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.
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.