush conservatives are not afraid of the word ‘compromise’. They despise the word ‘failure’. If there is a good idea, we do not care what party gets credit – we care that the good ideas get enacted. It is not Party uber America anymore.
Bush Conservatives, like Bush himself, are for lower taxes and focused government (someplace between liberals and libertarians is the proper role of government). They are not for destroying the public education system, they are for making it work. And they understand private school access is one option. They understand that a prescription drug benefit for Medicare/Medicaid will reduce overall costs and provide a respectable end of life for our seniors who came before us. Yes, it costs a lot to care for our elderly. But it doesn’t represent big government. It represents a big heart. I am not for throwing money away. The prescription drug benefit was a nice optimizing solution to a broken system. It was consumer driven (which is why the liberals should not be allowed to go in and insert bureacratic price controls) and it will save money that was being wasted in emergency room treatments for normal problems.
Bush Conservatives respect the immigrant worker in the sense we understand people need to make a life (not just a living). We do not want the broken current system to stay hostage to the “Fence Only” crowd. The illegal immigrant worker will pay a penalty in back taxes and lost time towards citizenship. That level of penalty is sufficient for the crime of missing paperwork. We respect those who are trying to do nothing more than raise a family. The Republicans can now have the mantle of harshness towards otherwise good people. They can focus on their vision of the few bad apples representing the entire immigrant population. They can ignore the more realistic, broader images that include aliens fighting for our country – the other immigrant worker. The only people who get my support will embrace Bush’s comprehensive vision of workers who are registered, background checked, working in the open economy, and who must avoid criminal activities if they stay here. They will not become citizens immediately, and in fact will not be able to apply any time here as illegal aliens towards citizenship. They will become our neighbors working by our side, raising their children with ours. And like the good neighbors we are, we will reach out and help them assimiliate to our society. The Reps can be the party of rounding up aliens for deportation. They are apparently clinging to that image with a death grip anyway.
Bush Conservatives do not see failure in Iraq, they see the long hard, generational fight we were warned was coming. Bush conservatives will not ally with liberals to find an exit and let the terrorists follow our troops home. Bush Conservatives do not blame Bush for Al Qaeda’s tenacity. We salute Bush for his tenacity.
Bush conservatives see success in the Gang of 14, who paved the way for some of the largest shifts to the federal bench in a generation. And we would welcome a repeat of the Gang of 14 in the upcoming senate to quelsh the partisan bickering between Reps and Dems. Go for it Gang – with my blessing. If they can keep the results going like they did in the last Congress, true conservatism will be able to flow into our court systems – as opposed to imposing Republican versions of the Liberal activism in the courts now.
Bush Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans – though obviously they are welcomed. Bush Conservatism is the broad-tent conservative movement that can include a McCain, DeWine, Snowe, etc. The only litmus test for Bush Conservatives is there is no litmus tests. There are no ‘real’ conservatives or ‘pure’ conservatives. Republicans can have their purity tests. Bush Conservatives will strive for enhancing the conservative vision and making progress towards those ends.
So how can Republicans (or Democrats) attract Bush Conservatives? Show respect to the President. Don’t blame Bush for your problems or mistakes. Allow processes to unfold without vitriol and panic. Admit the errors made on Miers (she should have been heard, then rejected), Dubai Ports World (not all Muslim Arabs are our enemies, especially ones willing to fund our outer defenses), and immigration (support the guest worker program for all the immigrants now here in this country). Failure to admit the mistakes means failure to correct the mistakes. These minimum changes could woo the Bush Conservatives back into the Republican tent – but there as to be unmistakable shift on these matters. No sliding around these examples of what we do not want to see more of. In many of these cases Dems and Reps both have some atoning to do.
Stop blaming the Gang of 14 and support the results they gave us on all those new judges and justices we are blessed to have. Look positively on efforts that are bi-partisan and are rolling back liberalism’s last vestiges: the liberal courts.
Don’t surrender on Iraq. Don’t pull a Kerry. We went into Iraq and made commitments. Honor those commitments and strive for nothing short of success. We do not follow people who go back on their word. Reps and Dems can tolerate that – Bush Conservatives never will.
Be positive, show respect, and use decorum. And this is not a Chinese menu. We are not looking for ideaological purity. But we are looking for a common vision, a common goal, something we can work together towards. We can debate the details of how to achieve these, but there is no doubt we need to do these things.
Here is the alternative: Reps and Dems can be against fixing immigration. Reps and Dems can be for bashing Bush. Reps and Dems can run from Iraq even though they supported the effort going in. The parties can continue to go their partisan ways. If they do, then I hope a moderate new party can arise from the ashes these scorched earth partisan efforts have been producing. We are at war, and these partisan are fighting us, not our enemies. America’s patience with these two squabbling camps will run out.
Addendum: I forgot one important subject – Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). Bush opposes the killing of human beings, as do Bush Conservatives. This is why Bush Conservatives are not soft on life issues. Arlen Specter would not be a Bush Conservative. ESCR is snake oil compared to the Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) results which keep poring in. Even one of Michael J Fox’s top scientists who studies the full range of stem cell options has leaned towards faster, better cures coming from ASCR than ESCR. Bush is very pro-life. From his Stem Cell stance to parental notification to partial birth abortion, he has successfully moved the country towards the pro life side in a massive way. That is why Reps who bash Bush are just not being true to conservatism, they are only being true to their pet issues at the expense of conservatism. How many ways did Reps hurt the conservative cause? They stayted home. They turned on Bush when they did not get one thing their way. They never refused to acknowledge all Bush did, only what Bush did not do for them, they refused compromise, they refused progress, they refused to participate, they refused to be civil. Now all Bush did accompolish is at risk while the losers keep blaming him because they turned on him. The Reps have a lot to learn. Too much, in my opinion, to be ready for 2008.
Addendum II: I must also point out why Bush bashing without any thought is really, really bad. I am now of the opinion that the Democrat wave was much, much higher than what we ended up with. There could have easily been more House seats lost and one more Senate seat gone. I can easily see Bush’s last minute push taking some of the force out of the political tsunami that hit, along with Kerry’s last minute gaffe. We did see a turn to the reps in the last weekend’s polls. If I am right, and people were returning to Bush in some small way, the Bush bashing/blame we see now is really destructive. It is pushing those who DID turn back to the reps off and making them doubt, if not regret, there last minute change of heart to the right. Reps will react like this, without thinking. Bush Conservatives are much less volatile.
Addendum III: I would like to also add zero tolerance for pork barrel spending and ear-marks. The runaway spending was not pushed by Bush, it was done by Congress. They demanded a price to support Bush’s goals and inflated the budget with useless bridges, etc. There was no way Bush would have vetoed SLIMMED DOWN budgets. That one is all at the feet of the Reps in Congress. Ed Morrissey does this subject great justice today.
Addendum IV: Reader Luker noted these fine additions to the list:
- habeas corpus reserved to US citizens and not granted to the foreigners, especially the terrorists and the GITMO detainees.
- Balance between civil liberties and security of our own country and its assets, namely the preservation of the NSA foreign terrorist surveillance program.
- Tax reform, especially the abolishment of the death tax.
- Social Security reform.
Note that the last two REQUIRE compromise so we can attract democrat support. The first two will be salvaged by folks like Lieberman (and hopefully Harman) putting national security above partisanship. We will now be indebted any democrat who helps save these items.
145 Responses to “The Bush Conservatives”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
AMEN.
Kathie:
You took the words right out of my mouth. Wonderful piece and oh so true.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Precisely.
Me too.
I can only echo everyone else. Well said, AJ.I am a Bush conservative and proud of it!
I see a few things left out:
- habeas corpus reserved to US citizens and not granted to the foreigners, especially the terrorists and the GITMO detainees.
- Balance between civil liberties and security of our own country and its assets, namely the preservation of the NSA foreign terrorist surveillance program.
- Reduction of earmarks and pork programs within reasonable limits.
- Tax reform, especially the abolishment of the death tax.
- Social Security reform.
All good points Lurker! All of them.
Precisely! Could not have said any better! Finally, found my niche! Thanks.
I would also point out for the purity seekers, Bush did everything he said he was going to do. So, we entered into this 4 year agreement with him with eyes wide open. For that you have to respect that Bush is a man of honesty and integrity.
The idea that conservatives should alter their course so as to “attract Bush Conservatives” is asinine. Bush Conservatives need to make some alterations to thier platform to “attract” REAL conservatives. Why don’t they try showing some small amount of fiscal constraint perhaps. Despite your belief to the contrary, big heart and big cost are directly proportional. How about Bush pull out a veto or two to put a halt the the rampant amount of earmarks and pork spending. Regan once vetoed a bill that had 150 earmarks. Bush recently signed into law a bill with 6731 earmarks. Conservative? I think not.
Bush has led the Republican party from its roots in true economic and social conservatism into the mires of socialism.
Third time is the charm AJ — AMEN!
I call my new Bush Conservative party the SUCCESS party or SCCS (Seasoned Citizens for Common Sense). It is a party who recognizes that a good leader forms and dissolves coalitions as needed, issue by issue, and this requires compromise and listening to and taking good ideas from wherever they come from. The President calls himself the “Decider” and, IMHO, he is masterful at listening to all sides and then applying his principles and making a decision based on those principles rather than who was the source of the good idea.
I’ve made my own feelings pretty clear on who I think is responsible for the losses suffered in the election. I am appalled at the idiocy of some of these vocal neo-rights. Just in the last 10 days we’ve seen the constant trashing of Gates, Lott, Martinez, Baker, the Iraq Study Group (the insulting “Daddy’s Rescue Team”), and the ever present idea that Bush is too dumb to understand his “base.” In other words, the I’m right and I don’t care whether you are an R or a D, if you don’t agree with me, it is open season. Masters of the politics of personal destruction, they undermine the President constantly and then whine when they lose the right to govern at all.
The Captain and his commenters identifiy many of the same issues, but with a different solution. If 2 years is too short a time to reform the Republican party, how on earth do we get a third party up and running?
Wouldn’t it be more effective to consolidate your ideas, his, Newt’s et.al. into a new contract with America and push for candidates who “take the pledge” during the 2008 elections and beyond?
Kyl may have voted for Lott, but I trust him to stick personally to the conservative values that caused me to vote for him in the first place.
It would seem to be far more effective to seek out candidates who subscribe to newly-defined conservative principles in order to ‘fire’ those we are currently unhappy with.
A flood of letters to incumbents demanding adherence to those principles should also influence many of them to reject “business as usual”. We could set up online petitions endorsing those principles that are sent to incumbents and ask the right blogosphere to assist in spreading the word.
A Bush Conservative? or why the neo-right needs to sit down and shut up!…
Here are the opening paragraphs of a brilliant post by A.J. Strata. As far as I’m concerned, this is a MUST READ! I am in total agreement with everything AJ says and I hope against hope that some of the more vocal neo-right read it and see themselves …
DMilton,
If you think calling me asinine is going to garner my support – you have a lot to learn about politics. And now you know why Reps lost.
Perhaps it would be better to call those of you who consider yourselves “Bush” conservatives to “pseudo” conservatives. For after having Bush as governor and now as president, many times there is little that is conservative about our 43rd president.
I do agree with George W. Bush’s stand on terrorism and the threat that now faces our nation as being the most serious threat we have ever faced as a nation. But in reality, that has little to do with conservatism, and has everything to do with national security and reality toward the threat we face. I agree with NCLB policies that make teachers who have been accountable only to their unions and not their wards. And ironically, it is many in the minorities that want school vouchers because they realize that public schools are failing their children. Most of these parents in the minority groups would consider themselves moderate to liberal. I agree with lower taxes and prescription drugs for the elderly.
What I do object to is the label of “fence only” Repubicans when if y’all were being honest, you would admit that most of us you label as “fence only” are “fence first”. While you tout your humanity to man by advocating the legalization of millions of people who sneaked into your home without permission (our nation is, after all, your home) you fail to acknowledge the perils that will ensue with that policy. You fail to accept that the illegals who are on the low rung of the wage ladder will not pay taxes, just as those who are on the low rung of the wage ladder that are citizens, do not pay taxes. And you ignore the fact that the very same people will then be eligible for even more social services and that will drive up your taxes. Nor do you deal with the fact that a man earning minimum wage will not have the ability to repay the government the taxes due on the wages he earned. By making millions of people legal, you will have effectively made them eligible for the Earned Income Tax credit and therefor not only will they not pay taxes, they will be eligible for a refund of up to $3,500.00 in taxes they never paid. So if they are not capable of paying back taxes, will you then demand that they be sent back to their native lands until they do?
You have objections to these very same people violating housing standards in your community but have no problem with them violating federal laws that were designed to protect our citizens and our sovereignty. And you would be the first to call law enforcement to evict someone who had moved into your basement or attic without your permission. The agrument that they will be required to pay back taxes and that they will go to the back of the line is moot. There will be no taxes payable and being in the back of the line is waiting in your native land to come here, not being able to stay here and work, which is the goal in the first place for anyone wanting to migrate to the United States. Being in the back of the line is staying in Darfur and Uganda until your entry into the United States is approved.
And I am still waiting for the answer to my questions; the latest being “how many of the approximately 75 foreign born in our military who took the oath of citizenship were “il” legal aliens?”
Great post. I am going to circulate this far and wide. Its useless but I shall send notice of this to the National Reviews Corner blog. It would be nice if they realize we exist
Retire is correct the fence only crowd can be counted on one hand. Fence first to reduce the flow is the main group of support.
Since the time of the Reagen amnesty we have observed a massive growth of the illegal population.
Part of the impact from that is all those anchor babies who are legal under our current system are now coming into legal voter status. As their numbers grow they will surely influence what type of legislation comes out of all houses of government at all levels.
Retire05: I live in So. California and have worked here for thirty years. Over that time, I have known multiple dozens of people who were either here illegally or who are children of those who came illegally. They live in subdivisions where housing can cost up to $500-$600-$700,000. Their jobs pay in the ranges of $40,000 up to over 6 figures. Many are small business owners who employ many others, both legal and illegal. They pay taxes, they support charities, they coach Little League and become Girl Scout and Boy Scout leaders. This idea of illegals remaining 2nd class citizens is racist and bigoted. It presumes that after years of being in this country they have not bettered their circumstance in any way. It is a point of view mired in ignorance. A fence will do nothing to advance a solution to a large problem. A comprehensive multi-part solution must be undertaken. Each part important, including very tough enforcement to limit the flow, but no part is more important.
If you want to see effective solutions, start with tough enforcement of the borders but at the same time eliminate the bilingual requirements that cost us millions and do more to cost jobs to Americans than anything else. If someone cannot demonstrate they can speak and understand English, they should not be given any employment or services. And crack down on the employers, but give them the tools needed to police their own hires.
A comprehensive approach gives you your precious, although useless, fence, but it also includes equally important steps that must be implemented if the problem is going to be solved in any meaningful manner.
I could care less about the illegals already here and working hard and raising families, I do care about the flow that could be infiltrated by terrorists because of borders too free and open. But, unlike the “fence first” crowd, I understand that the southern border is 1951 miles long, not the 700 miles the “fence first” crowd is so hot over and that the northern border is 5525 miles long and offers an even more attractive entry point for those seeking to do us harm.
As their numbers grow they will surely influence what type of legislation comes out of all houses of government at all levels.
So your answer is to round them up and deport them, alienating everyone. The President’s answer and the GOP answer is to appoint Mel Martinez (the latest whipping boy of the neo-right) to go out and reach them and bring them into the fold. Who is smarter? My money is on George W. Bush.
Retire05,
No – we are Bush conservatives. You folks are Reps. And we like it that way. Reps lose elections and cannot get anything done. We are Bush Conservatives because we still stand by him. Reps don’t. Fine. We shall see who makes progress in the next two years!
Squiggler, you and AJ seem to be deaf. I have never said that I am a “fence only” proponent. I am a ardent “fence first”.
You call fences usless. Then pray tell me, why are there fences around your back yards? Why is there a fence around the White House? And why is there a fence around Area 51? It is because they do work. Fences make good neighbors.
So you live in So. California? So what? I live in the battle zone in Texas. Do you think that because you have neighbors that are illegals and have managed to build lives that afford them a house that costs $500,000 (which would cost around $235,000 or less in Texas) is the norm? You are fooling yourself my friend. They are the exception to the rule, not the norm. Yes, it is possible to build a taco stand into a restraurant chain like Ninfi’s, but it happens less than you would have us believe. And please, tell me what lending agency will give you a morgage on a $500,000 home if you make $40,000 a year?
Of course, you had to throw in the “racist and bigot” canard. It is the only way you can argue against rationale.
And I guess because it is inconvenient, you would prefer to just throw away our laws such as it being illegal to enter our nation without permission and hiring illegals? Then what? Do we then make it legal to rob someone’s home because they have property that you want and you just need to feed and support your family?
Do you really want millions of people who come from a nation they are not willing to stay in to make better? Mexico is a crappy nation, from bottom to top. So they come here. And Mexico, and most other nations where the illegals come from, remain crappy nations because their citizenry do not have the will to throw out the bad guys and institute a government that takes care of it’s people. Did you not get the hint when all the protesters were marching with foreign flags that their loyalities lie with their native lands, not our nation?
I am all for a guest worker program. I want to see people from other nations enter ours to benefit not their countries, but ours. I want them to come here for a specific time limit and then go home or become a citizen. And I want them to care enough about their host nation to do it legally. But the bottom line is that those who are pro-illegal are pandering to a potential voter. The whole purpose of immigration is to make the host nation better, not relieve the problems of the nation sending their unwanted to us.
If you want to enter the U.S., do it legally. Go through the proceedures just as our ancesters did. Learn English. Pay taxes. Be productive and not a drain on our society as the situation now stands. If you cannot afford the United States that small amount of respect, stay out.
Retir05,
If you were only a Fence First type then you would right now back the guest worker program for all immigrants here now. No sending immigrants out for only making a living. Otherwise your distinction is pointless.
Gut check time.
Manifesto Time…
What’s the way forward for Republicans who want to stay true to their principles and win back the vital center? AJ has a big piece on the state of conservatism and its future here…much of it I agree with (lower taxes, resoluteness on the Wa…
Let me add one other thing about Bush Conservatives. We are loyal. I am not sure if this base we keep hearing about is simply loud voices that are heard on talk radio, Cable News and the internet.
I do know this. This base is very shallow in a way. They demand x from Bush but because of one or two disagreement they are willing to toss him over the ledge. Are not some the Congressman that were elected to House leadership postions today also the ones that did the base’s bidding on the Dubai Port Deal. Remember when that was the do or die issue. But now they are Rinos. Isnt this the same leadership that made sure immigration reform would not get a hearing in ther House because the base demanded it. But now I am hearing if its not Pence its unacceptable.
At some point, I wonder if the “base” is the type of person I would want to be a foxhole with
I am really disgusted with a lot of people on the right. And I am not just talking about immigration either.
Take spending, well what exactly do people want to cut? Earmarks? Fine, but most people are not in the slightest concerned with that and most people are not really concerned with smaller government either. Reagan knew that. People keep trying to compare Bush and Reagan and it seems most of the people who do that do not really remember Reagan. He was not a fiscal conservative. He was not all that socially conservative either and yet now to hear people tell it the man was constantly vetoing spending bills.
Not so. The point is if we do not come up with programs like the drug prescription plan the Democrats will come with another version of Hillary care and considering the way health care costs have risen the voting public just might go for it. That is a reality.
I think that a lot of people blogging on the right really screwed up in this last election. They lost touch with average people and spent too much time listening to each other.
Malkin and people like her are not the average mainstream person anymore than Kos is.
So while we need to cut waste we also must keep in mind that most people do not consider health care and education to be areas where spending is a waste because these things matter to them.
Just like keeping their families safe matter to them.
Razzing Bush about Baker being on some commission when it is obvious that Bush is still standing firm is just petty and silly. And constantly bitching about everyone and everything from who gets what position to some speech Condi Rice made to whether or not Bush is going to nuke Iran just wears most people out. They tune out. They do not even want to watch the news much less read blogs and so more and more people start to think that if all conservatives do is complain…why bother with them, after all they do not even like each other.
Pence has changed. he has gone from being sort of rational to being pig headed. Fine, maybe he can be the next Congressman from Indiana who is replaced by a Democrat. Hostettler was a fence only guy too, got beat anyway.
I think the point is that some people are confusing the base with the loud people. Loud does not always mean most. The Democrats learned that when Lamont got whipped.
Well said. Its nice to know we are not alone out there!
Scott Moon
Your argument makes no sense. You don’t want to fence the entire perimeter of the United States like I have fenced my back yard. You want to fence one-tenth of what would be needed — 700 miles of 7475 miles of land border, and no provision for those that come in by air or sea either, which would add even more to the border total.
How does allocating billions of dollars help stop the flow at the border when most of that is going to be eaten up with costs of rounding up all these people you are so hot over and transporting them somewhere, although I’m never sure just where?
We cannot even convince the majority of the electorate that voter IDs are a good idea because it might deny a single vote to an African American. Yet, you want to round up millions of people, house them, feed them, find transportation for them, take precious Border Patrol resources away from enforcement to police them, to guard them, and transport them. Apparently you think that Mexico and Central American countries will open their borders to planeloads of U.S. illegals and their guards swooping in to be dropped off, day after day, after day, after month, after year. It is so unrealistic as to guarantee failure from the git go. And how ’bout all the Asians who come into our ports? Where do the resources come to round them up and take them back to Indonesia, Vietnam, China, etc. Or on the East Coast, who polices and patrols and guards and transports all those from Carribean countries or from Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, or other Middle Eastern countries? And how many Canadians are you going to round up?
I want strict enforcement, I want strict laws and good sensible solutions.
It is the idea that is bigoted and racist. The idea being that the working illegal is somehow so 2nd class they can not succeed and will never succeed. You are still defending this idea.
Do you print your ballots in multiple languages? Do you have ads running in your classifieds for work that specify “must be bilingual,” do you have signs of instruction posted in multiple languages, do you wash your hands at a restaurant and see “lave sus manos” posted on the restroom mirror above the sink? If you say yes to any of these then you are encouraging illegal immigration.
Strata combines the worst of two worlds. Pie-in-the-sky avoidance of the fact Iraq was lost by 2004…and he calls those who recognize it
“surrender” advocates. And SURRENDER ADVOCACY on his part to the invasion which can yet be thwarted, that coming from the
South.
Congratulations, AJ . You just might be the most in-adept
( purposely coined to match your trait) escapist siteowner
in conservative cyber space on the big two.
AJ, once again you and your ilk like Terrye, who do not agree with what I think, must label me. No, I am not a fence only proponent. How many times must you be told that? But I am also not a proponent of giving law breakers a free ride, and no matter how you chose to classify the violation of federal law (equating it to a speeding ticket) it is STILL a violation.
Immigration is, like most things, a two way street. We allow immigrants in because, on good faith, we think they will benefit our nation as it always has. They, on the same hand, must act in good faith by having respect for our laws. In a Pew Hispanic Research study done last year, most illegals said that they were aware it was illegal to enter the United States without permission. Now how in the hell, by any stretch of your wildest imagination, can you say that that immigrant was acting in good faith when they were fully aware that what they were doing was illegal?
I do back a guest worker program. But I do not have to back a guest worker program that becomes a reward for breaking and entering our nation and managing not to get themselves deported in the meantime. I back a guest worker program, sped up for those who played by the rules, to meet our needs, NOT THEIRS.
And who will pick up the tab? Others on this board have complained about the cost to deport those who have entered illegally. What about the cost our socieity is now bearing? For schools, medical treatment for a simple cold, incarceration, food stamps, housing? Who is now paying that? And what about the cost that is down the road when you legalize 20 million people? You have to have agencies that can make sure they have no contagious diseases, issue visas and work permits, do background checks. How much do you think that will cost the American taxpayer?
You refuse to answer my questions but chose to label me as a hard right-winger who seems to have no humanity. You are dead wrong. I am a realist that realizes that granting amnesty will only open the flood gates so those who follow, as in the 80’s, will come on the hopes of another amnesty.
The cost to my state alone was staggering last year. $5 BILLION was needed to provide services to illegals in the form of health care, education, social services and incarceration. It did not take in the additional cost to law enforcement agencies that had to track down the illegal criminal who murdered, robbed and raped.
And what do you do when it is time to do background checks for criminal history and nations like Mexico refuse to comply? What then? Do we then see massive amounts of law suits by the ACLU who say that even if we can’t verify that we are admitting a hardened criminal into our society, we should allow them anyway?
Here is another small problem for you.
There is no doubt in my mind that a raise in the minimum wage will be enacted by this Democratic congress. Then what? What happens when we make all those illegals legal, and they are then paid $8.00 an hour? I can tell you. Businesses will either hire more illegals (creating a vicious cycle of illegal immigration) or they will go out of business or move to China or Mexico. Then what? What happens when we have 10 million underpaid illegals out of a job that are now eligible to stay in the U.S.?
We are a sovereign nation. We have a right to say who enters and who does not. We have the right to allow into our nation those who will benefit our nation. We do not have the responsibility to take the undesirables of another nation off that nation’s hands. Why is Mexico imp0rting farm workers from South America if the very farm workers that are coming here are so great? Why do we not see doctors, lawyers, scientists and professors sneaking across our borders?
I have great respect for you, AJ. I don’t think you can find a time where I have tried to insult you (as you have me) and enjoy your posts. But when it comes to IL legal immigration, you are just wrong headed. You have labeled me a hardliner but for you to say that if I support a guest worker program I must also support granting amnesty to law breakers who have shown my nation no respect, is wrong headed.
I obey speed limits and do not speed. I pay my taxes on time. I have never knowingly violated any law because I realize that laws were created for the common good. Do I not have the right to expect the same from everyone else? And if someone is from another nation and enters my nation illegally, why do you think it is a form of punishment to make them return to their native land?
Yes, AJ. For all your brilliance, you are wrong headed on illegal immigration.
AJ,
That was a terrific post! I agree.
Some on the right blame him for the prescription drug plan. But they don’t recognize it was “privatizing.”
“Fence first, fence last, long fence, short fence,” it doesn’t matter until we get a rational ID system, accessable computer database, and give those here, with a good record, a reason to self identify and openly join society. Only then, will it be possible to say “no ID, no work.”
We need the workers. Our birthrate is scarcely replacement level. Bush has placed the country first on this issue.
Bush has advanced the human life ideals like no one in our lifetimes. And he does it persuasively.
On the subjects of security and liberty, it’s enough to say “He looms large.”
Good job, AJ!
In this discussion it is also worth thinking about Bush’s governing style. He respects the three independent branches of governance. He ran on an agenda, lower taxes, “No child left behind”, individual responsibility, etc. and was elected. He set budgets. Congress filled in the items. Congress should take responsibility for their pork. Bush is not congress’s baby sitter. He allowed them to make their choices, and they did. Their electorate spoke. I wish Congress had the same respect for the office of the President. It would have made running this war and the outcome more positive. Congress has mixed up the principal of oversight with political gamesmanship.
I have yet to see anyone for the “fence” explain how 700 miles of fence is workable. I want the LOGISTICS of it.
Who will build it? Will they be “deputized” border patrollers?How strong will it be? Strong enough to keep a truck from ramming through it? Strong enough to withstand a fertilizer bomb? Dirty Bomb? How long will it take to build? Will they hire illegals to help build it, since they are predominently construction workers anyway?How many immigrants will stay away from the fence and enter from a different illegal point of entry? How many immigrants in and around the proposed fence will accelerate their “immigration” to enter prior to construction, during construction and right before completion?How many unscrupulous immigrant transporters will find a new point of entry for their cargo? Will Mexico print up new maps to illegal entry Points Of Interest? How many immigrants will be enticed by these unscrupulous persons to pay huge sums for green cards or other documents that turn out to be phony? Who is going to handle all these aspects of Illegal Immigrant Fencing Procedures?
The fence is a psychological bandaid. It just covers the ugly.
What about the LOGISTICS of finding illegal immigrants and deporting them?
Is there going to be a new Law Enforcement entity that will go house to house and ask suspected illegal immigrants for their papers? “hello, I’m officer John Public, are you legally in this country, can I see your papers?” Will these enforcement personnel be able to spot phony docs immediately? Maybe we can deputize the ‘hood, and have neighbors round up all the suspected illegals and send them – uh, hmm – somehwere.
Or should we send out a public bulletin:
“Attention all Illegal Immigrants Currently Within Americas Borders –
Leave now, don’t come back till your life is on track in your homeland country (who can not and will not help you) and you have enough money (from your non-existent job in your poverty stricken country) and then come on back to our country – legally.
While waiting to become legal in our country, (Pending Legal) you can’t work for any companies in the US. You can’t get help from Welfare. You can get cash-paying jobs, but keep detailed records for the IRS so you can pay taxes, and the company illegally hiring you for cash can go out of business at the same time. Don’t panhandle either, we already have enough homeless people without the Pending Legals needing money and shelter too. Once you have become legal (estimated to take 3-6 months) you can work at any company that you have the skills for. During your “Pending Legal” term, you must learn as much English as possible, but not at our schools, since you are Pending Legal – no funds for education – better you stay dumb for awhile. You must also be deloused for those Third World bugs you might have brought in, but not at our medical facilites. And don’t get sick or injured whatever you do because Pending Legals do not get emergency medical care (unless you got a wad of greenbacks from your cash-paying job) No having babies during your Pending Legal term! No.No.No. If mommy is preggers – no entry into US until bun is out of oven. If mommy gets preggers while in her Pending Legal term, make sure she can hold it till she gets her Papers. Can’t hold it in till she’s legal? Abort! Free legal abortions in America! Don’t try and drive while in your Pending Legal term – No Papers, No Drive!
What if the suspected illegal produces docs that are obviously phony? Throw the “illegal” into a holding cell waiting for the deportation bus? Or maybe Malkin can figure out how to hold them before they can scoot back to their side, or deeper into our side. Or maybe Ray Nagin can finally utilize some of his magic yellow buses as temporary shelter. Just don’t park them in Mississippi. Who is going to drive a busload of angry deportees back to whence they came? Will the driver be armed? Will the deportees be shackled to assure a safe trip back home? What if they are from Nicaraugua? Will they be flown home? Or just escorted to the MEXICAN border and told to get on back to the homeland? Will we need covert air transportation? Secret airlines, secret flights, secret routes – wait! nevermind, no more secrets per the NYT.
Manpower- money, logistics and transportation – more money, racial profiling – despicable, but no other way to pick out the legals from illegals, legal babies- illegal mommies and daddies – send ‘em all back! Head ‘em up and move ‘em out.
Maybe, just maybe – it makes more sense to treat them like humans, inform them of the new law/s, teach them the law that pertains to their status as soon-to-be Americans, or American Guests. Give them a specific time frame to accomplish the strict requirements willingly, allow them to keep their dignity and their possessions, inform them that moonbattery is not in their future (had to add that) make them all pay a lump sum based on a percentage of their 6-month projected earnings.
Compassionate Bush Conservatives understand that you attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.
“Do you have ads running in your classifieds for work that specify “must be bilingual,” do you have signs of instruction posted in multiple languages, do you wash your hands at a restaurant and see “lave sus manos” posted on the restroom mirror above the sink? If you say yes to any of these then you are encouraging illegal immigration. ”
Squiggler for goodness sake. Perhaps its because I am from Louisiana. I know people whose grandparents just speak Cajun French. Their kids are wonderful citizens. Has anyone met a person that GrandsMa still spoke just Italian. What about the Vietnamese older people on the gulf Coast.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath. If I see wash your hands in spanish on a bathroom wall that doesnt encourage illegal immigration. It prevents sickness. We have been throught this before. The is a rational way to handle it
Retire:
Ilk??? I am an ilk?
You know what? I was one of the minority of people in this district who actually voted for Hostettler in that damn election. I did not agree with his stance on immigration, but I voted for him anyway because there is a war on.
Remember the war?
Well he got his butt kicked in part because a lot of Republicans did not bother to vote for him. He was so soundly beat in this Repbulicans district that he has refused to take his pension.
So do not call me an ilk.
PonderingAmerican: I was making a point by being sarcastic.
One of the key features of a Bush Conservative is long-term thinking. The idea is not just to apply a band-aid or kick a problem down the road a few years, but to try to get at the underlying issues. This requires tremendous discipline and patience. I think that this Administration thinks in terms of decades and generations, and that fact — so rare in our politics — fills me with some admiration.
Whenever possible, it seems to me that W has tried to change the rules of a bad situation. On education, Social Security, immigration, the threat of Islamic fascism, free trade, etc., etc., he has opted to pursue strategies aimed at long-term alterations in the fundamentals. A new or enlarged government program can be a positive thing — IF it is done in a way that fosters essentially conservative goals (choice, self-sufficiency, accountability) in the long run. If you can change the rules now to something more favorable, then time is suddenly on your side.
I also think that W understands exponential processes like economic growth better than most. An extra 1% in GDP growth makes a whole lot of problems look less severe a generation hence, and it’s worth a lot to make that happen. That is a pretty Reaganesque attitude.
I Am a Bush Conservative…
Tags: Bush, conservatives, Republicans, GOP, Reagan, Congress, cannibals, neo-right, sore losers, spoiled brats
AJ Strata:
Bush Conservatives not only believe in Reagan’s 11th commandment to not speak ill of fellow conservatives – we live it. From t…
Squiggler yeah I figured that out after I posted this. Sorry, I am trying to defend this post on Free Republic as we speak and I was getting confused. Shows I shouldnt try to post in two places
Terrye, ilk as used is NOT a bad word or thing. It only means of like kind or class. So he’s just saying AJ and people like that. Nothing wrong with that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20061117/cm_ucgg/puzzlingoutasolutiontoourproblemsiniraq
Experts and expert studies say US occupation is the cause of much of the violence in Iraq, not the cure for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601509.html
The CIA’s Hayden says there are only 1300 foreign al Qaeda
in Iraq of the tens of thousands of NATIVE Iraqi insurgents
and thousands more who support them.
This means al Qaeda is about 3.5% of the violent Sunni/Baathist
anti-American resistance.
This inturn means Strata has been using al Qaeda as a straw man to indoctrinate you into a fantasy world.
Enlightened, I will attempt to answer a couple questions that you asked, BUT do not take me as an authority AND I am not attempting to change your (or anyone else’s) mind. just trying to answer your question.
The fence would be, as described on some site that was supposed to represent reality, about 100 yards wide, two fences, very strong about 20 feet high, a paved or upgraded gravel road between the two fences. A deep ditch on the outer side of each of the two fences to keep cars and trucks from driving thru the ditches. Motion detectors mounted in roadway the entire length of the road, video cameras (either infra red for night time and / or lighted.) Ground penetrating radar monitoring from drones. I haven’t seen any claim about withstanding explosives. I would expect anyone caught blowing them up would be guilty of a felony and cause for deporttion.
I would expect it would only stop people from crossing where the fence was in place, they certainly could still go around the ends, unless there were no ends. It would have no impact on anyone except those who would try to cross that way. Other methods of illegal entry would still be available.
How do you find illegals already here? you don’t. Pass a law that gives anyone in the country illegally some reasonable time period, say 90 days to register with Immigrations. If they fail to register and they are caught someway later, say in a traffic stop or any thing, they would be deported. There would be no roundup. Give them opportunity to register, failure to would be grounds for deport with no return. That would be the incentive to register. No penalty for just registering. Upon registering they would be fully informed of conditions to stay and work. If they are deported for failure to register and are found here again, it would be a criminal act: felony or misdemeanor.
They would not be treated as criminals until or unless they became criminals (other than how they got in question).
This is my understanding.
Thanks, A.J. for the great post. Count me as a Bush Conservative and a loyal Republican. I think many of the self-styled conservative pundits have forgotten that politics is the art of the possible. So instead of advocating getting rid of the Department of Education, President Bush tries to make the education system more accountable. Instead of thinking we could scrap Medicare, he introduces free market forces. I’d love to get rid of Social Security by totally privatizing (e.g. hand people what they’re owed in bonds), but that’s not going to make it through congress, so the president pushes for individual accounts – a great step in the right direction. I think if some of the conservatives had fought as hard for Social Security reform as they fought against Harriet Miers we’d have those individual accounts. I read an article once where President Bush was identified as a “choice and accountability conservative” and I think that’s about right.
Too many who think they represent the conservative base seem to have let their idea of the perfect get in the way of the good, and their idea of the perfect doesn’t necessarily match up with everyone else’s.
Thanks to the others who comented on this post. A very interesting discussion. Terrye, I often read your coments on this and other blogs and find myself in total agreement. Kudos.
Candy
Retire05,
You can prove you are not a Fence Only type if you say yes or no on whether you support a guest worker program which includes people here illegally now. Yes or no. “Yes” and I was wrong. “No” and your position defines where you stand – Fence Only. I don’t need a big long complaining post. I offered up how you can prove me wrong and all you need is two or three letters to set your record straight.
Yes or No. It is no more complex than that. Would accept the program (imperfect as we all know it will be)? If you do not say “yes” – we can all figure out what your real answer is. So don’t waste your effort on a lot of caveats .
An excellent post AJ; well done and well said. However I must respectfully take issue with you on two points. First, I may be misinterpreting your point,but it seems to me with your phrase “Bush conservatives” that you are putting labels on people to try to start a new classification of people. How about the right people just doing the right things for the right reasons;
that works a lot better for me than assigning labels. The labels game just leads to more of the same political gamesmanship that’s got us in such a mess to begin with.
As to your views on immigration, and I’m reluctant to criticize you without first going back and reading all of your posts on the subject,but I disagree with some of your opinions on the subject in general. I think you’re missing the point. Isn’t about being nice, or decent, although they do play a role. It is about the sovereignty of this nation and the right of the citizens to choose what is best for them. Good intent or not, there is a high price to pay to this country and its citizens for unfettered immigration, legal or illegal. I cannot and will not compromise on the security and sovereignty of my nation. There is nothing hard about this. Where this becomes difficult is in how to deal with human beings caught in the middle, specifically those who have been here for a while having conducted themselves as good citizens, indeed as good Americans.
There are many good and well reasoned points being made by you AJ, and by others commenting on the site. Although I’m not one for joining sites such as this, the overall quality of the people in the debate on this site makes me glad that I’d made an exception for this one. However, not only do these debates need to be made intelligently and with respect to the views of others, they need to be based on solid facts and logic. For example, and not to single you out, but the point was made that we need these immigrant workers-I would assume the commentator included illegal aliens in that assessment. But the fact is this nation has not needed immigration for quite a long time now. Does that make me anti-immigration or a racist? Well, only to those jackasses who can’t see a point other than their own and lack the intelligence to counter my points with reason and logic of their own.
This is a serious problem, which has been ignored for so long that it’s become a crisis. The answer, will not be anything akin to the total surrender of America, or the total annihilation of Mexico. If there is to be an answer, it won’t be perfect, but it will have to be something between the two extremes.
Gotta run for a while,I’ll check back later. Meantime, everyone hang tough and keep swinging.
If you read thru all these comments, I don’t see how you can reach but one conclusion. Don’t build a fence. Close down all checkpoints (leave gates open) just fire the border patrol. Quit pretending that we care who comes in. Everyone says a fence won’t stop them. If a fence won’t, short of machine guns, nothing will. so why even attempt to stop them. Declare the entire border open to any and all comers. Allow free importing of any and all drugs. Declare that if you get here you are a citizen, no provisions, full citizenship, full benefits as of day you arrive. All your relatives throughout the world are entitled to full benefits even if they never get here.
Now I’m not advocating this, in fact I would be strongly against it, but just reading about how IMPOSSIBLE it is to enforce the border, I say why not save all that money we are spending on border enforcement and give it to the new legals.
Ben, I just realized you made some of the same points I was trying to make, only you did it better. I do think President Bush is the kind of man who is trying to help solve problems for the long term.
Candy
FE,
Are you trying to go postal on us? Just kidding.
No one is against the Fence, what they want is the Fence and the guest worker program. The Fence Only crowd are the ones who got us all a whole lot of nothing (the Fence is not funded for building – only 700 million went into it).
AJ, you are asking for black and white guidelines. If you are for a guest worker program, then you MUST be for a guest worker program for those who violated our laws.
It just isn’t that damn simple, no matter how you try to make it that way.
Are you for stem cell research, AJ? If you say “yes” then you must be for the killing of embryos that are human in DNA and potential babies. But wait, you can be FOR stem cell research WITHOUT wanting to kill embryos. You can be for ADULT stem cell research, or cord blood stem cell research. So can I assume that if you are for adult and cord blood stem cell research you have no problem killing embryos, as well?
Sure, I can look at your side of the argument. The illegals are already here. They have melted into our society. SO WHAT? Pedophiles are already in our society. Are we to accept them because of that reason?
I can sense your anger at me. Why? Because I have a mind of my own, don’t march lockstep with anyone and make my own decisions about what is good and what is not good for this nation?
Why is it you never answer any of my questions? Why is it that you are so closed to the opinions of others who do not agree with you? You said you want compromise. It seems that compromise is your way or the highway.
So “YES” I am for a guest worker program for those who enter our nation legally. NO, I am not for a guest worker program for those here illegally and have no respect for our laws.
Are you for illegal immigration? You must be if you want no consequence for violating our immigration laws.
Enforcement – I think many Bush Conservatives agree that a fence won’t work because it is logistically impossible. Since the bill calls for a “partial” fence if-you-will, then what is the use of spending that much money when the immigrants will just bypass that section of the border? I don’t advocate “open” borders for any reason. I advocate laws that immigrants must follow or leave as you stated earlier.
Do you think that having the “fence” eliminates or lessens the need for Border Patrolmen in that 700 mile stretch, thereby deploying the patrols to the other, non-fenced borders? I seriously don’t understand how you think the fence will work.
My other bone of contention is hardliners that have negatively profiled the vast majority of illegal immigrants as criminals – they are not. And you cannot kick out millions of people because 50 illegal immigrants have committed heinous crimes, and I do not think that crossing the border illegally is the same as rape or murder or other violent crimes that are cherry-picked and used as fodder against all illegal immigrants.
If a white Canadian entered our country illegally over the northern border, and started a whole town of illegals that abide by all the rules, they would not even merit a blip on the hate radar some hard line republicans have exhibited. It is bigotry veiled in conservative values and I am against that.
There has to be a grassroots effort to upgrade our immigrant laws and current reporting infrastructure and procedures. There has to be enforcement of the laws. There cannot be liberal entities that support non-citizens with American civil rights. There cannot be witch hunts to find the “illegals” and kick them out or detain them. And there cannot be physical barriers that are transparent attempts to disguise bigotry and hatred. There has to be compassion for the plight of men and women and children that end up dead and dying in their own feces in truck trailers, or on makeshift boats sailed many miles to “freedom” in their desperate need to get out of their country and into ours. And it has to be a bipartisan effort, meaning compromise at all costs.
“NO, I am not for a guest worker program for those here illegally and have no respect for our laws.
Are you for illegal immigration? You must be if you want no consequence for violating our immigration laws. ”
Maybe its just the Catholic in me but where does justice play out in all this. I mean we have illegals that have produced our food, built our houses, Heck rebuliding my precious New Orleans right now all. Now for those that entered illegally there shall be no mercy, not even partial forgiveness. It is all your a criminal. But while that happens the ones that benifited over the last twenty years receive no punshiment. From the Construction companies to even us average everyday people that have benefited from their labor. Something doesnt seem right about this and very much goes against my pro life upbringing
“because 50 illegal immigrants have committed heinous crimes”
Enlightened, have you ever heard of MS-13? It is a street gang with it’s origins in El Salvador. Most of it’s members are illegals from El Salvador, other Central and South American nations and and Mexico. It is the most vicious street gang in the United States and has spread to 33 states. Drugs, human smuggling, prostitution, kidnapping and every other “heinous” crime you can think of is the forte of MS-13. And the estimate of their numbers are 10,000 strong. Hardly just 50 illegal immigrants that have committed heinous crimes. And when blanket amnesty is done, these gang members will be included. But they will be deported for their crimes, right? Do you think El Salvador is going to take them back? And if we prove they have committed no crime YET, what do we do with them?
You see, nothing is as black and white as one would like to make it.
A fence is a good start. And if you disagree, tell me why there is a fence around the White House and Area 51?
Pondering American, your Catholic rearing has nothing to do with it. What has to do with it, is the notion that has been pounded in our heads that if we protect our own nation, if we exercise our rights to sovereignty, if we view immigration as a benefit to our nation and not a benefit to other nations, we must somehow be callous and cold hearted.
Sure, there can be forgiveness. Those who have created a (false) life here by living a lie can be given the chance to make it right. They should be given the chance to enter our nation LEGALLY. That would require them returning to their native land to apply like all others apply. Like those from Bosnia, Uganda, Darfur, France and Ireland. They can be fast tracked. But they must also show good faith, not just the U.S. showing good faith.
Well Retire in the end much of ths is academic really. No matter how much Micky Kaus for instance tries to find the Democractic votes to stop immigration reform that is comprehensive its not there. There is going to a pathway to citizenship, and some form of guest worker it appears.
To me there is a simple choice. Performa Custers Last stand and possibily write off milions of hispanic votes forever plus get a way too liberal bill. Or work with the Democrats as well as other factions to make sure the best elements of security on the border and Pathway to can be had.
It will then be up top us in our communties to help assimilate our new countrymen
Enlightened, you said “I seriously don’t understand how you think the fence will work.
I didn’t express an opinion that I think the fence will work.
you said:
I don’t advocate “open” borders for any reason.
What do you advocate? How would you enforce the border?
If the emphasis is on enforcing laws AFTER people are here illegally, how do you deal with any illegal drugs or whatever that they brought over with them?
Maybe the answer is that we make sure that people wanting to come here are told that they can come thru the border at checkpoints, but will be sent back IF they come across the border illegally in the future, (from the date of notification that they can openly come thru the border checkpoints, just sign in) crossing the border illegally would be grounds for deporting them back, but wouldn’t prevent them from coming back thru the border checkpoints.
I don’t have an answer for what will work and have not heard anyone else’s idea that I believe will work.
My belief is that if the entire border were fenced it would slow illegal immigration acrossTHAT border by about 90% and drugs about 98%
Anyone planning to come in illegally across the southern border would just find another way. It would be harder probably and cost more so some percentage wouldn’t make it.
As I said, I don’t even pretend to have the answer. I do have a fence around my back yard. The White House has a fence. I have motion detector lights and I have security video cameras for my home.
To my knowledge, I have no illegal persons living in my house.
Don’t anyone accuse me of favoring anything other than having the immigration of people into the US under CONTROL.
The White House fence does not keep people out, it has been breached many times.
A fence delineates a boundary. My property from your property. Accessible area from inaccessible area. Anyone can breach a fence.
I don’t want any dead immigrants on my conscience because they tried to get over the “fence”, when they could have walked another 100 miles to the open border.
Area 51 does not exist in my opinion.
No one has proof that 10000 M-13 members exist. It is all conjecture, and most of it is tied to the immigration bandwagon by hardliners. And if they want to breach the border they will, fence or not. M13 thugs according to your estimates are roughly 1 percent of 11 Million illegals, and in my opinion does not warrant a partial fence.
Shall we also start to fence in the US metro areas that violent criminals, drug dealers, murderers, gangsters and thieves frequent? Shall we kick everyone out of our violent cities, fence it in and allow re-admittance only once they all get fingerprinted, DNA samples, Photo ID’s, sexual deviants get registered, prostitutes registered, johns registered, everyone deloused – all with current criminal proceedings against them are out – go somewhere else. All that commit a crime while in the “area” are kicked out, never to return. Those with previous criminal records, regardless if they have rehabilitated or not are out.
Hell, in California criminals get three strikes before they are in the slammer for good. Why should illegal immigrants deserve anything less?
Folks, It’s not about the Fence. Everyone wanted to tighten the border. The questions has and remains the Guest Worker program.
The election gave us a choice. Back Bush – the man that brought us all here, or back the Republican Gliterati (talking heads, paid mouth pieces, etc). Me, I am not a Republican and I stand by Bush.
And I stand by his call for a guest worker program to eliminate the underground economy, get the immigrant workers background checked and paying their fair tax burden, limiting the penalty to back taxes and not being able to use their prior time here to attain citizenship, a registration fee would make sense as well.
Anything else is too liberal or too Republican.
The passion that the immigration issue ignites, on all sides, suggests to me that this is one of those “problems from hell” — situations in which NO feasible action actually seems helpful. The current immigration regime is a big joke in pretty much every way, and things are getting worse. We gotta do something. But what?
One of the things that first made me sit up and pay attention to W back in the 2000 campaign was the way he talked about illegal immigration. He did not offer a solution. But the way he framed the problem set him apart from pretty much every other politician in the country. He did not speak of illegal aliens as a criminal threat to be hunted down, nor as a new victim class to be embraced and appeased. He recognized that illegals have come here because of natural human aspirations, and that these aspirations (however illegitimate under our law, and whatever the unfortunate consequences) will not simply go away.
I suppose some rolled their eyes at this and said, “What a squish.” My own reaction was, “Hmmmm. That sounds like someone actually thinking. What a weird thing to hear in a political campaign.”
Has W handled this subject well? Not particularly. And I can’t even give him a pass on immigration because national security issues have been a higher priority. This IS a national security issue. The INS has needed a drastic shakeup for decades, as anyone who knows any legal immigrants can testify. BUT … I haven’t seen much real political opportunity for changes of the magnitude required. Have you? Remember, for something to work it has to command something like a political consensus, because it has to operate over several political cycles, probably under administrations of both parties (to say nothing of changes of regimes in neighboring countries). The policies that the Administration has eventually endorsed do at least include some attempt to change the rules, some plan to alter the perverse incentive structures that have led to the present mess. Are the policies good ideas? I’m willing to be persuaded.
This is part of what I meant earlier about long-term thinking. I bet that W believes that our best long-term handles on this problem are free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Someday, Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” could be Latin American workers returning home to take advantage of new economic opportunities. But the slow remedies will take a generation or more to work, if they do at all. Meanwhile, we have to manage the problem, tinker with the incentives at the margin, and avoid doing anything that will make eventual resolution of the political and social and economic issues impossible. Why is this course not wise, prudent, possible — and conservative?
Enlightenment, are you really serious? There is no proof of MS-13? Excuse me, but do you live in some cave? Every major publication and new program has done a special on MS-13 and they are not saying that MAYBE it exists.
And yes, the fence at the White House has been breached. But how many people who have climbed over it has made it inside the White House. And how many times has it been breached? Fences work. They are deterrents to illegal entry. Many municipalities have fence requirements around swimming pools. What would be the point in that if they were not a deterrent?
What you seem to be advocating is that we continue to import criminals along with other normally hard working people because we already have them. Wassa matter? Are you not content with the number of criminals that are home grown? Or are you wanting to give job security to law enforcement officers?
So let me ask you this; are you willing to pick up my share of the tax money to support the services illegals require in this nation or are you just one of these people who doesn’t mind spending other people’s money on your pet projects?
Retire05,
There are penalties in the Comprehensive plan and guest worker program. Back taxes is a heavy burden to pay.
But now you have faced reality. You are a Fence Only Republican and your views are now the out of party view. Many thanks to you and your Rep friends for impaling yourselves on a lost cause. You can complain all you want. But Bush and the rest of us will make the changes necessary and you can call us all the names in the world you can think of.
It means nothing and only reflects on you.
I don’t have the answers. I just know which ideas, and tactics do not meet my standards.
AJ, you continue to dodge the questions.
How will you do background checks when other nations (i.e. Mexico) refuse to cooperate?
When all these newly made legal immigrants are now earning honest wages, do you think the people that hire them will stop looking for more illegals to fill their shoes? What about the companies that will relocate to other nations that offer cheaper labor or go out of business completely? Who then supports all those now legal immigrants?
Amnesty (which is exactly what your form of a guest worker program would be) will not work. What will work is ending the reason they come here illegally in the first place.
I said there is no proof that there are TEN THOUSAND M13 gang members in the US.
There are estimates that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in our country.
I just don’t believe in using the former to vilify the latter.
Enlightened,you said
A fence delineates a boundary
Not the ones around my back yard, I’m on several acres and only the immediate area around by yard are fenced, none of it on the boundary.
Ken, when can I expect your answer on which countries LEFT the British Empire while Churchill was Prime Minister?
AJ, what does it feel like to be so dogmatic in your opinions? You have yet to answer my questions. In fact, you have totally avoided them. You continue to call me a “fence only” proponent, yet I have, time after time, explained to you how that assumption is false.
My cause my be lost. And if it is, and the disaster that you are proposing comes to fruition, you will only have yourself to blame. Don’t cry to anyone who was “fence first” because your school taxes have just doubled in three years or your son can’t find a job during the summer to help pay for that car he wants.
What names have I called you, AJ? Wrong headed? You think that is name calling? You have railed on those like me who do not agree with your opinion by slamming us time and time again. Yet you have the audacity to say I call you names?
What is reflective in this whole discussion is your reluctance to answer any questions put to you. You dodge them like the plague. Perhaps you would like to explain to your readers why that is. Why do you not answer logical questions that are put to you? Is it because you don’t like the answers? Bush and the rest of you? Since when did you get appointed to the Bush cabinet? Since when have you been elevated to the decision making workings of this nation?
Well you may get your caveat emptor. But there is a little thing called state’s rights and the laws that states are able to enact that cannot be changed by the federal government.
Enlightened:
for your enlightenment:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress05/swecker042005.htm
Ben—-I think you have it exactly right. I hope Bush can change what I call the “MacDonald” culture, I’m hungry, drive through, now I’m full. There are many problems that we face and we will need to keep the big picture in mind, have stamina, and work through the components that will complete the picture. Our need to be “quickly gratified” will be hard to change.
Retire – Please try and comprehend what I write.
From your link: (Precisely what I stated twice previously)
“Due to the lack of a national database and standard reporting criteria for the identification of gang members, the frequent use of aliases by gang members, and the transient nature of gang members, the actual number of MS-13 members in the United States is difficult to determine.”
Do you get it now? There is no PROOF of the number of M13 members in the US. None. You are embellishing the danger to suit your views of fencing out what you consider “unwanteds”
Retire05,
Dogmatic? LOL! Nothing you said changes my opinion. It is time to stop dancing around. Reps lost. The Fence Only position is bad policy and bad politics. I have no interest flayling away in a lost cause. I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. Which means when the Reps go too far they go by themselves. The Reps today, the talking heads, I never voted for them and do not care for them. I cannot stop them from imploding. So why sweat it.
Reagan was despised by Reps in his second term. I recall the stunning back stabbing because I had just left the Democrat party and understood what Reagan was really for – and I found the Reps blaming him for everything. You think Ross Perot was a product of Bush I? Perot and Buchanan felt Bush I represented all they despised in Reagan. So they threw Bush I and Reagan under the bus and gave us Clinton.
The fact Reps are repeating their suicidal, knee jerk, trademark circular firing squad is disappointing – but not surprising. A lot of people are just like me,. Very sharp, very observant, and not wedded to losing strategies. Like I said – purity is not a word we care about. Compromise doesn\’t scare us. Failure is not an option.
The Fence Only crowd failed. You can think up all the reason you want not to do something. And each time you will lose ground to those of us who think of ways of making things work better. No contest.
Squiggler
Where did I ever say round up and deport?
You are obviously confusing me with someone else.
What I am saying, like every other fence first supporter is saying is if you have a hole in the bottom of your boat, it is smart to plug it as best you can to slow down the flow rather than just start bailing and hope you can keep up.
700 miles of fence wasn’t my number, it is what the wizards of washington dc came up with.
Yes the northern border is longer and a possible terrorist entry point, but few central american illegals choose to enter from that side.
Deport them all is not a likely workable agenda, even if we did, the effect it would have on their home countries would come back to haunt us.
Right now a lot of the original flow of the illegals worked in low paying non skilled jobs , then as their total number exceeded those job openings they could compete for, they moved into higher paying jobs like carpenters and roofers for just a example for arguments sake.
There are many illegals who have skilled trade knowledge but don’t use it because hiring into places that primarily use those skills increases their risk of exposure.
Once they are legalized, that fear goes away and there can be many unintended impacts that we do not have the good base data to project.
Last time we had an amnesty program we were dealing with 3 million illegals, now we are dealing with 12 million or more depending on whose numbers you use.
Give me any assurance that this will be the amnesty to end all amnestys , I don’t think you can.
My point on the anchor baby voter is , there is no firm knowledge if they will fall toward supporting measures pro or con to the immigration issue, but that they are the product of a wrongly based concept of anchor babies validity to begin with.
AJ, nothing I have said has changed your mind one iota. Hence, the word dogmatic. Yes, AJ, your opinion is dogmatic.
And while you ramble on about Reagan and past history, you still have failed to answer my questions which have basis in the present and the future.
So you keep on with your “fence only” mantra. It seems to be all you have. That, and your claim that it will bring underpaid workers out of the shadows. But you fail to take into account all it will do is create another segment of “in the shadows” society. There will always be more illegals to replace those you have fought so hard to make legal because the driving force that brings those illegals here in the first place is not going away; businesses looking for labor at substandard wages. And nothing YOU can do will change that. So then what? Another amnesty in 2016?
I would think someone who is so pro illegal immigrant as you are would want to tout the benefits of amnesty. But you don’t. You just continue to rail on those of us who don’t agree with you. I can only surmise that it is because you know that your argument is weak and cannot be supported in fact.
I have presented you with question after question of problems that will arise out of your bleating heart policy. To this point, you have refused to answer any of them.
I realize you are not a Republican. But neither are you a conservative when it comes to immigration and neither is our president. He wasn’t as governor, he is not as president. And neither one of you have offered any solution to the problems that will come from another blanket amnesty. And yes, AJ, no matter how much lipstick you put on that amnesty pig, it is still a pig.
If we are not going to enforce our immigration laws, why bother having a border? Why bother even making it illegal to enter our nation without permission? But once again, these are questions you will not answer.
AJ,
A very well-written post.
I think there is a core principle of Bush Conservativism in the subtext of each of your points that remains unstated: that it is not even the specific agenda you list, but an attitude towards politics and political support that leads one to still support Bush even in this “dark hour” of conservatism.
Take the immigration argument which seems to be consuming the discussion here. Personally, nothing would please me more than a high border fence, enforced penalties for employers, and using the power of disincentives to drive the illegal aliens back into Mexico. In my heart, I am an immigration absolutist. I think that this is not only possible, but desireable; it would ultimately do greater good for not just the US, but Mexico itself. As a corrollary, I think that a guest worker program is morally corrupt, as it will create second-class (non-)citizens who will, nevertheless, eventually be given all the rights that the program was originally created to avoid.
HOWEVER…
I also acknowledge that the actual workability of a strong anti-illegal program and the political workability are in two completely different spheres.
The hard, unpleasant fact is that any strong anti-illegal program would not last long past the sob stories in the first news cycle, no matter how many explanations or facts or reasons I or anyone else can give.
When Bush took office, the mantra was that the ‘grown-ups’ were in charge. And it is exactly how Bush governed. While the Democrats shrilly caterwauled like sophomore college students, he found places to calmly advance Conservatism, and moved forward.
To me, that is the essence of Bush Conservatism: a patient, measured approach to politics that measures achievement in decades, not weeks. I would rather take a small, compromised step forward than an extreme leap… back. Because lasting change comes through broad coalitions, not swift legislative hammerstrokes.
I liken it to the situation that existed after the Civil War. The radical reconstructionists held sway in Congress. They had a dream which was undeniably admirable: they wished to remake the South, destroy racism, give the freemen what they obviously deserved– equality.
They had their way for a while, but by the elections of 1874, Northerners had tired of the constant battle with the Bourbons. Perhaps the combination of post-war fatigue and a tiring, seemingly endless police action have some parallels in our age.
When the Republicans were swept from power, everything evaporated, because they had made no allies for their policy in the South. Absolutist views, no matter how right, cannot survive the ebb and flow of an unwilling democracy. And what we want to be possible, may not be possible, no matter how much we want it.
This does not mean that we eschew principles, Henry Clay style, and reduce everything to politics and calculations. Rather, it means that we look to legislate in those areas where change is broadly supported now, and use the power of persuasion to build coalitions for future areas of change.
Washington hated the rancor of party politics, and here he did not understand the genius of Madison’s creation. By channeling the efforts of thousands of individual positions into two– and only two– opposing political parties, the tendency was for decisive action only on those issues that represented the true collective will of the people.
It is not the red-meat sound bite, or the Hannity-style ‘gotcha’ smackdown, that will remain here for my children to benefit from. Leave the over-the-top histrionics to Howard Dean.
I prefer to patiently win by finding not only what is good, but what is good enough.
“Perot and Buchanan felt Bush I represented all they despised in Reagan. So they threw Bush I and Reagan under the bus and gave us Clinton”
Right on, AJ! I am so with you…as you know, I adore George W. Bush and am proud to have been a voice for him over the past 6 years…and will be so very proud 20 years from now to have stood tall with him….History will prove this out.
I want to be more like him…than anyone I know on the scene today…
The Best President we have ever had, imho…Our MBA.
He had the courage to answer The Call. I admire him so much for that.
All hail Bush Conservatives!
AJ, You wrote -
“Stop blaming the Gang of 14 and support the results they gave us …”
and you also wrote -
“habeas corpus reserved to US citizens and not granted to the foreigners, especially the terrorists and the GITMO detainees.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..
Wasn’t it your buddy who pushed for and got the Al Queda “Bill of Rights”. The leader of the “Gang of 14″.
How does that square with you?
And have you seen this study -
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/electionanalysis.html
That study doesn’t bode well for your theory that the Republicans were punished for an anti-illegal immigration stand. Actually, it proves quite the opposite.
Of the Republicans who were up for re-election, those with a soft stance on illegal immigration (a “D” or an “F”), 34.5% lost their bid for re-election. Of the Republicans who were up for re-election, those with a firm stance on illegal immigration (an “A” or a “B”), 18.8% lost their bid for re-election.
Result – twice as many Republicans that were soft on immigration and were up for re-election lost their seats compared to those Republicans that were firm on immigration.
Sort of shoots the heck out of your theory, doesn’t it?
Would you like to know the stats on the Blue Dogs that were firm on illegal immigration and won their election bids? I would be more than happy to provide it to you. You won’t be happy with the info and perhaps you should avoid it so as not to upset your world view.
Apache IP
AJ,
I am still waiting on that link for the text of President Bush’s proposed comprehensive immigration bill.
I was much more timely in providing you a direct link to your buddy McCain’s proposed bill. Is there some sort of reason for the delay in you returning the favor? Should I stop anticipating a reply from you?
Apache IP
The Republicans lost the House and the Senate because of the following five primary reasons (excluding local factors obviously) -
1. President Bush did a horrible job of explaining why we are fighting the war in Iraq they way we are. Personally, I know and understand why we are fighting it they way we are. And I completely agree with the logic. But unfortunately 99.9% of the population doesn’t know why we are using the force level that we are.
2. President Bush did a **HORRIBLE** job of “selling” his amnesty plan. Not that I agree with it anyway. I understand the necessity of it, and I would probably go along with it under the right conditions, but I truthfully don’t like it. I don’t like feeling like the Hispanic vote is more important than my vote. Makes me feel disinfranchised.
3. You can’t have (1) – a war on terror and (2) – open borders. It just does not square. This was the killer deal. People can’t grasp this, and who can blame them? Frisk grandma at the airport and leave our borders open? Something is not right there.
4. Pork. Need I say more? Hello! Veto pen!!
5. The relentless negativity of the MSM. It was endless and unbelievably biased. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people still get their news from the MSM. Not sure how to solve that.
All things considered, we were darn lucky we lost as few seats as we did. It could have been a lot worse.
Apache IP
It’s quite striking the intolerance and railing against so-called “hardline reps” and those who support a fence along much of the southern border. The vast majority of fence supporters (like Retire & myself) also support the guest-worker program and other elements of comprehensive reform. But a guest-worker program without stopping the flood spells disaster — it’s what happened 20 years ago. And many here hold the incorrect view that a “hardline” stance (it’s actually the majority stance) on immigration cost reps the election — it did not. Perceived corruption & scandal (Foley), big-spending, negative economic news pushed by MSM, and Iraq, and dems going way right on immigration, is what determined the elections. I like Bush, but he has strayed from conservative positions or has not adhered to them in some cases, immigration being one.
And, yes, a fence does work. Ask the Israelis.
The Senate is made up of 100 Senators. And the gang of 14 held them all hostage.
The will of 14 overpowered the will of 40 or more.
That doesn’t sit well with some people. It is unlikely that it ever will.
Apache IP
Wiley,
I agree completely. I would have stomached the amnesty and guest worker plan. I wouldn’t have liked it, but I would have held my tongue.
I just wanted to see someone PROVE that they take border security seriously before we were asked to grant amnesty.
Especially given the war on terror!! Give grandma a cavity search at the airport and leave the borders wide open. Right………..
Makes perfect sense.
Apache IP
Agree — the gang of 14 was disaster for reps, and bad for the country. Roberts, Alito, and any number of other qualified judges would have been confirmed if the reps held strong because the public would have seen how empty and partisan the dems were being. This was a sure thing, except the G14 decided to take over the game, which meant bowing to dems pressure for no good reason.
And this points out another misconception that AJ has — the Meirs (sp?) fiasco was all about qualifications. There were/are many, many well-qualified conservative jurists with constitutional law experience, but Bush went beyond left field, into the parking lot, and chose a women, perhaps conservative, with no constitutional law experience. Why? Maybe he was being loyal to a friend, perhaps he thought she would make a good judge, but it sure appeared he was bending over backwards to please the politically correct and lefty MSM & assuage the dems, but look what that got his father (& all of us) with Souter. The outcry was simple – why choose an inexperienced, unknown quantity with so many deserving conservative candidates?
You know, this isn’t really that hard to understand.
Take my wife and I as an example.
My wife is a graduate of the United States Military Academy. I am an ex Apache Helicopter Instructor Pilot of many years of fine service and loyalty to this country.
My wife was born in this country. Her parents were born in this country. Her grandparents were born in this country. Her great-grandparents were born in this country.
Unfortunately, my wife works for a multi-national corporation and she does a lot of travel to unsavory countries that are popular for outsourcing American jobs. So even though she and I are loyal ex-Army patriots with 20+ years between us, she is still subject to extra scrutiny at the airports, just because of the countries she flies in and out of.
But, hey!!! We don’t want to offend anyone and put a fence on the border.
And that makes sense to you???????????????
It doesn’t make any sense to me. And I will bet you a dollar that it doesn’t make any sense to a lot of other people either.
Give my West Point graduate wife extra attention at the airport, but leave our borders wide open.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight……..
Killer plan that is.
I hate to say it, but we deserved to lose that election. We should count our blessings that our losses weren’t greater.
Apache IP
Wiley,
If I had expanded my list to 6, number 6 would have been -
6. Spinelessness (sp?) and the gang of 14.
That definitely played a role in our demise.
Apache IP
You know, I’ll bet a nickle that my wife would be subject to less airport scrutiny if our last name was Alijabmar.
Combine that with the fact that our borders are wide open and you can’t figure out why Republicans lost?
Not much more that I can offer in the way of clarity.
Apache IP
Love it. LOVE it. The only thing I may disagree about is whether W Cons should form a third party or attempt to recapture the GOP. It’s really hard for me to let go of the grand old party idea and years of financial and physical investment. Either way, we are not going to have our act together by ‘08. But I think the AJ manifesto ought to be our guiding template for the future, regardless the exact political framework which develops.
The fence almost strikes me funny at this point. All those roaring 110% conservatives who demanded a largely symbolic gesture over substantive, comprehensive imm reform, and who apparently have no problem pouring x billion dollars down the garbage disposal to construct a fence to little effect while ignoring the many other necessary components related to our SECURITY… well I am sure those same 110-percenters screamed bloody murder over mindless rhetoric and wasteful spending for bridges to nowhere and such. But a fence without any supporting measures is okay with the sanctimonious ones? Makes little sense unless of course you factor in ego, ratings, and book sales based on creating fear and rage. Come to think of it, a fence alone pretty much guarantees the problem won’t be solved and the fear/rage industry will remain a prosperous one to exploit.
The fence only mob seems like a collection of angry, unhappy control freaks who have no use for an open tent. For them the fence is a perfectly Freudian model of how they think and how they regard themselves and their fellow human beings.
I think W’s “soft bigotry of low expectations” can be applied to Reps who have given up on Iraq and who pretty much treat immigration problems with the same elite exasperation. As if there is nothing we can do but coil up in a fetal position and try to keep them away from us. That is so un-American, so un-Reagan and so completely un-W Con.
You know AJ, something has been brewing in me for more than 24 hours now. And I won’t feel like much of a man if I don’t just say it.
The other day you declared someone a “lost cause” because of the book they were reading. WTF????????
If that is the quality and depth of your intellect, then I really don’t belong here.
You have been a gracious host and I appreciate your hospitality. You were most kind in allowing me to post my opinions here.
Thank you very much.
But please close my account. I don’t belong here. If you are going to write someone off because of what they are reading, then I don’t belong here.
Here’s a thought for you: try attacking the argument and not the messenger. And never, ever call someone a “lost cause” because you disapprove of their reading list.
Good bye and thank you for your hospitality.
Apache IP
Hate to see you go Apache IP, you are one of the good guys.
Ken, you need to get a tape of the planes flying into the WTC and watch them a few times all the way thru the buildings collapse. Then when you feel like the Islamo Fascists are the good guys, you need to watch it again.
Would all those that have changed their mind about the immigration issue (either way) after all this back and forth please identify yourself. I said when it started a few days ago that NO ONE would change their mind. I don’t think I’ve been proven wrong.
I think the larger point is that condidates like Allen and Santorum and Hostettler who are very hardline lost and candidates like Snowe and Lugar and Specter won easily.
The fence only people simply lost track of the fact that their tone is what turned people off. That might not seem like a big deal but it is. The hispanic vote abandoned the GOP. The loss in one election cycle was staggering. It was a lot harder to get those votes than it was to lose them.
So no one in saying that in order to win you have to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, the point is to allow for some compromise so that a solution might actually be possible. So far the only thing people like Malkin have accomplished is to damage the President because he had the temerity to not agree with their views. They also alienate so many people they are losing elections. When the Minute Men candidate is losing on home turf your cause is lost, or at least the way you present it is lost.
Spin it how you want, but every poll, exit polls, surveys whatever make it plain that comprehensive immigration reform is what the vasst majority of the American people support. Because they think it is more practical.
Did Bush do a terrible job of explaining this war to people? I am not sure about that. I think of the days before WW2 when intelligent people like Lindberg were saying the Jews and the Brits were the problem not those nice Nazis and I think to myself if Churchill and Roosevelt could not make them see what was coming then how can Bush make people see this threat now.
As for pork, I think that most people do not even know what an earmark is. And given the choice between a government program that will help pay Mom’s medical bills or somehow coming up with 30 grand a year for the nursing home themselves …they will prefer the program. Old age and sickness are things that all families have to deal with and so it matters to people.
FE,
I think you understand the point of my post. Bush conservatives have been separated from the Reps by the Reps inabilty to compromise. The For Trent, who noted I was much more optimistic about a Rep win, he should note that I based that opposition on the idea Reps still had the independent center with them. I was wrong. I can see now, after the elections and puting the data together in hindsight, that Reps repulsed the center. The center did not care about Harriet Miers, except the way she was treated by those like Frumm who had a personal vendetta. And the Dems were just as bad as the Reps on Dubia Ports World – as was the country in general. The only schism point is immigrantion, with 2/3rds of the people supporting a guest worker program. I never said the Reps would figure it out. And in fact, as a post later this weekend will demonstrate, the Reps have a habit of doing this. So no, there will be no changing of minds. The coalition is gone, over. And it will remain that way for some time. The last time we got 8 years of Clintong before the far right pulled itself together enough to moderate and focus on conservative policies with broad appeal. More on this later. But don’t expect any change. The Bush Conservatives are ostrocized from the Reps. They pushed Bush under the bus years ago, what makes you think we are welcomed?
Apache_IP,
The author was uber nativist Buchanan – who left the party because it was too moderate. The poster was SteveWS, and since that comment we have come together on common ground. You may not like the fact I have boundaroes beyond which I will not go, but they are there. Buchanan is so far right he is anti-America, because the Americe he envisions is sick – like the Aryian Nation kind of sick. Maybe not to the same degree, but he is definitelty not a well person.
Sorry if you think you need to leave, but this is the political process. If we cannot let people know when they have gone too far, then what is the point in having the debate? In the end we agreed, what can I tell you.
Wiley,
You missed my point about Miers completely. She deserved to be treated with respect, not she deserved ther seat. And you are so wrong on the Gang of 14 because you ignore the results. You and many others will have to watch as compromise works for the next two years. The Gang of 14, which include Lieberman and McCain, will help hold the line on taxes, security, etc. They will team up with Bush and be the only defense we have against the liberal left. I suggest you just stop instulting those working to our benefit. It simply leads to defeat. The Gang of 14 faced no challenges – except one. And I now challenge you to tell all conservatives it was worth losing Congress to defeat DeWine and Chafee (the latter was not a Gang of 14 member). You tell everyone eliminating those two moderates was paramount to holding Congress. And you will see why your insulting those Senators who helped seat all those conservative justices makes no sense to anyone outside the far right.
One thing I never understood about the Dubai Ports thing was the willingness of Republicans like Duncan Hunter to follow the likes of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. When Schumer and Clinton started all that [and they did] it should have occured to certain bloggers and talk radio people that just maybe they were more interested in being loud mouth partisans than they were in national security. But noooooo, the right heard the word Muslim and went off the deep end. Their best thing.
I have to agree about Miers, the way some people treated her was just ugly. In fact I heard people who are not really all that political say that. Once again, it is the tone that turns people off.
I’ve been reading posts on Strata-Sphere for a few months now. I believe I heard about this web site from Rush. I’ve never felt compelled to respond to a post (although all of AJ’s are good IMO)
until I read AJ’s post on Bush Conservatives. I agree 100 % with every word. I was beginning to think I was the only “Bush Conservative” in existence. Since the Miers nomination I’ ve seen a side of conservatives that I had not seen before. I am a fan of conservative talk radio but I began to tire of the hosts I was listening to. (Ingraham really began to get on my nerves). I switched to Prager, Medved and Hewitt and have never looked back. I will sometimes listen to Rush for about an hour also.
Needless to say, I am happy to have found some like minded people on the web.
Thanks AJ and other “Bush Conservatives”.
I go out of town for a couple of days and the 3rd Reformation is announced.
Great post AJ. I do not agree with all of it but most of it. Am I angry at those parts I don’t like? Nope. It is all about common sense, common courtesy, and common good. I’ll fight like the devil on some issues but I am willing to shake your hand if you win on others. If anyone wants to know just how right they are all the time just ask your spouse.
AJ,
A REALLY excellent post! I just have one point about the “Gang of 14″. I thought at the time and still think that the Gang of 14 is not a compromise as much as a mutually agreed on coalition that removes the rest of the Senate in the process of confirming judges. It is comprised of 14 individuals who will “inform” the rest of the Senate on whether or not they can vote on judges. It was a terrible idea then and it remains so (that is just my opinion. Sorry, but I have always seen it as an attempt to protect the privilege of the Senate more than reach a “compromise” on anything). When the very next judge comes up for vote and confirmation in the Senate, we will see whether or not this was a good idea.
I also can’t help but wonder when the “gang of 14″ changes with the next election (and it will), what will happen to this “compromise”? The margin in the Senate is now razor thin. Let’s put it this way, IF a “gang of 14″ were put into place at every issue that the Senate couldn’t agree on, I think it would be a disaster. Don’t you?
Chuck Schumer has already made it abundantly clear that ANY candidate that Bush puts forward for a Federal judgeship (especially the SCOTUS) is basically dead in the water. Some compromise! Anyway, it just my opinion. I am sick of back-room deals. Yeah, I know MOST business in Congress is done that way, and its probably naive of me to expect anything else. I have seen alot of the really excellent proposals of the Bush administration go down the drain because of the unwillingness of the Democrats to compromise. Take a look at Social Security…they won’t even “discuss” privatizing (VOLUNTARILY) and voila! THAT issue is also dead in the water.
To truly be a compromise, both sides have to be willing to go the distance, and from what I’ve seen, that’s just not happening. Every time we come to a standstill on issues of national security or Social Security it is the same. The Dems say my way or the highway. “We can work with our friends on the other side of the ailse” is code for “as long as they see things our way”.
Aj, you certainly started something here. Look at all the comments and discussion. This a GREAT!! Thank you so much for posting this.
Carol
Carol:
If there had not been a gang of 14 and if the rules change had been made the Senate Republicans who are now a minority would be at the mercy of the Democrats without even the threat of filibuster to slow down the majority.
That is the problem. The use of the nuclear option is a great thing when you have the majority, but when it is your turn to be in the minority it is not such a good thing. Especially when the Legislative and Executive branches are held by opposing parties.
Hey Limerack,
Great attitude.
Satrist,
Welcome. There is a little spot of sanity left in the country.
Apache_IP,
Where did I say there was no need for a fence? I said we needed the guest worker program along with the fence. And as for your wife getting scrutiny, I hear ya. But what does that have to do with opposing a guest worker program? Now if you were about to get booted from your house and job because your passport expired while you were out of country – then I would say your experience is the same as that proposed by some in this country. But inconvenience at airports and deportation for working are too different things.
Let’s be honest here. The Republicans lost for a number of reasons, the least not being the fact that it was a mid-term election. Historically, the Republicans did not do as badly as many would make out. The Democrats only control the Senate by one seat and that puts Leiberman, someone who was thrown under the bus by his own party, as the power player for the next two years. If Leiberman votes toward the right giving Republicans an equal number of votes, Cheney then becomes the tie vote. The House numbers, again, are not as strong as they have been historically.
Foley, was a scandal that broke too early. And when it was learned that it was a Democrat operative that had been shopping the story for months and that left leaning reporters had had the story for months, along with the history of Gerry Studds and the Democrats actions with Studds, it lost some of it’s clout. Most Americans accept that there is corruption and scandal in politics and while they don’t like it, they treat it as a fact of the blood sport.
Of those I knew who voted Democrat this year (and those are few as Texas remained solidly red) no one mentioned Harriet Miers. She was a non-entity and basically forgotten.
The big problem is the pork. The bridges to nowhere that the Democrats railed on (the bridge to no where has been cancelled) and made one of their talking points.
Republicans promised to clean up Washington by eliminating the corruption and the pork. They became comfortable in their positions and didn’t do what they said they were do if elected in ‘04. The Democrats, along with the MSM, played that for all it was worth and while the Dems pointed out the corruption of Ney and Cunningham, Republicans sat silently by thinking that water would seek it’s own level when it came to Jefferson and Harry Reid.
Bottom line? The Democrats had a better message and that was that everything that was wrong with our nation was the fault of George Bush and the Republicans. We lost because we operated on the policy that nice guys win. They don’t. We failed to point out the corruption on the left (Jefferson is still in office and Harry Reid has never answered for his $68,000 Abramhoff money or his shady real estate deals) and basically we gave the election away. While the Democrats touted corruption in D.C. and promised to change it, we stood by without having put the Dem’s feet in the fire.
Michael McCaul (R-Tx) won handily. He is pro-fence and anti-illegal immigrant. But he is also in the battle zone and knows the dangers that face us. His report on illegal entry, and it’s costs, was ignored by the MSM. Why? Because if it had been splashed all over the front pages by left leaning publications, not one pro-amnesty Democrat would have won. And most Democrats (the Blue Dogs) are not buying into the amnesty scam. Democrats took seats by running anti-abortion, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-illegal immigration, pro-WOT candidates. Voters chose those candidates whose only difference was the D and not the R behind their names. The Blue Dogs still represented the values that voters adhered to. Fewer and fewer voters vote a straight party ticket. Now they are voting the issues and the Dems offered them an alternative to the corruption, pork and scandal that they had been led to believe (by the Dems and the MSM) was the core values of Republicans.
http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigations-Border-Report.pdf
The immigration debate is still alive and well with most people wanting a fence AND some form of track to citizenship. They do not want blanket amnesty, no matter how anyone tried to convince them otherwise. McCaul released his findings shortly before the election, plastered it all across his district, and won. He also has a strong Hispanic constituancy and they voted for him knowing he is anti-illegal and anti-amnesty. But Tejanos know the burden that illegals place on their segment of society and they don’t want it.
You speak of compromise. Where is the compromise on the part of the illegal who has broken our laws? It seems that the compromise must be totally on the part of our government and not the person we are granting entry to. I have asked (until my fingers are sore) for the answers to the problems blanket amnesty will create. No one on this board who are for amensty will answer them. Compromise is a two way street, to be participated in by our government and the immigrant. If we show good faith to the immigrant by allowing them entry and they do not show good faith by entering illegally, that, in itself, is not compromise, it is caving to the demands of special interest groups.
I know I will never get the answers to my questions from the pro-amnesty bunch here. And to think that those on the lowest rung of the wage ladder will be required to pay back taxes on salaries that cannot be substanciated is fool hearty. It just ain’t gonna happen. The cry then will be how cruel it is to make newly made legals pay back taxes when the lowest wage earners now pay no taxes and even receive a refund in excess of what they pay in through the Earned Income Tax Credit. I can just hear the poverty pimps and the ACLU now.
Amensty, like welfare, doesn’t work. For someone to be proud of what they have, they have to earn it. Sweat equity works. And there will be, like in the 80’s, no sweat equity to becoming legal in our nation. And don’t use their working in the U.S. as an example of sweat equity. They are being paid for those jobs in salary and the effort it takes to remain in the U.S. is the sweat equity required for that privilege. To be allowed to stay in the U.S. is a right for those born here. To all others, it is a privilege, not a right.
But what will happen is that we will not be able to deport gang members that have not been convicted of a crime. Other nations will not cooperate in background checks because they do not want the criminals back into their socieities. No back taxes will be collected on the low wage earner for the simple reason we do not collect taxes on those on the low wage rung now. Our schools and hosptials will continue to bear the burden of children who will be allowed to enter our nation as their parents have been made legal. Businesses who are forced to pay standard, and sometimes prevailing wages, will relocate to other nations where the labor costs are lower or they will simply go out of business. That will send the unemployment rate soaring and all those who have lost their jobs will now be collecting unemployment or will once again, work under the table for substandard wages.
Sure, I would like to see every human being have a chance to live the life that we are permitted in the United States. But that just isn’t possible. We cannot cure the problems of corrupt nations like Mexico by taking their least educated, most poverty level citizens off their hands. NAFTA and CAFTA was touted as a end all to beat all. It would eliminate the mass migration into the United States. Seems that didn’t work, either. Amensty in the 80’s was going to cure the problem of illegal immigration. Ooops. Didn’t happen.
I have a hard problem understanding why so many of you want more of the same when it is proven that it has not, does not and will not work. Until we eliminate the very reasons the illegals come here in the first place, we will not fix the problem, no matter how many amnestys we grant.
For Michael McCaul’s report you can link it here. Not that I think any of those who disagree with me will bother.
http://www.house.gov/mccaul
or
http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf
Terrye, good thought:
That is the problem. The use of the nuclear option is a great thing when you have the majority,
I remember thinking at the time, the nuclear option was great until the Repubs are in the minority. Then, it wouldn’t be at all.
Now I’m glad they didn’t ‘exercise’ it.
retire05
Most that is good in this country came from Legal immigrants.
Some that is good in this country came from illegal Aliens.
A lot of what is bad in this country comes from illegal Aliens.
Illegal aliens are a fact of life. We need a way to make sure they benefit the USA.
I have heard no proposal that would accomplish this.
I kinda think if we enforced all the existing laws, it would work.
As of now, no immigrant laws are enforced. Even if it is attempted, there are way to many ways to circumvent them. Why is this true. Both sides want their votes. Politicians would rather be able to buy votes than to stand on principle.
When and if a decision, that is enforceable, is ever made to secure the borders and that is successful, then we will no longer have an illegal alien problem.
I want no roundups, I don’t care about the fence, I just want a secure border and immigration laws enforced.
If a fence is necessary to protect private property which is adjacent to the border, the government should be responsible for maintaining the laws that apply.
Retire05,
There ain’t enough lipstick for this pig of an election. Just remember, I was one of the last to step away from the Reps – not one of the first. Most had left the party and voted against the Reps this year.
Strata and his sheeple:
I would challenge anyone to read Buchanan archives since circa
1990 on immigration and compare them to those of the “moderates” in the same period, including but not limited to the “moderates”
Democrat and Republican, both conservative and liberal, who
were assuring us that NAFTA would solve the immigration problem.
You will find Buchanan was right all along with the burdens of the Southwest partiuclarly spotlighted, “complimented” by the current
inter-ethnic friction inclusive of the attitudes Strata paradoxically
complains about.
It seems Strata’s “moderation” is the sickness of incremental
retreat , masked often in undue faith in the “free market” to
facilitate the non forthcoming assimilation process. It seems
conversely Buchanan’s best seller exemplifies a latent
HEALTH and seminal fighting spirit in the broad populace, one
that will be necessary to salvage America.
Ahhh.. I feel like I’ve been wondering in the desert and finally found an oasis! Thanks to Anchoress (where I’ve lurked from time to time) for pointing me this way.
Great post AJ! Yep, I’m a Bush Conservative and it’s really hurt my heart to see so many Reps turn on him because THEY lost the majority!
The good news is W’s STILL President!
I’ve read thru the comments here this mornings and I’d just like to make one point. It is true there were many issues that contributed to the Reps lost, however, I’m not sure that pork spending actually had that much of an impact (should have but most likely didn’t .. one man’s pork is another man’s bridge!) But the one thing that we lost that we didn’t HAVE TO loose was the Hispanic vote and those that sympathized. And it’s completely understandable that those that contributed (such as NumbersUSA) to that loss would be in denial about their contribution to it.
As was pointed out, Bush is a compromiser. Yes, he did initially propose a Guest Worker Program that included a pathway to citizenship. BUT he listened to the feedback he got and when he spoke on this issue last year in a national address, he separated the earned citizenship from a TEMPORARY Worker Program. This was reflective of the Kyl/Cornyn Bill. (Never heard of it?) Bush indicated he was willing to negotiate a compromise by putting off (timeline for implementation) the pathway to citizenship part of his comprehensive reform if Congress would agree to negotiate a Temporary Worker Program in the border security bill. (BTW, the Kyl/Cornyn Bill required applicants to apply for the program outside of the US.)
But it was the fence only/fence first hardliners who shut down any negotiation by turning the phrases comprehensive reform and temporary worker into amnesty for all.
I contend if the hardliners had been willing to compromise and add a temporary worker aspect to the fence bill they would have retained the Hispanic vote as well as those who support both measures.
Personally, what I resent about the neo-right (good description btw) is this attitude that they OWN the party and the rest of us can take it or leave it. Well they got what they wished for, those that couldn’t take it, left it.
As hard as it is for me to leave the GOP, I say we start a new party.
But can we stay away from the animal mascot thingy?
Ken, I’m still waiting for that list of countries that ‘left’ the British Empire during Churchill’s two terms. Until you supply it, shut up
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm
For Enforcement
You are a liar, as you claimed this linked piece provided no quotes
from Bush officials about the short length of the war, but only
claimed they so predicted.
Cheney Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are all quoted.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/WAR%20SPEECHES%20OF%20WINSTON%20CHURCHILL.doc
anyone who reads the war speeches of Churchill can note his
bombast about preserving the British Empire, which of course
crumbled soon after.
Ken, and those countries that left the British Empire during his term were? Put up or shut up. You are wrong until you prove your statement
While you cry how the Republicans lost the Hispanic vote (which they never had before G.W. ran for president) the number decreased from 44% to 30%. Basically, Hispanics voted the same way the have historically, and that was as Democrats.
But the numbers you ignore are the independents that were swayed by pork, corruption, scandals and the war.
And not one of you, amnesty only bunch, have bothered to talk about personal responbility on the part of the person wanting to immigrate into the U.S.
So praise AJ on his one sided compromise that he is wanting (our government being the only part of the equasion compromising while the illegal does not have to). I’m sure it will endear you to his heart while he decides if he wants to ban we freethinkers who have already been burned with NAFTA, CAFTA and a previous amnesty. And realize that not one of you, NOT ONE, has offered any solutions to the problems that will arise out of you so-called compromise.
For LNDANTEXAS, you seem to know little about the voting habits of the Tejanos of your own state or the fact that the amnesty pig will hurt them the worst of all of our state’s society.
AJ, you said you were one of the last to step away from the Reps. Seems to me, you have not been a Republican for a while and were a Democrat prior to that. If I am wrong, I apologize. But I still remember, you were the one that was so upset by the violations of zoning laws in your community. Yet you would shove that very problem down the throats of others.
Ken, okay I went back and lifted the quotes, here they are. Which one of them predicted a short war?
Myers, on Meet the Press: “Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war,
Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: “However long it takes.
President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: “A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict.”
Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: “The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last.
So now the list of countries that left the British Empire are?
1.
2.
3.
kindly fill in the blanks.
Don’t you ever get tiried of being wrong. Seems like you would learn to keep your mouth shut until you at least know one fact for sure.
Retire05,
You are demonstrating the inability to listen of the fence-only/fence-first neo-right hardliners on this issue. Where in my comments did I support amnesty? I am absolutely 110% aware of the voting habits of those who desire to live off of the government, regardless of their ethnicity. The very fact that the Hispanic vote, which would be legals btw, has risen under the Bush administration should have been something that true Republicans should have understood was a long range goal of the GOP and supported that goal by working towards a compromise with Bush on a Temporary Workers Program.
The projected growth of the Hispanic population in Texas is a given … fact! Would you rather they all jump to the Dems or would you rather solicit them over to the Reps side of the aisle? It was a STUPID STUPID STUPID strategy to alienate them. It was an UNNECESSARY strategy. What would it have hurt to include a Temp Worker Program that required application and entry in their HOME country? It would have pacified the Republican Hispanic voters and likely brought more over to our side.
I truly understand the unwillingness of the fence-only/fence-first proponents to accept their responsibility in the defeat of the party, but it is a reality. Hopefully, the RNC has signaled with the naming of Mel Martinez to the Hispanic community that left the party at the polls that we understand the neo-right betrayed their loyalty and we want them to come back.
AJ, I’d add one more characteristic to your list of Bush Conservatives. We are pragmatists.
Ken, you sure are slow to answer when you don’t have an answer. But I guess you don’t know that either do you?
Do you need those dates again when Churchill was in office? It really shouldn’t take you long to get that list together of all the countries that left the empire during those years.
do you need a link to a database that will have the correct answer for you?
LNDANTEXAS, did I say YOU supported amnesty only? I believe that I said you have little knowledge of the Hispanic voter in your own state. And how in God’s name did you get that I was talking about those that live off the state? Good God, take a reading comprehension course.
Let’s see, Hispanics jumping to the Dems. It will be a short jump since historically they have always been there. And get this right this time; I am for a temporary worker program that originates in their native country. Have you got that? I AM FOR A TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM FOR THOSE THAT ENTER LEGALLY. It seems others on this board have problems with gray areas. I will hope you are not one of them.
Here is the history of Hispanic voters; they have always voted Democrat. That changed with the presidential elections in ‘00 and ‘04, but this was not a presidential election and if you want to compare the Hispanic vote of ‘00 and ‘04 to ‘06, you must do so on a c ongressional and senatorial level, not on a presidential level. Hispanics did not jump the Democrat ship when they voted for a Republican president. On local elections, they continued to vote Democrat. Nor did they jump the ship this election. They were right were they have always been but there are those that want to compare apples and oranges (president vs. congressional and senatorial). If you want to give a true picture of the Hispanic vote, then show me the results in the last congessional and senatorial elections, and the one before that and the one before that. That is how you get an honest assessment, not by comparing presidential to the others. Hispanics tend to vote for other Hispanics, no matter the election. Henry Bonilla is proof of that. But when you add in to the mix Democrat Hispanics running against Republican Hispanics, the Democrats most often, will win out.
And before you go singing the praises of Mel Martinez, read Senate Bill 2611 in it’s entirity. That is Martinez’ baby and it is a travesty to all those who entered our nation legally.
And by the way, Texas remained solidly red, even with the wins of the no-amnesty crowd. Bonilla will be in a run off since he took 49% of the votes. He must have 51% by state law. But there were three other Hispanics, all Democrats, running against him and they split the Hispanic vote.
Retire:
Martinez is a solid conservative, why don’t you lay off him? The fact that he did not agree with you 100% of the time does not make him a bad man.
Geez man listen to your self. The hardliners got their damn fence and lost the house. Now give it a rest.
Terrye, have you bothered to read S.B. 2611? And do you ask yourself why the ones putting their lives on the line each and every day on the border as the Border Patrol does, only gives Martinez a 10 out of a possible 100 for border security? Or do you just read the talking points of others and then reguritate them?
I hate answering you because you are so stuck on labels such as “hardliners”. And may I ask, what fence? Have you seen one damn fence post sunk? Have you seen any arrangements made for it’s construction? How about plans for the fence? Seen any of those?
The fence is a joke. It will never be built. You can take that to the bank.
For Enforcement can’t keep from dissembling. For Strata’s crowd that means lying. Rumsfeld’s quote went on to cite 6 months. Cheney placed (in quotation marks) a period of “weeks not months,” for the
war’s duration. You have a very cheap view of American life, FE.
Thank God, 69% of the people still, do not.
The British Empire was lost during Churchill’s war.
And here is a damning cut-and-paste for Wolfowitz, as requested
by For Enforcement, who plays fast and loose with quotes and with the lives of American youth.
March 27, 2003
Wolfowitz again tells Congress that oil should pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. “The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but… We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”
hehe….You are a funny guy AJ…my British friends would be tremendously amused by your inability to understand irony. For you to accuse others of violating the 11th commandment means one of two things. One that you have absolutely no idea what that Amendment says. Or that you do have some idea but you think that no one remembers all the name calling and attacks you have launched against those you do not agree with.
Btw I was a Reagan Republican long ago…Bush is no Reagan. What you want is total obidience to the leader…if anyone is uber anything it is you and your readers who cannot take dissent without attacking the person delivering the questions regarding policy.
My beef with Bush is in the middle of a two front war he is giving money to No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit and signing the McCain Feingold mess. Instead of throwing our money away on programs that look like a Democrat devised him he should have been raising Military Spending to at least the levels it stood during Clintons Reign in Office. We are now at 3.7% of GDP. During most of Clintons terms we stood above 4.0 and even higher. Clinton didn’t even have a war to blame it on.
Finally you are not Bush Conservatives you are Rockefeller Republicans…look up how successful they were.
Reagan conservatives kicked ass.
AJ,
You have invented the right term for my kind of conservative: Bush Conservative. And, as with “Reagan Democrats,” we should fuse with like minded Democrats and Libertarians.
But, I think a 3rd party is a loser. I believe it’s better to shape the Rep Party after our vision. And the expression, “Bush Conservative” describes our vision..
Retire05,,
Yeah ya did imply that I supported amnesty in your comments to my original comment but now you want to play it coy and throw in that “only” qualifier. My reading comprehension is just fine. I’ve read your comments and understand you’re position on the Guest Worker Program in its original form, so I’m not surprised you would support a Temporary Worker Program as it was proposed by Kyl/Cornyn. My point was that the Reps in the House would not even entertain a compromise and many, many of the fence-only/fence-first proponents would not even allow it to be discussed. And every time it was brought up it was painted as amnesty. The compromise of adding a Temp Worker Program to the immigration bill would not have cost us anything on the border security issue and could have saved the Hispanic vote.
I know that those of you who pushed the fence initiative have been turning over every leaf to find justification for not accepting responsibility for losing the Congress for the rest of us. The fact of the matter is that Bush brought Hispanics into the Republican Party, we could have ridden his coattails in this election if the House Republicans had not made us look like a bunch of racists. The other fact of the matter is that the Hispanic population is the fastest growing ethnicity in the US especially in Texas. Encouraging them to align themselves with the Democrats is a stupid mistake. We had the opportunity to turn the tide in that voter block and you’re bunch screwed the pooch!
And I’m not singing the praises of Mel Martinez. But the fact that Bush has tapped him for the shared position in the RNC is indicative that they too realize the Hispanic vote was detrimental to the election.
PierreLegrand, I’m not addressing this only to you, but to several others. I guess I don’t see the need to start trying to classify everyone. Seems like everyone is doing it, Bush Conservative, Bush Moderates, Bush Liberals, Rockefeller whatevers, Reagan Democrats.
It all depends on your perspective. It seems there are few Reagan Repubs any more, same as Rockefeller Repubs.
I’m not sure why everyone suddenly seems they have to make someone look ‘extreme’ to try to get their point across. Third parties only serve to get someone else elected. Perot running in 92 and96 definitely got Clinton elected.
Reasonableness: Look a fairly reasonable immigrant law was passed during Reagan’s term. No part of it was ever enforced (except amnesty)
Odds are, no matter what immigrant bill is passed in the near future, no part of it will ever be enforced (except amnesty)
Look, I’m talking reality, not pie in the sky. Neither party wants anything meaningful passed, so nothing meaningful will be passed. We have a lot of citizens that sincerely want something done, but they are only asking for disappointment. It ain’t gonna happen.
What would I like to see, laws enforced. What am I going to see, nothing. The can will be kicked down the road.
We really need to give out attention to the WOT and hope we really can get some progress made there.
I am for enforcement of laws already existing.
LindaNTexas, And every time it was brought up it was painted as amnesty.
Wonder why it would have been labeled that way?
“For LNDANTEXAS, you seem to know little about the voting habits of the Tejanos of your own state or the fact that the amnesty pig will hurt them the worst of all our state’s society.”
Now, please, LNDANTEXAS, tell me how you managed to spin that so that you thought I said you supported amnesty since the above paragraph was the only one specifically directed at you?
And thanks for giving my one vote such power as to lose the election for “the rest of you”. Since I am not in control over how campaigns are run or the tactics used by the different candidates, you comment that I, and other like minded Republicans, lost the election is simply nuts (for lack of a better word). I am entitled to one vote, and have no control over how campaigns are run (except on a local level) for any Republican candidate. You just want to find someone to blame. Well blame the RNC as it was up to them to get out our message of conservatism and they failed. Blame the candidates for not running intelligent campaigns. Or blame yourself for not beating on enough doors, making enough phone calls and devoting you complete attention to making sure the people in your area understood what was at stake.
You also said that we had the opportunity to turn the tide in the [Hispanic] voting block. Well, if they had become Republicans, what tide would there be to be turned? Or is it that you made a Freudian slip and you really realize that when they voted for Bush they voted for the man, not the party? No one has to encourage Hispanics to align with the Democrats. They have been aligned with the Democrats historically. If you are trying to say that a 14% loss in Hispanic votes that were cast for Bush in the current local elections is symbolic of the loss for Republican candidates, I am going to split my sides laughing.
Mel Martinez is a bad choice on a number of points: his part in S.B. 2611, his low rating with the Border Patrol, his lack of experience and most importantly, he is a sitting Senator and we need a full time chairman for the RNC and a full time Senator for his district. We don’t need a part time anything. The stakes in ‘08 are just too high.
Yes, I realize that Hispanics in Texas are the fastest growing segment. We are now a minority-majority state. But the segment of Hispanics that are growing in my beloved state are illegals. That is why it cost Texas over $5 billion last year in services for illegals and will be even higher this year. So while I am sure you have complained about your property taxes, remember why they have gone so high. Do you even know the percentage of illegals in your own school district?
Quit blaming those of us who believe in the rule of law for the lost elections. When voting, immigration was way down on the list of important things to voters this year. But then, there are those of you that have to blame someone.
Why do I get the feeling you probably live in Austin?
LindaNTexas, And every time it was brought up it was painted as amnesty.
Wonder why it would have been labeled that way?
For Enforcement, I have no earthly idea, other than it was arrogance. The rest of us were silenced by those who shouted the loudest who had been stirred into a frenzy from drinking too much of the Azlan del Norte kool-aid and pushed to hysteria by La Raza and the Minute Men.
“For LNDANTEXAS, you seem to know little about the voting habits of the Tejanos of your own state or the fact that the amnesty pig will hurt them the worst of all our state’s society.”
Now, please, LNDANTEXAS, tell me how you managed to spin that so that you thought I said you supported amnesty since the above paragraph was the only one specifically directed at you?
Now Retire05, I think it’s pretty self evident that you assumed two things when you made that comment to me. 1) That I didn’t have any knowledge about the Hispanic voter, 2) I had no knowledge the impact of amnesty on them. You last assumption implies I support such a plan without understanding the consequences. In my original comment on this thread, I was talking about a Temporary Worker Program and specifically stated it was not an amnesty program. But you demonstrated the very example I was pointing to as to how the fence-only/fence-first proponents painted any discussion of a temporary worker program as amnesty.
And thanks for giving my one vote such power as to lose the election for “the rest of you”. Since I am not in control over how campaigns are run or the tactics used by the different candidates, you comment that I, and other like minded Republicans, lost the election is simply nuts (for lack of a better word).
I said: I know that those of you who pushed the fence initiative have been turning over every leaf to find justification for not accepting responsibility for losing the Congress for the rest of us.
Those of you .. more than one.
You also said that we had the opportunity to turn the tide in the [Hispanic] voting block. Well, if they had become Republicans, what tide would there be to be turned? Or is it that you made a Freudian slip and you really realize that when they voted for Bush they voted for the man, not the party?
You yourself pointed out that in the ’04 election the Hispanic vote in the GOP had increased and as I said we had the opportunity to ride Bush’s coattails. My turn the tide was not a Freudian slip it was a reference we had not yet secured the majority of that voter block. This election could have done it and helped us in ’08 to keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse.
If you are trying to say that a 14% loss in Hispanic votes that were cast for Bush in the current local elections is symbolic of the loss for Republican candidates, I am going to split my sides laughing.
I suggest you have a good hardy laugh now because believe me beginning in January when the Dems take control of both houses there will be slim to none opportunities for laughing!
Mel Martinez is a bad choice on a number of points: his part in S.B. 2611, his low rating with the Border Patrol,
Get over it already. It’s clear the appointment is temporary and is intended to signal to the Hispanic voter that the RNC recognizes they were detrimental to the outcome of the election. Do you really think that the administration doesn’t understand they will need a full time RNC Chairman for ’08?
BTW, I don’t really care how the Border Patrol Association rates Martinez. Last time I check he was a Florida Senator and the borders of Florida were being protected by the US Coast Guard. Unless of course they are concerned that he’s too weak on keeping those crazy Georgians and Alabamians out of Florida.
Yes, I realize that Hispanics in Texas are the fastest growing segment. We are now a minority-majority state. But the segment of Hispanics that are growing in my beloved state are illegals.
Remind me again how the fence-first was intended to address that issue? Keep ‘em from going home? Oh, yeah, that’s right .. ICE is gonna round them all up and deport them before they have a chance to multiply.
Quit blaming those of us who believe in the rule of law for the lost elections. When voting, immigration was way down on the list of important things to voters this year. But then, there are those of you that have to blame someone.
There you go again, insinuating that I don’t believe in the rule of law. I said if a temporary worker program had been INCLUDED in the border security bill that DIDN’T include a pathway to citizenship we could have held the Hispanic vote. There were several contributing factors, but the one factor we didn’t have to loose was the Hispanic voter. There has been so much analysis of the individual races now, that there is no doubt the Hispanic vote was a deal breaker. Blame? No. Accountability? Yes. It should be a lesson learned but it doesn’t appear that it is being learned.
Why do I get the feeling you probably live in Austin?
You would be wrong about that but I get the feeling there’s an insult in there somewhere.
LndaNTexas,
Reitre05 is a lost cause. He is the perfect example of why Reps lost Congress and whether he gets it or not is irrelevant. The Fence Only crowd is, thankfully, out of power. And all their insults and frustrations and rationalizations are simply their way of dealing with th e fact they do not have a seat at the table deciding where to take this country. The point they miss is the will remain in the political wilderness as long as the remain in denial. So what? They are only punishing themselves. Bush Conservatives have had it with the Anti-Bush Republicans and will never give them the support they require to win elections.
That is a cold hard fact of reality. They have no credibility. Just like Buchanan has no hope of ever winning the party nomination for President, the Fence Only crowd has no hope of ever rising to positions of influence – ever again. People forget that when they say “my way or the highway”, and we send them onto the highway, that is a one way road to nowhere. You just get their really, really fast.
Never again. They had their chance and they blew it. Think we want Dan Quayle back? Think Dems will nominate Kerry again? Think conservatives will ever entertain the Fence Only crowd again? I only asked Retire05 if he could support the Guest Worker program so he would, himself, determine whether he was going to be in the lost cause category. It is a simple test. If they will not adapt, they will not evolve.
AJ, lost cause? Why do you feel the need to insult me when I have not stooped to insulting you?
I have asked you question after question about the detriments of amnesty (and yes, that is what you are advocating) and you refuse to answer. Instead, I get more insults.
This, IMO, makes you less than honorable. But it does make you pigheaded. Your way or the highway mentality. You refuse to discuss the issues I have posed, you direct your response to me by addressing someone else’s post so that you can, once again, insult me.
Because I do not agree with Bush on immigration does not mean that I am anti-Bush. What it does mean is that I am an independent thinker who does not march lock step to any mantra.
I could stop posting here but you would count that as a coup and think that you have won the argument. You, by your silence on my questions, have won nothing, have not proven your argument for amnesty and have confirmed that you are not an independent thinker, just a dependent follower of those who disagree with the President on one issue.
Tell me, AJ, did your city ever managed to move out all those poor illegal migrants that were violating your city rental codes? Or did you just decide that having 20 people in a 2 bedroom apartment is none of your business?
One other thing, AJ, you asked me if I would support a guest worker program. Yes or no. I made it very clear that it was a gray question and deserved a grey answer. Yes, and no. But that was not good enough for you. You wanted a one word answer. I either supported a guest worker program for those all ready here illegally or I could not possible support the guest worker program.
Again, I SUPPORT A GUEST WORKER PROGRAM FOR THOSE WHO ENTER OUR NATION LEGALLY.
Now, where is all that compromise you are always spouting about? Or is it just more of the “my way or the highway” from you?
LNDANTEXAS, yes the Coast Guard patrols our waterway. Not just in Florida but in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia and ever other coastal state. But the Border Patrol does not just operate in the states that border Mexico. They also function in the above states as well as those that border Canada. And please, don’t show your ignorance by indicating that Alabamians are being kept out of Florida by Border Patrol. The BP does not patrol state lines.
No, Hispanics, on a local level, did not vote Republican in 04, only on a nation level. So you, once again, show you have no grasp of the Hispanic vote. Since there was no presidential election, we really did not lose what we never had in the first place. In 04, Hispanics, on a local level, voted Democrat, just as they have always traditionally done.
I am a fence first proponent. Stop the leak in the boat before you worry about how you are going to get to shore.
There are those of you who would like to blame the losses in the past election on immigration. That simply is not true. It was due to a number of things, one being that traditionally, the party in control loses seats during a mid term election. And the bottom line? We did not lose as badly as we could have.
Perhaps you and AJ would like to explain to me, using your theories, why Kyl won in Arizona? And why did all those inititives on the ballot stopping benefits to illegals win?
The reason I asked about Austin is because you sound like an Austin Republican. Not an insult. I don’t have to resort to insults. It was just an observation.
Retire05,
I made very clear your refusal to support the guest worker program landed you in the Fence Only crowd and now irrelevant. This issue is not debatle anymore. We don’t need any more help from the Fence Only crowd in losing ground and elections. Thanks – but no thanks.
BTW, it is not an insult to say your position will never get my support. Sorry, but that is just a statement of my position and how I see the Fence Only crowd. You folks need to deal with your new found irrelevancy. All or nothing on Guest Worker program? Nothing then.
AJ, please, tell me why you insist on saying that I am a “fence only” proponent when I have repeatedly told you that I am “fence first”. Is that if you admit that there are other aspects to immigration reform that you might feel you are losing ground?
I believe in a fence. Fences make good neighbors. They also allow control over who does and who does not enter your property.
Yes, I believe in a guest worker program. I think that we should allow those we need to enter legally and work on a permit for a certain length of time. Then they should return to their native country. If during the time they are guest workers, they want to apply for citizenship, with proper documentation and background checks, they should be allowed to do so.
Yes, I believe in immigration. Immigration should be for the purpose of benefit to the host nation, not to the immigrant.
No, I don’t think that illegals should go unpunished when they steal someone’s social security number, as they have mine. Along with my credit card number.
No, I don’t think illegals should be rewarded simply because they managed to stay in the U.S., without being deported, long enough to get amnesty.
If I decide to pitch a tent and live in your back yard, would you not have a problem with that?
So please, drop the “fence only” b/s. It is old. And see if you can find your way to answering some of my questions. I can only think that you know the answers are not what you “amnesty under any other name” proponents want to accept.
Retire,
Because you don’t back a guest worker program that assimilates all the folks here already. Your distinction is meaningless and the positions you espouse damage conservative causes at the expense of a few hardliners. 60-75% of the country are against your positions. You can include me in that majority.
AJ, thank you for your answer. And so much for your “compromise”. I understand now. I must agree to allow all those who have entered our nation illegally to remain here, give them a guest worker visa and accept that you think that is the will of the people. Funny, it seems the whole state of Arizona disagrees with you. You, AJ, are the hardliner. You prove that with your refusal to answer my questions or to debate the issue. Your way or the highway. I fully understand. And since I believe you are for stem cell research, I can then accept the fact that you believe in killing human embryos for research, as well. Because the argument is really black and white, isn’t it? You are either for stem cell research allowing the killing of embryos or you are against stem cell research and not the killing of embryos.
Arizona election results:
No bail for illegal immigrants: 78% for – 22% against
English as state language: 74.1 for – 25.9 against
Limited education services for illegal immigrants: 71.5% for – 28.5 against
John Kyl (an enforcement first proponent) won by 150,000 votes with three other candidates splitting the vote against Kyl.
Arizona is a heavily Republican state. But then, I guess you will not accept that many Republicans, who back our president on all other issues, do not agree with him on immigration. With your recent posts, it seems that this is just short of treason in your opinion.
You don’t want compromise, AJ. You want your way. You want your opinion imposed on those of us who pay the highest cost for illegal immigration. I understand. Not living in a border state (and don’t tell me how many illegals you have in your state, you can’t hold a candle to Texas, New Mexico and Arizona), I fully understand that illegal immigration is the problem relegated to the southwestern states and really has little impact on you. How many illegal children is in your kid’s school? 5%? 10%? But then, I am sure that when your school taxes triple to cover the cost of 50+% illegals in your schools, you will have no problem with that.
I do not agree with everything George Bush has done. That is the beauty of being an American, AJ. I don’t have to. I voted for Bush because I thought he would be fiscally responsible. He was not. But he was better than Gore. I campaigned hard for him again in 04. Not because of his fiscal responsibility but because I knew he understands the threat that Muslim radicals pose. I knew he would be tough on terrorism and would do everything he could to protect our nation from another attack.
Do you agree with everything your wife says? Or do you threaten to leave her if she doesn’t agree with you? That is what you want. Total agreement. No argument. No other side of the coin. No understanding how illegal immigration affects the rest of the nation beside you little corner of it.
You say you are not a Republican. Perhaps your Democratic ways are just too hard to throw off. I have no idea. But you are no conservative when it comes to illegal immigration and at least be truthful and admit that. Perhaps then we can move on to other issues that we do agree on. But blind allegiance to any president (or any politician for that matter) will not be one of them.
RetireO5,, what do you think of what they did in Hazelton, Pa. I think other cities are beginning to do the same thing. One in Tx, one in Ga. I think I’ve heard of some others. They did the story on 60 minutes tonight. Very interesting.
Strata says the Buchananan & “fence only” crowd has no chance of ever becoming pivotal in politics again. By this I suppose he means the “fence only” and “get tough on employers” symbiotic crowd too. But he might be surprised at the kind of parties that will develop with enough deterioration of the kind his milquetoast strata-gy will
facilitate. For instruction I reccommend obtaining a quick history of the BNP/ British National Party in England, which was once written out of polite UK politics.
FE, as our federal government has failed us on immigration enforcement, municipalities and states are beginning to take action on their own. I think the Hazelton, Pa. rules have been put on hold by a Clinton appointed judge. Perhaps I could be wrong about that though. The Tx. rules are in a small town near Dallas that has been over run, Farmer’s Branch, I believe. Don’t you know the ACLU is already lawyering up? The ACLU has no greater love than that for pedophiles and illegals.
Arizona just passed a reform law on education rights for illegals as well as no bail for illegals.
Cities are having to raise taxes to bear the brunt of the addional cost of education for illegals. Towns are overburdened by additional services. There is just so much any municipality can afford. The town next to me is sizable in that the student body was probably about 8,000 two years ago. Since it is within commuting distance of Austin, it has seen over 1,000 additional students in the last two years just from illegals. This has required the hiring of teachers who can teach English as a second language classes as well as tutors to bring these children up to grade level. Property taxes have skyrocketed to pay for the additional teachers, class rooms, tutors not to mention these children receive breakfast and lunch, all at no cost to the parents.
I had to take a senior lady to the welfare office. No one in the waiting room spoke English and it was full. A HHS worker came out and asked “does anyone here speak English?” and only the lady I took raised her hand.
Two years ago, I was in Rogers, Arkansas. I had to go to Wal-mart and all the signs in the store there were in Spanish. The illegals work for Tysons, Paul’s and other poultry plants and have literally put families out of work because Tyson can hire them for less money.
Look, I would love to be able to say “come on in” to every person that wants to come and start a new life. But we cannot take all of the oppressed and poor of the world. And places like Hazelton and Farmer’s Branch are finding that out.
What do I think? I think Hazelton and Farmer’s Branch will start a trend that will go all across the nation. If the feds won’t enforce the laws, communities will.
Ken, thanks for the wrong side of that info, so we now know that the other side is the correct side. Being expert on British subjects, you are currently putting together a list, right?
The Problem of Bush…
More government is more government. The intent is not the issue, and claiming to have “big hearts” is a tact of the left….
I read the “Bush Conservative” manifesto… looks more like what some people “thought” Bush and this Republican administration was all about.
I do agree that modern Republicanism has been all about “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil”… but that is not very American.
It is an American Citizens duty to criticize politicians and political parties, even if they are our own… maybe more so if they are your own.
Just maintaining the “Party Line”, as in this “11th commandment” thing is more like the Communist Party than any American political party.
Ghost,
A Bush Conservative supports Bush over Reps – by definition. And there is a huge gap between criticism and undermining. You sound like the liberals with their version of ‘patriotism’!