Can you clarify your definition?
"I am rather confused about your term of 'Border Bots.'
Can you clarify your definition?"
"BorderBot" started somewhere as a pejorative term, like "BushBot" is used by some on FreeRepublic to describe a mind-numbed pro-Bush robot, who will say and do anything to support the President, no matter what the President does.
Likewise, "RepubliBot" gets used as a pejorative here for folks who are fierce Republican Party devotees.
Well, in the fierce cut-and-thrust of the debate over the Mexican Border, a couple of days ago I saw a "RepubliBot" write angrily that the 'unappeasable border bots' are going to give Congress to the Democrats.
BorderBots...a term that was intended to be pejorative, and to mean folks who are obsessed with the Mexican Border/Illegal Immigration issue.
I liked the term because it filled a need. I've been writing about the border issue for awhile, but didn't have a good simple term to refer to Border-and-illegal-immigration-focused conservatives. I called them "Border Republicans", "Anti-illegal Immigration folks", "Border Conservatives"...but then I saw "BorderBot", and it was perfect.
That the term was intended to be a sneering denunciation of the Border Conservatives by RepubliBots made it doubly delicious.
And so "BorderBot" was born. I use the term affectionately, as shorthand for: "Conservatives who believe that controlling the Mexican Border and stopping illegal immigration is the most pressing concern of all, and who will withhold financial support and votes from the Republican Party if the Republicans won't fence the border." That's a BorderBot. And they will determine the outcome of the 2006 elections.
Either Congress will appease them and give them the Fence they demand this year, at which point the BorderBots will flock back to the Republican colors, contribute, volunteer and vote in order to preserve the gain they've made in the Fence...which will mean the Republican majority endures.
Or Congress will give them the stiff arm and refuse to give a Fence this year, which will cause the BorderBots to wipe the dust from the soles of their feet concerning the Republicans, fold their arms and their wallets and stay home...which will mean that the Democrats pick up both houses of Congress, that tax hikes are proposed, an Iraq withdrawal is precipitated by a cutoff of funds, and President Bush will be impeached.
Now, I'm not a BorderBot, but my own view is that what they want to be appeased, a Border Fence, is not very expensive or unreasonable. I think that, in order to save the REST OF the Republican agenda, these people need to be appeased, and FAST. So, I think Congress and the President should cave in now and give the BorderBots their fence, even if they don't want to.
My current tagline is to that effect.
Henry of Navarre was the last legitimate heir to the throne of France after the exhausting French Civil War between Protestant Huguenots and the Catholic League. The Protestants had gotten the worst of it, but were by no means completely defeated. The country was exhausted and craved peace, and the only LEGITIMATE King possible was Henry of Navarre, of the House of Bourbon. He was well-viewed by many on both sides, and everyone knew that he needed to get on the Throne for the Civil War to end.
Problem: he was a Protestant, a Huguenot. The only legitimate heir to the Throne, the only man who could bring peace to the country by ascending the throne, was not eligibile for the title of "His Most Christian Majesty" because he wasn't Catholic. If he mounted the Throne a Protestant, the Papacy and the Church would not accept him as legitimate, and the Catholic League would continue the long, dreary civil war. Protestants would suffer even more, because they had already lost the primary war. They would slowly be cleaned out of every last stronghold, with untold horror for everyone. Bad result. So what could he do?
Henry of Navarre pondered the issue, and finally concluded "Paris vaut bien une Messe" - Paris is well worth a Mass, and converted, rather insincerely, to Catholicism. Now, everybody knew that the conversion was insincere. He didn't much change his opinions. He immediately issued the famous Edict of Nantes that tolerated Protestant Religion across France. He pretended to be a Catholic King, because it was the only way Henry of Navarre could become Henry IV and all of France, Catholic and Protestant, have peace.
So, he outwardly compromised on his religion, and put on the necessary SHOW to allow the Catholic party to accept him, while at the same time issuing the laws and edicts that ensured that his former Protestant co-religionists had peace and were allowed to resume their normal lives in France. ONE man compromised on his fundamental morals, his religion, in public, so that millions could live and have peace. Paris vaut bien une messe. Paris is well-worth a mass.
I think that the Republicans are in a similar position right now vis-a-vis the BorderBots. It's clear that Bush, McCain, Frist, others, really do not think it is moral to have enforcement without amnesty. They are morally committed to the idea of amnesty. They don't think a border fence is necessary.
But if they don't give in on this point, if they will not compromise their morals and scruples on the issue, then the BorderBots will defect completely and the whole Republican agenda will be lost as Congress is lost.
I have concluded that Congress is well worth a Wall: le Congres vaut bien un mur.
Therefore, Paris vaut bien une messe...et le Congres vaut bien un mur.
Sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.