Attacks on Immigration Bill Opponents Unwarranted

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

[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.