Posted on 06/03/2007 7:17:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An anonymous White House official said 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 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.
Such was the case when he attacked his conservative critics of the bill. But because I continue to believe President Bush is an honorable man pursuing policies he believes are right, I don't question his good intentions on immigration. Too bad he doesn't likewise give the benefit of the doubt to conservatives opposing him. I believe he is wrong both about the bill and the mindset and motives of most conservatives opposing it.
President Bush is wrong that conservatives are trying "to frighten people" into opposing the bill. They are trying to jolt lawmakers into recognizing the inevitable destructiveness of the bill, to national security, the rule of law and the long-term solvency and cultural cohesiveness of this nation.
President Bush is wrong that those who "want to kill the bill" are not doing "what's right for America." He's got it exactly backward when he says opponents are looking "at a narrow slice" of the bill because they are "determined to find fault" with it. The only things that appear redeeming about this monstrosity are insignificant "narrow slices" that are wholly outweighed by the bill's noxious provisions. If we must use the term "narrow slices" in connection with this legislation, we should do so to describe that narrow slice of border fence that has been built or is likely to be built in the reasonably near future as opposed to the hundreds of miles that were promised.
Certain supporters of the bill are also egregiously out of line in ascribing racist or nativist motives to opponents, who at worst can be accused of striving to preserve the unique American culture, which, by the way, prides itself in being color blind and guaranteeing equal protection under the law irrespective of race or ethnicity.
Proponents are wrong and grossly irresponsible for downplaying the fiscal burden this bill will place on an already entitlement-beleaguered federal budget. While proponents are busy quibbling over the semantic appropriateness of the opponents' use of the term "amnesty," they are conveniently sidestepping the assaults on the rule of law the bill will entail. And while proponents are accusing opponents of mischaracterizing the bill, it is the proponents who are pretending the bill will reduce family-based, assimilation-unfriendly immigration and increase merit-based, assimilation-friendly immigration, when it will do precisely the opposite.
Proponents are firing epithets at opponents and accusing them of emotionalizing the issue, but again, the reverse is true. The proponents are the ones avoiding the facts and the very real concerns voiced by opponents. Many conservative proponents are blinded to real dangers in the bill by their monomaniacal attachment to economic growth at any cost. Others seem to have a romantic fixation with our heritage of immigration and wrongly interpret opposition to illegal and anarchically unregulated immigration as a betrayal of our national compact.
Opponents of this bill are not anti-immigrant, nativists, enemies of business or backwoods restrictionists. They are Americans who are fighting to preserve the unique American culture and will not be intimidated by the politically correct tactics and race baiting of many of the proponents. At the very least they are fighting to preserve: 1) a cultural commitment to the principles embodied in the greatest constitution ever written and adopted by man and 2) a societal consensus in the absolute moral values undergirding that instrument, which are inspired by a belief in God and the dignity of human beings created in His image.
Opponents are acting in good faith, and they deserve better – and so does America.
May well be. As good as anything else.
“Our country, our culture, our respect for the rule of law, our constitutional system that has never been equalled anywhere in history: all are at stake”
And worth fighting for! We must hammer these rogues until they relent!
Prey? Quite likely, though I’ll fight to the end.
I’ll fight to the end, too. I’ve adopted my quip as my tagline...
Rather than b-slap, I think it would be more accurate to call what he is doing as cr*pping on us.
His disdain for our rights and his ad hominum insults are beyond the pale, IMO.
I question the accuracy of describing his motives on the issue of ILLEGALs as honorable. Sorry, I can no longer give him a pass because of presumed “honorable motives”, which are just that, “presumed”.
They should be in any case, becuase this bill scares the hell out of me.
A Conservative, or merely a rational human being, laying out the reasons why opposition to this bill is NOT treason, why it isn't racist, why it isn't the base defecting from some shining hero...is wasting breath.
All the buzz words are in place, in play, and in the president's notes. The debate has been cast by 'bipartisan' elites with only money to be made and debts to be repaid.
There is a war going on, there are imminent threats to both our sovereignty and our economic well being. Our leaders are all wadded up over a means to make MS13 legal and we are all wadded up over stopping that from happening.
(Timing is everything)
Is there a chance of winning when the other side had already defined the playing field?
(Pigs flying, crickets chirping, Kennedy's laughing)
Is it important?
(Of course it is)
Are there other things slipping under the radar while the debate stumbles forward?
(Your comment here___)
If it weren't for bad political instincts the President wouldn't have any at all.
The President isn’t on the ballot again so he doesn’t need our vote. I guess he and KR think they only need to pay back big business.
And won't be won, I'm sure. Just read an old story today about the use of railroad tanker cars being used to transport drugs. Here's a link:
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/d_fitzgerald/06022007.htm
Very good article, a well stated summary of how I feel about this. He was a bit too kind to those who support this, but I think David Limbaugh was trying to take the high road, which is better than how The President is handling it by trying to demonize those of us who oppose him.
Too bad The President didn’t devote this much effort to drilling in ANWAR, making the tax cuts permanent, social security reform, and school vouchers....
Being someone who voted for him twice, I feel betrayed. During the campaigns he said he was pro-immigration, which I have no problem with because legal immigration is done in a controlled way, and it’s good for our country. He never said he supported unmitigated lawlessness. This had to be planned with politics in mind too, because Mr. Bush never behaved like this during his first term in office. There is hope. If this legislation can be stopped, Mr Bush really only has 6 months left in office that he can do anything with, because nothing ever gets done in election years. Effectively, his presidency is almost over.
Bush is not a captive, nor is this being foisted on him. Almost his first act as POTUS was to meet with Vicente Fox and promise to work towards open borders. He has never backed off that for a minute, except when faced with overwhelming opposition from the Republican controled House. Now the he has willing partners in the Democrat majoriity he is pushing ahead, and the suckers who elected him can go to hell.
Unfortunately, if this bill goes through, it means the end of our country. And if it goes through, there’s no way in hell it can be reversed.
It must be stopped. I expected something bad, but I honestly never thought it could be as bad as this. It would be far less damaging to our country to pull out of Iraq tomorrow than to pass this bill. And, believe me, I’m not advocating pulling out of Iraq.
The President is slipping in more than the numbers. I really do think he is slipping in the horse pucky the Dems are spreading and sliding right into their side of the aisle.
Because his time is running out. He desperately wants to get the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) put in place before he leaves office. And a large part of that is, in effect, eliminating the border between the US and Mexico. I guess he thinks that will be a great legacy.
If you'd like to read what's in store for us, follow this link, download the .pdf file and begin reading on page 23 which is page one of the report.
The President is slipping in more than the numbers. I really do think he is slipping in the horse pucky the Dems are spreading and sliding right into their side of the aisle.
Yes, it would be very helpful to have a list of laws where following them is optional.
“The President is slipping in more than the numbers.”
I haven’t heard the President’s poll numbers lately. The MSM used to mention new lows every time he got down to around 33% approval. If that 33% were hardcore conservatives, what are his #s now?
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.