Was Amnesty Bill a Strategery? - VANITY

FR ^ | 6/9/06 | jebeier

[jebeier]

Perhaps this whole Amnesty business is a sublime and supremely cunning strategery.

Now, I know you all may want to dismiss the possibility out of hand, but bear with me for a moment...

By promoting this bill, in one fell swoop President Bush has managed to:

a) Get almost the entire Democrat caucus in the Senate to come out in favor of Amnesty, which is very unpopular,
b) Forever link his old arch-nemesis, John McCain, to this very unpopular bill,
c) Get somewhere close to 80% of Americans to oppose Ted Kennedy, and
d) Kill the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform for the forseeable future.

And all it has cost him is a few points in the public opinion polls, which is irrelevant because he will never run for office again.

Now the Republican field (except John McCain) can run against the President of their own party in 2008 by opposing him on this issue. The 800 pound Iraqi gorrilla has been replaced by a 1600 pound illegal immigration gorilla. And the vast majority of Republicans (besides John McCain) are in a much better position to debate on this issue.

Sarkozy just won in France by running against Chirac, who was the head of his own party. Perhaps the White House has taken that lesson to heart.

If it is strategery, it is exceptionally subtle and devious, and would be a masterpiece. But they really couldn't possibly be that clever, could they?

Or could they? One thing we know about President Bush is that he has a long memory and likes to get even with his enemies. Look at the seven Republican Senators who are going to come out on the down side of this deal:

Graham (R-SC)- Led efforts to extend habeus corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. Member of Gang of 14

Hagel (R-NE) - Led charges against Iraq, Patriot Act, Rumsfeld, the Surge and Karl Rove

Lugar (R-IN) - Led efforts against intelligence operations against foreign agents in the US

Martinez (R-FL) - Leaked the Schiavo memo, but otherwise does not fit the pattern

McCain (R-AZ) - Back stabbings too numerous to count

Specter (R-PA) - Ditto. From “Scottish Law” onward

Voinovich (R-OH) - Led charge against John Bolton and the Surge

All of these Senators are going to be hurt by taking a position on the wrong side of this issue, and all of them, except Mel Martinez, have been thorns in President Bush’s side for a long, long time.

One has to ask oneself, cui bono? Who benefits? I submit to you that the biggest beneficiary of this debacle is none other than President George W. Bush himself.

[dforest]

No, this is not correct. Senor Bush was sick at his tummy this morning because he had to spend his time calling the errant Congress critters to get this bill back on the table. Make no mistake, he wants it signed.

He really doesn’t care what we think at all.

This is not strategery, it is fact.

[afnamvet]

All hat, no cattle.

[gridlock]

Um, No. Sarkozy ran against Royal. Chirac supported Sarkozy.

When I say Sarkozy ran agains Chirac, I mean he distanced himself from Chirac, even though he was the head of his own party. I guess you could say he ran away from Chirac.

This latest fiasco allows Republicans to do the same thing in 08

[philetus]

Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor
mobility altogether and work toward solutions that in the long run could enable the
extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well.?

To do what? Sneak back into the USA?

[Guenevere]

jebeier, your premise is interesting....
...would love to think it's true...

..meanwhile, I'm inviting you all to Jim Robinson's prayer thread he just started....

..he's very concerned for our nation...

..he's praying for it, and for our military, and yes, for our President...

..please join us

[Shuttle Shucker]

Your ideas seem clever and insightful BUT:

*In the wake of Scooter Libbie’s conviction, I don’t see why Bush would want to erode his popular support because he has plenty of other targets in his administration and only so much political capital to be able to expend on pardons or rallying the conservative base to his / their side;

*Bush also seems like more of a lame duck now, who can’t get his agenda approved. Now how can he persuade Democrats they stand something to gain from him if they oppose stuff like D.C. Statehood?

*By making Republicans take a stand on this issue, they’ve weakened potential chances of winning more radical segments of Hispanic votes in 2008. If Bush is replaced by a Democrat, why wouldn’t there be hearings against him like he could have held against Bill Clinton? Regardless, future attorneys general from the Democrats’ side could attack Bush’s campaign donors / contractor allies with greater ease. Eroded conservative support is NOT something one wants among judges & juries.

None of what I’ve just surmised disproves your clever insights, but I don’t see how an unpopular president stands to gain by alienating his only remaining supporters like he’s recently done. Do you know how many “impeach Bush!” messages I’ve seen from conservatives lately? As if our national debt’s nearly doubling under Bush’s rule wasn’t enough reason to get folks to long for a 3 party political system?

[jebeier]

I find the term “strategery” to be wonderfully descriptive. Of course it is a made-up word. But I like it anyway.

[jebeier]

The President needs to rally and energize the Republican Party if they are to win in 2008. He can either rally the party around himself or he can rally the party against himself.

I submit to you that he cannot rally the Party around himself. He is too weak and has too little appeal. Furthermore, if the Republicans rallied around President Bush, they would alienate massive numbers of independents and centrist Republicans who are unalterably opposed to this President, but will be neccesary voters to elect the next one.

So that leaves the other option: rallying the base against himself. I don’t think he could have picked any course of action to do that more effectively.

[ezfindit]

Sorry, Bush is not that subtle...

[jebeier]

This may kill the GOP, but it may also create a new Reagan Conservative party.

And this would be a good thing, right?

[jebeier]

I would guess you are a Bush man and trying to find a saving grace for this immigration crap but, sorry, there is no excuse.

That may be true. I was just raising a possibility that should not be dismissed out-of-hand.

[jebeier]

Not a bad theory except for the reports that Bush plans to revive the bill next month. If your theory were true and the damage to the Democrats and McCain were already done there would be no need to do so.

I disagree with this analysis. This bill will clearly never pass. If there is any reason to continue to pursue it, that reason must lie elsewhere.

So you have to look at what this bill has accomplished, even though it will never pass. And what it has accomplished is a fired up and unified Republican base, that is reaching out to an awful lot of independents and Reagan Democrats.

This is not a bad result. The question is, was it intentional?

[CT]

And this would be a good thing, right?

Sure would. I'm already over here (out of the GOP) waiting for more to come.

[CT]

I find the term “strategery” to be wonderfully descriptive. Of course it is a made-up word. But I like it anyway.

The term was heard by me on Rush Limbaugh. He had a female caller, presumably black, that was a follower of the revvvvrend, Farakahn. Her name was Rita, and she was waitin for the Mutha Ship. Cause Rush had been using Strategery on her (and she did not like that).

I'm sorry, RITA X.

[calex59]

That may be true. I was just raising a possibility that should not be dismissed out-of-hand.

In your opinion, but your possibility seems a bit far fetched to me and so I did dismiss it out of hand and still do. There is too much evidence, including the fact that today Bush asked Reid to revive the bill(S1348) as soon as possible, that Jorge simply wants to turn millions of illegals(in case you didn't know it, illegal means they have broken the law)loose on the country and on our economy. There is NO other explanation possible and spinning such as this is simply an attempt by Bush apologist, one more time, to make excuses for him. That is the way I see it.

[TheLion]

I doubt he could convince anyone that this was a trick.

[dragnet2]

Do not misunderestimate George Bush.

My God, the man and his destructive polices are a brutal head on collision, more resembling an aircraft accident.

[philman_36]

I just keep thinking that people say don’t play poker with W.
Every poker player bluffs at some point. Looks like the bluff got called.

[Colorado Buckeye]

Your theory is interesting but it presupposes that Bush has allegiance to the Republican Party and to our constitutional republic; this is simply not the case. Bush could care less about the Republican Party or our republic. He is a Globalist; his allegiance is to global money, global interests, and global political and economic structures. He is now the Globalists' point man.

We are engaged in a titanic struggle for our republic. I think that many on our side will be very surprised when they finally realize the strength and determination of the forces allied against us. The Globalists have not lost a major battle, a must-win battle, yet. Last Thursday was their first loss and it was stunning. But they never give up; they move relentlessly forward.

The Bill in the Senate is about the erasure of our borders. In order to move forward towards the North American Union (NAU), the Globalists must erase our borders. They must win this battle; nothing else is acceptable. And so, we can expect renewed, ever more powerful assaults until at least the end of the year. In 2008, Congress will not want to deal with anything controversial.

I expect that our enemies will deceive, cajole, threaten, and outright lie until they get a bill through the Senate. We simply don't have enough patriots, enough Americans in that body to win the battles ahead. The battle will finally be won or lost in the House; and there, I expect the vast majority of  Republicans to hold, but that will not be enough.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Reagan Democrats to rally their forces in defense of country, and I think that will happen. If we can win these upcoming battles, the next step is to elect an American president in 2008. We haven't had an American president since Ronald Reagan.

[saganite]

This bill will clearly never pass.

One can only hope so but by bringing it back to life next month Bush will continue to damage the conservative base. That’s not strategery, that’s stupidity. Face it, Bush really isn’t very bright.