Posted on 02/01/2006 2:50:05 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
He passes with high marks, but will not be valedictorian until he closes the borders.
And a reminder of what conservatives need to look for in a new presidential candidate in 2008.
------
Absolutely. We need a conservative, a patriot, a leader, and a person WITHOUT an elitist agenda...international, or otherwise.
This guy thinks EXACTLY what I have been thinking for years. Bush would be a great President if he had the stones Reagan had on domestic issues.
He will never be great because of his fiscal liberalism.
Still too much spending, but it beats the alternative.
"Infer" should have been "imply". The hearer/reader infers; the speaker/writer implies.
</Grammar Police>
</$0.02 worth>
On the balance, it was a very good SOTU. IMO.
"Bush Offers Conservatives a Reminder "
Yes, a reminder that he's not all that conservative.
True, that's why we need a fiscal conservative in 2008.
Uh, Bush, they tried that during the Clinton years and SCOTUS shot it down.
But you do have that veto pen, if it hasn't dried up like an Egyptian mummy by now from lack of use. Gerald Ford, for all we like to bash on him, vetoed the crap out of spending bills.
My sentiments exactly. Good article.
Muth in 08
I don't think that's a cheap shot at all. For example, it is my impression that many FR posters are opposed not just to illegal immigration but to nearly all immigration. Consequently there are many threads bashing H1B even though these immigrants are legal. Many other threads bemoan perceived cultural threats of immigrants regardless of their legality.
Wow! I must have made this point in at least three threads on Free Republic, two threads over at GOPUSA and one at FAIR before I saw this article. This article even repeats a few of my exact words. I'm wondering if I should be flattered?
President Bush was in rare form last night. I was almost proud again that I voted for him twice.
But this is an election year ...
"Uh, Bush, they tried that during the Clinton years and SCOTUS shot it down."
Two changes at SCOTUS.
Scalia, O'Connor and Breyer dissented. So that means it would still be 5-4 unless a new law satisfied some of the concerns of the majority.
This is true. I can't speak for everyone, but as someone who is generally a Mexo-phile, I should say that the problem as I see it is not merely illegal or legal immigration, but in what numbers. We are admitting, between illegal and legal immigrants, something like a million and a half per year. This is a big country, and the fact that we still have the lowest unemployment rate in the world tells us that they are being absorbed into the economy. But that is a number sufficient to cause visible cultural changes, rather than the slow-motion cultural changes that would be caused if the numbers were smaller.
Most people who favor immigration, which is most people, favor it in numbers at a level that can be assimilated without noticeable changes to the culture. Since the classic-liberal/conservative culture that makes America what it is, is not explicitly taught in schools, it has to be inhaled or absorbed through direct contact. It is the fear of losing that element of our culture that drives the fear, not of immigration, but of million-and-a-half-per-year-immigration.
What is the right number? Its frankly never been discussed publicly. Its a decision that is made behind closed doors, and we simply accept the outcome. Another reason people are a little annoyed.
Now to push this thread a little farther, its interesting to note that we abort a million-plus people per year, which means that our immigration rate approximately equals the numbers we abort, which may explain how we can absorb so many and still have a very low unemployment rate. The newcomers are replacing Americans who were not born. Which might imply that, as we replace Democrat babies with immigrants, these cultural changes are an inevitable consequence.
Still, our political class has not consulted us, its a debate we've never had. So we're having it now.
"Scalia, O'Connor and Breyer dissented. So that means it would still be 5-4 unless a new law satisfied some of the concerns of the majority."
Well obviously you know more about it, then I do.
But if Clinton and Bush both think it would be worth doing, I should think it might be in the category of "the right thing" also.
So there must be plenty of lawyers and lawmakers, to get it done.
I don't think it is primarily a question of the numbers of immigrants but rather of who they are (another reason to oppose illegal immigration - they have no respect for the law). Our government should always be striving for policies with the greatest possible net social benefit. We have no such strategic immigration policy.
And I think you are exagerating.. Most on here are not opposed to legal immigration. Most just want the the current laws enforced. Most are opposed to the current amnesty bills being offered for that reason. I certainly see nothing wrong with entering legally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.