Posted on 06/02/2007 2:56:40 AM PDT by lancer256
No question he is a bright fellow but if you familiarize yourelf with some of Thompson's writings, you may be impressed as well. I hope Thompson would be the same laid back kind of president Ike was. Ike never worked terribly hard at the presidency, but acted decisively when necessary. Illegals a problem? Ike to the rescue. The general's actions were swift and certain.
With Bush's complete lack of employer enforcements--they dropped to nearly zero since his watch began--the handwriting was on the wall for a bill like this. A decent man, to be sure, but a very stubborn recovering alcoholic.
Why? We have a much greater percentage of them now than any other migrant, legally and illegally. Those that advocate for one race above all others is by definition, racist. Why not some of the Sudaneze who are being slaughtered daily? And don't forget,we will bring in millions of Iraqi refugees. Are any of the 'latinos' willing to stay home to save lives of other races?
Free Republic, a forum for the coy?
“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.”
That’s what really gets me. Bush actually out-liberaled Ted Kennedy.
Apparently, you are unaware of the concept of “legal” immigration.
This is when law abiding people politely ask if they may enter our country, and state what attributes they will contribute. They then wait for an answer.
With border-line personality disorder. Always important to keep a sense of humor in trying times.
There's a glove WE can take off.
Start asking this question--"Mr. Bush, have you or any member of your family hired illegal immigrants?" Of course, Bush wouldn't open himself to this question--it'd have to be asked of Tony Snow.
"Senator McCain, has your family ever hired illegal immigrants?"
Keep in mind the long time these two have spent in the SW. I guarantee that this will be a very hard question for them to respond to. "No"--well, that'll get a lot of digging and will eventually turn out to be a lie. "Yes" won't work too well, it means "I want amnesty to make my lawbreaking legal." and "I don't know" won't sound too good either.
And it's just a question.
It'll change the whole flavor of the debate. If Bush wants to insult conservatives, he can get embarrassed right back.
El Presidente Bush's loyalties and close affiliations in this matter:
Mexico ~ Saudia Arabia ~ anyone from the ROP > China > DNC > La Raza ~ Illegal Aliens > Fatah > Hamas >>> His loyal conservative backers who have been screwed every way imaginable
have a look at the Newt video here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274606,00.html
Good to finally have him on board.
At least some people can see the light at the end of the tunnel and realize that it’s a train.
But Scotter Libby ...
I’m a recovering alcoholic and a Christian, and for the life of me I can’t understand a blooming thing this president does.
A Christian should be able to balance a sense of right and wrong with love and charity. If one leans too much to either side, you either become a pharisee or a liberal.
Oh, puhleeze.
.................................................
WALLACE: Let's start with your interview in The New Yorker magazine this week. And I want to quote from it at length. Let's put it up. "Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter presidency when nothing seemed to go right."
And later, there's this. "Not since Watergate," Gingrich said, "has the Republican Party been in such desperate shape. Let me be clear: 28 percent approval of the president, losing every closely contested Senate seat except one, every one that involved an incumbent — that's a collapse."
Jimmy Carter? Watergate? Collapse? Are things really that bad?
GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, nothing that I said in The New Yorker disagrees with things I said as early as December of '03 when I talked about having gone off the cliff in Iraq, things I said all through '04 in trying to get the Bush campaign team to shift from attacking Kerry personally to forcing a genuine choice over values and policies, to concerns I raised in December of '04, January and February of '05, about how they were approaching Social Security reform, through what happened at Katrina.
I mean, so what I said in The New Yorker may be compressed, but in fact, it is things that for the last three years I've talked — I've warned all last year that I suspected we were drifting into a catastrophic defeat. I don't see any other way to read '06 except it was a defeat.
And if we don't have a serious, open discussion of where we are, I don't see how we're going to change.
............................................
You go through this list. You say to yourself this government — I mean, not just the president. This is not about the presidency. The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done.
WALLACE: But you compare George W. Bush to Jimmy Carter, which, as you well know, is fighting words among Republicans.
GINGRICH: Look, the functional effect in public opinion is about the same. Now, Republicans need to confront this reality.
If you were at 28 percent, 29 percent, 30 percent approval, and if things aren't working, and now you have a fight which splits your own party — and this immigration fight goes to the core of where we are.
If you read Peggy Noonan's column last Friday, which was devastating — and I think it resonates with where the base of this party is right now. The base of this party is looking up going, "What are we in the middle of — why are we ramming through an omnibus Teddy Kennedy bill, and attacking Republicans who criticize it, and calling us," for example, as one senator did, "bigots, when all we're saying is this government couldn't possibly implement this bill?"
There's no evidence at all that this government is capable of executing this.
...........................................
In 1988, no one running for president on the Republican nomination tried to differentiate themselves from Ronald Reagan.
There's a lesson there. Ronald Reagan was enormously popular. The fact is that — forget presidential politics. We as a country over the next 1.5 years have to do dramatically better.
..........................................
WALLACE: Basically, what do you think is wrong with George W. Bush?
GINGRICH: Look, I think that he means very, very well. I think he's very, very sincere. But I don't think that he drives implementation and looks at the reality in which he's trying to implement things.
And I think that's why you ended up with, "Brownie, you're doing a great job," when it was obvious to the entire country at Katrina that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had collapsed and was not capable of doing any job at that point.
And I think as a result, the administration has very, very high goals — Democracy throughout the Middle East — and very weak bureaucratic support for those goals, and the result is an enormous mismatch in just sheer implementation.
And this is, in the end, a practical country. Americans want their government to work.
WALLACE: You say that this president doesn't solve anything.
GINGRICH: He doesn't methodically insist on changing things. I mean, again, take the example last week. If somebody with tuberculosis, who is actually in the computer system, can't be stopped at the border; if you have three terrorists in New Jersey who have been here illegally for 23 years — and the Senate, by the way, voted to sanction cities and counties not asking if you're illegal, an amendment to this — what I think is an absolute disaster of immigration legislation — you have to look at that and say, "We're not serious."
............................................
GINGRICH: Well, the bill explicitly grandfathers in somewhere between 10 million and 20 million people. We don't know the number because the government has no idea how many there are — again, an example of incompetence.
..............................................
And it's simply, I think, disingenuous. I'm assuming that the president and his staff understand what this bill does. And if they do, what the president said is disingenuous.
-------------------------------------
GINGRICH: No, I don't think you need to run — in fact, I don't think you should run against President Bush. I think most of his major decisions have been very sincere, and most of them are decisions the average American actually would endorse.
I think what you do have to do is run in favor of radically changing Washington and radically changing government. And I think that all you have to do is look at the examples I've given you today where the government simply fails.
............................................
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277454,00.html
LOL. Something Newt knows about first hand. I think that was his rating when he was chased out of the speakership and had to resign.
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.