Attacks on Immigration Bill Opponents Unwarranted

davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 06/01/07 | david limbaugh

[lancer256]

An anonymous White House official said that neither the people on the far left nor far right are going to get what they want on the immigration bill. Could have fooled me, since that farthest of far leftists, Sen. Ted Kennedy, said, "This bill is our best chance to fix our broken system." Go figure.

Truly, President Bush's immigration policy has always been mystifying, but even more troubling is his attitude toward its conservative opponents.

I don't suggest that President Bush has a duty to cater to conservatives on immigration because they have stood by him on the war. This isn't about conservatives or political reciprocation, but what's best for the nation.

But I do believe the president should hesitate before assuming the worst of motives in the very people who have tirelessly defended him, particularly on the war, against the people who are now his best friends on this abominable immigration bill.

Sadly, this is nothing new. Too often there is an inverse relationship between the level of graciousness President Bush metes out versus that he receives. He sometimes reserves his harshest words for his allies.

[kinoxi]

They could pass an amnesty for all of my ‘preferred’ offenses. I’m just a citizen though. What was I thinking?

[kenth]

He values loyalty... receiving it, that is.

[CheyennePress]

Can anyone tell me when and where this term “nativist” came from? I guess I rather inappropriately don’t find it the least bit offensive.

[kinoxi]

Smear yourself with animal feces and vote dem?

[Paladin2]

Well, you’re probably a vigilante then. ;-)

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

The boss wants this bill and has blocked all opinions not his own, just like he did with the Iraq war.

[nathanbedford]

Conservative epiphany or Bush's jump the shark moment?

Judging from the posts since Bush's intransigent support for the immigration amnesty bill, Bush, wittingly or not, has severed himself from his conservative base. His speech is probably one of the most inept ever made by a modern American president, it rivals Jimmy Carter's malaise speech for sheer artlessness. It might even prove more self-destructive.

This this is an odd position for a President in the midst of an unpopular war, who is treading water with a 30% approval rating. Nonetheless, Bush must govern and, more critically, he must wage war for the balance of his term. How can he do so now that he has finally, I say irretrievably, cut his base legs out from under his administration? why would any president so isolate himself, especially as he and his wife and Barney, and what's left of his base, are the only ones who support the war in Iraq?

I have long been posting that Bush is no conservative but rather a Christian. I think that is half the answer. Here are some of my comments made before the 2006 election:

The problem with George Bush is that he is not primarily a conservative, he is primarily a Christian, and he does not have a calculus that is congruent with yours or mine, even though both of us might be Christians.

George Bush sees partisan politics as petty and ultimately meaningless. We see partisanship as the indispensable stuff of freedom. At election time the Bushes will hold their nose and dip into partisanship. But it is not in their essential nature to wage war for tactical political advantage.

George Bush wants what Bill Clinton wanted: To fashion a legacy. He does not want to be remembered as the man who cut a few percentage points from an appropriation bill but as the man who reshaped Social Security. I've come to the conclusion that the Bushes see politics as squirmy, fetid. It must be indulged in if one is to practice statesmanship but it is statesmanship alone that that is worthy as a calling.

They are honest, they are loyal, they are patrician. There would've been admired and respected if had lived among the founding fathers. But it is Laura Bush and Momma Bush who really and truly speak for the family and who tell us what they are thinking and who they are. There's not a Bush woman who does not believe in abortion. They believe in family, they live in loyalty, they believe in the tribe, but they do not believe in partisan politics.

I believe it is time for us to decide no longer to be used by the Bush family as useful idiots and instead to begin to use the Bushes as our useful idiots . I say this with the utmost admiration and respect for everything the Bushes stand for. Who would not be proud beyond description to have a father or an uncle who was among the first and youngest of naval aviators to fight in the Pacific and to be twice shot down. Not a stain or blemish of corruption or personal peccadillo has touched the family(except for the brother whom I believe was cleared of bank charges). They are the living embodiment of all that is good and noble in the American tradition.

But they are not conservative.

I think that constitutes half the answer but what is the other half? At the time of the Harriet Myers nomination I posted this:

As a result of the policies of the Bush administration, Republicans have forfeited their formerly kryptonite hundred year claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, the Democrats do have an affirmative program, it is to be the party of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes and cutting spending. They will point out that the Republicans are the party of fiscal irresponsibility because they have cut taxes and increased spending. Because Bush and the Congressional Republicans have sought to buy votes with federal spending rather than cut spending in all areas apart from national defense, it is now the Democrats who can plausibly say that it is they who are fiscally responsible.

Their argument will not convince us but it will be persuasive enough, especially when supported by a full-court press from the whole of the mainstream media, to blur the fundamental distinction between the parties and perhaps gain the next election by confusing a fair portion of the electorate.

Thus we have wantonly kicked away one of the legs of our stool. Another leg of the stool was comprised of our ability to go to the electorate, as George Bush did successfully in the last two elections, and persuasively argue that we were the party of judicial integrity. That we were the party which manned the threshold to the Constitution like the Patriots at Thermopylae to check the ravening horde of liberals who would sack the Constitution like a city which had succumbed to a siege.

The Harriet Meir nomination in a stroke has needlessly compromised our ability plausibly to appeal to the electorate as of the party which stands on constitutional principle and eschews judicial opportunism.

We are now left with only one issue which separates us from the Democrats, national security. Like it or not, ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, we've been on the run on this issue. Yes I know we won the last election on this issue but the tide has clearly turned. Watch Hillary contrive to present herself as a plausible candidate who is strong on defense.

Why did we saw off two of our three legs? On the issue of spending some would say it is because Bush was never a conservative. Others would say that it was the war that did it but that would not be the whole truth, at least that would not be the whole explanation. Others would say that it is simply the nature of a politician to buy votes with other people's money and the temptation, even to Republicans, is irresistible.

My own view is that our present dilemma is the product of a little bit of each of the above. For years now I've been posting my view the George Bush is not essentially a movement conservative but a committed Christian. Here's what I've been saying recently:

The truth is straightforward, as usual. Bush is first a committed Christian, then a devoted family man who values personal loyalty to an extreme, and third, a conservative when that philosophy does not conflict with the first two. In this appointment, Bush believes he has satisfied all three legs of the stool. This is what I posted yesterday:

On the limited evidence available, I do positively believe Bush appointed her because she has been reborn. I mean that quite respectfully. I mean that he is counting on her being a new person. Most of the time it means she will vote conservative. But I honestly do not think Bush appointed her to vote conservative. I think he appointed he to vote in the SPIRIT.

The sad thing for us conservatives is to contemplate just how unnecessary the debacle over Harriet Meir really was. One can understand the fear in the legislative heart of retribution from constituents as their snouts are pulled away from the trough. One can even understand Bush's, or perhaps more accurately Rove's, trepidations in dealing with immigration arising out of fear that they will be called racists and out of the desire to pander to portions of the business community. But the whole nomination fiasco is almost uniquely unrelated to identifiable political or policy considerations. In the absence of such temporal explanations, I am left with the conclusion that Bush has a selected her because she's Christian.

I have quoted these previous post extensively to demonstrate that I have not come lately or opportunistically to this point of view. I've been saying this about George Bush for years now.

It remains now only to say what I tried to articulate in my "about" page: that Tip O'Neil had it wrong, all politics is not local, but racial. That is to say that the modern American political landscape is dominated by race and especially the abhorrence of any politician to be stripped of power like Trent Lott or to be stripped in Orwellian fashion of his very personhood like Don Imus.

The last refuge for scoundrels of the left is to play the race card.

I believe the George Bush's Christian faith sincerely compels him toward an abhorrence of racism, or sexism, or religious bigotry. Hence, he extols the Muslim religion as having a faith on equal value with Christianity. He appoints Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. He joins in the Inquisition of Trent Lott. He squanders billions in Africa to fight AIDS. He cannot see the immigration issue as anything except No- Nothing Nativists seeking to work their prejudices against brown people.

Because this is more than a philosophical but rather a religious conviction with George Bush, his position on immigration (as well as on Iraq) will prove to be utterly intractable. He is immune to blandishments, threat,, or argument because it is a matter of faith.

We conservatives have better decide what we are going to do with the our movement. My preliminary conclusion: the sooner we conservatives divorce George Bush, the better for America.

[Son House]

Could have fooled me, since that farthest of far leftists

Gotta agree, I heard ‘if it makes boths sides mad,
it must be a good bill’, from local leftist, and I can’t see no
sense in letting cheaters win, me being the ‘rightest’.

[gotribe]

Bush is a Clinton plant.

[nativist]

Not sure but of course why should it be offensive. Native is not offensive so why should nativist.

[gotribe]

I have long been posting that Bush is no conservative but rather a Christian.

In my opinion, the proper frame of reference isn't that he is a Christian, but that he's an ALCOHOLIC. He is recovering from the physical addiction, but overcompensating on the psychological side, that is, he wants to please everyone. This dysfunction explains a lot - old lady for Supreme Court, amnesty, new global warming initiative, bending over for the sauds, Kennedy education bill, prescription drugs, playing footsy with iran, etc., a perfect globalist.

[kinoxi]

My psychic powers tell me that you need a haircut.

[nathanbedford]

I quite agree that alcoholism explains a great part of Bush's character and especially his recovery from alcoholism which, as I understand it, has been effectuated as a result of his born-again experience with Billy Graham. Thus Bush's alcoholism, or more appropriately his recovery from alcoholism, should be understood in a Christian context which is fully congruent with the import of my post.

[livius]

He sometimes reserves his harshest words for his allies.

This is sadly true, and is the thing that I have always found it hardest to understand about Bush. He lavishes affection upon the Dems, has undermined his own programs from the very start by seeking their support while completely failing to assert the rights of his own party or even persons in his administration (how many has he thrown to the wolves in these "investigations" and "hearings" that he has permitted to go ahead?), and does nothing to reassure his supporters that they have any input at all.

I think the immigration bill is horrible, although obviously something needed to be done and it took political courage to address the issue in the first place. But every time he does something like that (Social Security, for example), he lets the liberals walk away with everything they want - which takes no courage at all.

BTW, I am not in favor of a fence (because I don't think it will solve anything and will be another federal boondoggle) and I am in favor of a more liberal guest-worker plan, but only for Latin Americans. And I agree that there is much racial nastiness in some of the people who oppose this plan; but that still doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible plan, and that Bush simply refuses to listen and automatically tars everyone with the racist brush simply because (a) it's easy to do and relieves him of the necessity of explaining himself or listening and (b) it ingratiates him with the Dems. God only knows why he is so desperate to do the latter, but it seems to be one of his prime objectives nowadays.

[indylindy]

I used to always think the Bush Adminstration could, quite possibly, be the worst ever at communicating with the American people.

I no longer think this is the case. The Bush Administration seems to prefer very little communication and uses that to further its goals. If people question their policy or motives they become combative to those who have valid questions. I suppose it really is the “If you don’t like it, it’s just too damn bad” syndrome.

Bush wants this horrible monstrosity of a bill passed. He has no desire to listen to his base and is determined that this job will get done. His whole real purpose for being President.

[sirchtruth]

That's FOS! Bush simply is a moderate. That's it. Moderates capitulate. His actions in no way derive from a recovering addiction.

What a B.S. wrongheaded excuse!

[mo]

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. These civic assemblies, known as corporations (not necessarily the same as contemporary business corporations) are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.

Corporate interests clearly see the House and Senate as “theirs”...bought and paid for. Clearly see the American middle class as an obstacle...not an asset. Jorge is the boy who’s suppose to be the Circusmaster ....make it all work as paid for.

[iopscusa]

Your GWB analysis does ring true with me and I also think the sooner we conservatives divorce George Bush, the better for America.

I wonder if 9/11 had happened in 2000 who would have been the nominee for R President in 2001? Doubtful that it would have been GWB...

[gotribe]

My psychic powers tell me that you need a haircut.

I can't. My tinfoil hat is on too tightly.

[Bahbah]

We conservatives have better decide what we are going to do with the our movement. My preliminary conclusion: the sooner we conservatives divorce George Bush, the better for America.

I think you are right, nathanbedford. I have been reading about how this is going to rip the Republican party in two, and I just haven't felt that. There is no need to withdraw support for the war, whatever the front or the battle happens to be. It is not "Bush's war", it's ours and we much fight it. But there is no need not to take the paths on other issues that we feel are the right ones. I think the Republican party can simply regroup on the issues with little to no reference to the President, as good a man as he may be.

[gotribe]

But your response begs the question: why is he a “moderate”? It is because of his Christian beliefs and his alcoholic recovery process. Not all Christians overcompensate the way Bush does, because not all Christians believe they are still fundamentally flawed and must “make the world right.” In this respect, he’s over-righteous and reminds me of Carter. Were Bush to fully embrace his beliefs, he would realize he’s already been saved and he’d stop projecting his own corrective policies on us. He is not more righteous than you or I.

[Hostage]

It’s a word carefully chosen not to incite anger.

In Think-Tank papers written for elite organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, writers always referred to people that oppose the New World Order as Xenophobes.

At the local level such as in a local liberal newspaper, people that oppose immigration reform are sometimes referred to as racists.

So here’s the breakdown:

Global -—> Xenophobe
National -—> Nativist
Local -—> Racist

The Aristocracy inside the beltway feel more comfortable calling those that oppose immigration reform as ‘nativists’ rather than the equivalents used at global and local levels.

[nathanbedford]

I suppose the nominee in that case most likely would have been John McCain with his military record and bona fides in that area. It's interesting that you bring up that question because I have speculated to myself about what the Bush presidency might have looked like in the absence of 9/11. I usually don't like to play what-if games but sometimes they change our point of reference and give you a fresh perspective.

Seems to me that, had there been no 9/11, the Bush presidency would have had precious little thematic coherence. Apart from tax cuts, where would he take us? I suspect that he would have drifted left with more and more collaboration with the likes of Teddy Kennedy and more and more estrangement, by a thousand cuts, with his conservative base. Likely, he would have duplicated his father's performance and served but one term.

As it was, 9/11 gave Bush both a direction, a theme, and a goal and it also provided cover for the characteristics which we conservatives view as inadequacies. It also got him reelected.

[Son House]

only for Latin Americans

Why not just only Chinese? They’ll work even cheaper, and the rest
of their families can be left on a different continent.

[sirchtruth]

Were Bush to fully embrace his beliefs, he would realize he’s already been saved and he’d stop projecting his own corrective policies on us. He is not more righteous than you or I.

First of all, it might be a tad too arrogant to think Bush hasn't embraced his beliefs, and second your conjecture is specious. Now, that's not saying you couldn't be right, but you looked at this whole "projecting" style as a compensation from an addiction...Which is FOS!

My view is the man is a moderate, and acts accordingly!

[nathanbedford]

It is interesting that you raise the next pertinent question, what exactly and specifically do we conservatives do next? I've been drifting towards the kind of conclusion that you just articulated, that in making our own way we need not abandon our principles about the war but that does not necessarily imply that we must reflexively support George Bush on every issue. As a matter of fact I think we should cast about for issues over which we can in principle separate ourselves from him.

Certainly, immigration which has precipitated this agonizing reappraisal for the bulk of the conservative movement is one such issue. Spending is another.

Our problem is that we have gone from the dominant party to a position of pathetic weakness in an absurdly short period of time. We lost the House, we lost the Senate, and, in effect, we lost the Executive. We failed to get the Judiciary in time and remain one vote short there. There are so many rinos in the Senate and the House that we cannot realistically expect to muster effective resistance to the left. Apart from a very dubious tactic of filibuster, we have no levers at all. We have no place where we can get traction for the next election. That is why I've been saying that if we run the next election as business as usual we have no candidate who will be able to carry the day against the Democrats. In my view the race will be between Thompson and Romney and either one of those could conceivably win against the likes of Hillary Clinton but we need new ideas.

This is what I published three weeks ago, I see no reason to change my opinion now:

Posted by nathanbedford to Kuksool

On News/Activism 05/30/2007 2:23:36 PM EDT · 25 of 25

THE FIELD NARROWS... AND BROADENS BUT ULTIMATELY IT IS DOWN TO TWO.

This has occurred without any formal announcements with the doings this week have made it clear that the field was narrowed because John McCain has forfeited all hope of nomination by his ill advised press conference in support of an amnesty immigration bill which is anathema to the party base. So the field has narrowed by one as John McCain is dropped, although he has not yet acknowledged this reality and dropped out, as he now inevitably must.

The field broadens as it becomes increasingly clear that Fred Thompson will run. He has advanced his cause greatly by his timely and unqualified announcement of opposition to the amnesty Bill. Similarly, Newt Gingrich is showing a little more leg as he mopped the floor with Chris Dodd on Meet the Press. If Gingrich sees any daylight at all at the end of September, he will opt in.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is doing his best to deny the rest of the candidates that daylight as Rasmussen reports that he is moving to a double digit lead in New Hampshire and other reports show that he is ahead in Iowa. I predicted that Mitt Romney would be the nominee in August 2006 and I hold to that prediction providing Fred Thompson does not enter the race. Thomson is playing outside game while Romney runs conventionally. At some time that window will be closed and if Thompson procrastinates too long, it will be too late. But so far, Thompson has shown strength in Georgia and elsewhere, and must be considered the front runner, despite his undeclared status. He should have a care though, his weakness might be lack of coherent organization against a man who has demonstrated in every endeavor, demonstrated by earning tens of millions of dollars, that he is the ultimate mechanic. He will find a way to probe and test Thompson.

Rudy Giuliani's reaction to the amnesty Bill is too ambiguous for my taste and I believe he is otherwise disqualified by his views on abortion. The remaining candidates, especially Huckaby, are running in reality for vice president. This includes, alas, Duncan Hunter who is right on every issue there is.

So if we subtract McCain and Giuliani and the second-tier candidates, that leaves us with a fascinating field of three, two of whom were as yet undeclared: Thomson, Romney and Gingrich. I've often posted that Gingrich cannot be elected and will not be nominated, but the party desperately needs him. I believe the party is sleepwalking toward a disaster in 08 and we need to kick over the table and change the rules or we are going to find ourselves in the wilderness for a generation. Newt Gingrich is the kind of bombthrower a party in our situation needs ram-rodding the party or acting as eminence grise backstage, however he cannot be the nominee. But he can save the party.

I would love to see Gingrich in the debates but, if he chooses not to run, I hope someone enlists him in his campaign to somehow change the dynamic so that we have a chance in November 08. A Bush, Rove, Martinez Republican Party is foredoomed to a disaster. Gingrich alone, despite all his liabilities, is the only man known to us with the genius to change the rules of the game. The man, like Churchill, is a walking idea factory and, above all, the Republican Party and the conservative movement needs new ideas about Iraq, the war on terror, globalization, and the emerging threat from Russia.

So the real field is reduced to two: Romney and Thompson. Either one of these two could win the election but not if it is conducted as business as usual.

[EternalVigilance]

Brilliant. And highly accurate, I’m sure.

[EternalVigilance]

IOW, the status quo, or worse.

[Malesherbes]

It’s even more than Ted Kennedy had hoped for. The original version said the receivers of amnesty would have to pay back taxes. The White House sent word that that would be “administratively cumbersome” - not practical (sort of like securing the border has not been practical.)

So the White House said take that part out - back taxes will be forgiven (amnestied too.) And Ted said, “Sure, George, if you insist.”

[nathanbedford]

Well, of course, as you imply the status quo is inevitably "worse." If we stay on course we will be driven into the political wilderness for a generation absent an intervening event such as a terrorist strike.

That's why we need a Gingrich who, for all his faults, has it within himself to change the game.

[Bahbah]

We are not the only ones thinking along these lines.

From Ed Morrissey: “Republicans used to stand for smaller government, federalism, and strong national defense. Not all of that conflicts with the Bush legacy, but enough of it does that we need to start publicly demanding a return to those core concepts. Rather than repudiating Bush over his insulting attacks on the base, the better path is to generate a positive agenda that demonstrates our dissatisfaction with the previous six years — and give Republicans something to vote for, rather than something to vote against.

If we can do that, we won’t have to demand that the Bushes stay in Kennebunkport. We just won’t give them any room to remain in party leadership.”

Link: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010119.php

We have the party where some still hold to the right ideas for advancing freedom and prosperity and it’s not more and bigger government. And we’ve been cut free to act on that, I think.

[RFEngineer]

After reading this thread, and all the psycho-analyzing that is being done, I gotta say that the explanation for Bush’s actions, as with most people, is usually much simpler.

Bush just wants mexicans in the US. He likes them and wants them to be happy. His tantrums are simply tantrums because he thinks he’s not going to get what he wants.

It follows that such juvenile attitudes do not befit the office of the presidency, but that’s what we elected and are likely to have to endure until Jan 2009.

The man prefers Mexicans to Americans. It really is that simple. Now the “why” is for the psychoanalysts....but it really doesn’t matter why.

[gotribe]

Okay, we may never know the “why” behind Bush. This is an interesting thread. That said, I’m tired of being the guy’s bottle, congregation, salvation, and pocketbook.

[RFEngineer]

“I’m tired of being the guy’s bottle, congregation, salvation, and pocketbook.”

....whipping post, dog-to-kick, mark, waterboy, etc, etc.

[nativist]

Exactly! He picked Harriet Meirs and only when the base screamed did he install a conservative. We went along with Prescription drug and CFR because we got tax cuts and good judges. We also are patriotic Americans who believe we can win in Iraq and have backed the President on this war since it started. I will still back victory because I love my country not because I love Bush or Republicans. Invading Iraq was right and I still believe that.

The immigration bill is not even the issue now as is the treatment of those who oppose it by Bush and many Senators.I am so disgusted over how everyone who opposes this is ignorant or bigoted and the fact that those tactics are straight out of the liberal playbook makes it all the more sickening. Whats next? Will Lindsey Graham and Bush compare opposition to Hitler while hugging fellow Massachusetts boy Kennedy?

[dinasour]

> I think the Republican party can simply regroup on the issues with little to no reference to the President, as good a man as he may be.

George Bush is a good man, and he means well. When I look at the field of Democrats, with a very few exceptions, I don’t see good people, and I don’t believe they mean well.

In 2000 and 2004 we did not get to choose between George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

In 2000, I suppose the only realistic choices where McCain, Gore or Bush. At that time, I was a little unsure of McCain, but from what I know now, there is no circumstance that I could vote for him.

In 2004, it was Kerry or Bush. The thought of an out right traitor in charge of our military during wartime still horrifies me.

In 2008, for the first time, we really have a choice. We must not blow it.

[livius]

Er, you’re missing my point. What I was trying to point out is that even people who agree with Bush in some general areas, but think this is a lousy bill, are being called racists and nativists by him. He’s willing to “talk” with everyone else, though.

[browardchad]

Thus Bush's alcoholism, or more appropriately his recovery from alcoholism, should be understood in a Christian context which is fully congruent with the import of my post.

I would add the narcissism/grandiosity of the self-anointed to the mix, along with a warning from history that much good, as well as much evil, has enfurled itself in the banner of religious enlightenment through the centuries. It's that stuff with which the road to earthly hell is paved.

[suijuris]

God only knows why he is so desperate to do the latter, but it seems to be one of his prime objectives nowadays.

The answer is really not all that hard liv. The US must become part of the, soon to be created, North American free trade zone by 2010. NAFTA and GATT were just the beginning. Remember how we conservatives could not understand all the bipartisan support for those turkeys?

We the people may still think we elect our presidents and leaders in this country, but in fact, the ones we are allowed to choose from are selected, bred and groomed to be predisposed to certain agendas. In particular, a One World Order view.

Bush is doing what he is supposed to be doing. Taking us into the New World Oder, even if we are kicking and screaming about it. It is no different than what Bill Clinton would do, McRomney, or anyone else for that matter. Virtually all the presidents have been herding us this way for the past 40 years.

The New World Order ... Its not just your father's Tin Hat Conspiracy Theory anymore.

[Bahbah]

In 2008, for the first time, we really have a choice. We must not blow it.

I agree. What happens is going to be enormously important to the future of this country.

[bray]

You have got to be kidding. The big gummit program, anti-business, pro-minimum wage conservatives have been calling President Bush every name in the book and he addresses them and they are hurt?? How ironic is that?

One question, where do you get the Manuel Labor if you deport all the Mexicans??

Pray for W and Our Troops

[PicWzrd]

One of the first hints of Bush’s unseemly hostility toward the conservative base was when he referred to the Minutemen as “vigilantes”.

[LadyNavyVet]

“Bush just wants Mexicans in the US. He likes them and wants them to be happy.”

I agree that’s part of it, maybe a lot of whole of it. I think there are a lot of interests at work here, and we are only being told a little bit of the truth. And like you, I think the “why” is irrelevant. But the fact of the matter is that this lack of border security is an egregious dereliction of Presidential duty. The federal government has an obligation to repel invasions and provide for the common defense. Instead we have gangbangers, drug runners, the Ft. Dix terrorists and the Mexican army wandering back and forth across the border at will.

Can you imagine FDR refusing to fight the Germans in World War II because he liked bratwurst and lederhosen and had fond memories of his Nanny Helga growing up? That’s essentially what Bush has chosen to do. He’s not going to uphold his Constitutional obligation because he personally doesn’t feel like it.

In that sense he still is the immature frat boy, the consummate self-absorbed, narcissistic Baby Boomer. It’s all about him, him, him, him, him, him, HIM and his personal preferences, and the best interests of the rest of us be damned.

[chesley]

Interesting comments

I, too, am Christian first. My family values are based on that, and, hence are not independent of it. Thus cannot be ranked, other than as ‘derivative’ of my Christian faith.

The same goes for my ‘conservative’ values. They are based on my faith in Christ. If someone could convince me, using only the Bible, that Jesus wanted me to steal from others to fund my compassion, that Jesus wanted to see millions of infant souls slaughtered before they had ever drawn breathe, that Jesus was against punishing the wicked, that Jesus not just forgave, but actually encouraged sexual activity outside of marriage, particularly promiscuous medically dangerous activities between people having the same equipment, then I would joyfully be a liberal, too.

But He doesn’t, and the progressives know it. The whole progressive experience is a rebellion against God’s Law.

However, not all Christians are actually Christian. And of those that are, not all of them follow the logical consequences to the end. Among this later group, I include GWB. And, indeed, myself. None of us have reached perfection.

But when the error creeps over into politics, it’s necessary to correct it. Not that I know God’s Will on immigration. My own thought is that we should be kind to the stranger, but we don't have to let him move in with us.

[EternalVigilance]

Gingrich? Surely you jest.

[taxed2death]

“I believe the George Bush’s Christian faith sincerely compels him toward an abhorrence of racism, or sexism, or religious bigotry.”

Why then, is Mexico and illegals from Mexico treated with a red carpet rolled out....and illegals from ALL other countries immediately deported?

GWB does not treat all illegals the same, far from it.

Asians and those of European lineage are treated as the bottom of the barrel.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

The GOP is total toast if they continue down the road of liberal-globalism.

Unless the GOP selects one of the non Media-Darling candidates running, 2008 for the GOP will be like what the Conservatives in Canada suffered in 1993...or the Whigs about 150 yrs ago.

The biggest fear for the GOP is that a third-party conservative runs. The old whine of “taking votes away from the GOP” or “wasting votes” wont float as a criticsm in 2008.

[kabar]

The Left gets what it wants as soon as the status of the 12 to 20 million illegals is legalized, i.e., when the President signs the bill. Once that is done, we have crossed the Rubicon. Any other “difficiencies” in the bill will be corrected by the Dems in subsequent Congresses.

[Guenevere]

bttt