Posted on 06/11/2007 8:24:08 AM PDT by nonsporting
I have felt all along that the president and the OBLs wanted us to sit down and shut up so they could do what was “best” for us. What a crock- the President and the OBLs do not care what is best for this country- only what is best for them.
Yes. We must block any “comprehensive” amnesty bill from passing, but it is foolish to let hatred of President Bush distort our actions.
Always, politics is the art of the possible. That doesn’t mean that we have to knuckle under and go along with every compromise, especially on such a critical issue as this. The bill must be blocked.
But we must recognize reality. Bush is still president, and we have to deal with it. He’s not about to change his mind. We need to run a blocking and education campaign for the next year and a half, so that both the Democrats and the Republicans in congress understand that they cannot go down this road and stay in office. Reward our friends in this, and punish our enemies.
The worst thing we can do, however, is to give in to futile rage and let Harry Reid or Hillary use this anger for their own purposes.
If Fred Thompson seems to be our best bet as a candidate, then we need to get him to declare himself on this issue. He has already done so to some extent, but we need a really irrevocable commitment, insofar as that is possible. He will see what the base’s reaction to Bush has been on this, and hopefully he will learn a lesson from it. He will remember what happened to Bush I after “read my lips,” and hopefully take a lesson from that.
At this time, that seems to be our best course of action: to hold the line for a year and a half, educate people, and put in a strong Republican president.
then why is this article ‘over the top’???
Agreed. The bare minimum.
Because we have liked some of the other things he was doing, we let him slide on this one. But fighting against terrorists overseas is meaningless if we don't bother to keep them from coming into our own country.
You are right.
I’m reading from your post# 16 where you said the entire article was over the top (”This article is so over the top;, it is useless”);
to the contrary, I think it does make a good point and so is useful, as set forth in my post# 25, but only I suppose, if you believe that doing the same thing the same way, over-and-over, but expecting different results . . . is sane domestic policy.
To the anti-anti-Amnesty. The answer is two-fold, No TRUST in the Policy Process and No Trust in the policy people involved. This S1348 is never going to be amended to actually control illegal immigration thus the status quo looks better.
Apparently there is no accountability in state, county, or local gov either.
The President knows it’s got no chance of passing but he has his feelings on it, although they are wrong. He will be gone in 18 months and the Republicans can either continue dividing on a no chance issue and lose the elections or just block it, move on and have a great chance at winning the elections.
brilliant
brilliant
The blacks and the unions have as much to lose by amnesty as anyone else, and if the Democrats don’t want to stand up for these people, then the Republicans should offer to do so. Legal hispanics, too, have much to lose by this flood of lawbreakers into the country.These are excellent points and I've long wondered why these points aren't used by Republican politicians.
That has been noted by Europeans, and they are mystified how it can possibly work. Maybe it can’t after all.
You'll have to wait another 18 months for President Thompson to take office.
At least The President is solidifying and motivating Conservatives.
“Maybe Joseph Farah should run for President. (/sarcasm) ;)”
You don’t like Farah or you don’t like his criticism of Bush? Farah is right on the money here with his comments about Bush and his deliberate delinquency when it comes to borders and illegals.
His deliberate disregard for this country and his sworn duty would foster screams of impeachment from this forum if he were a Dem.
I suppose this will have to be decided state by state. At least some congressmen and senators have stood firm all along. And some of them appear to have woken up and smelled the roses after the firestorm broke out among constituents and almost all the conservative pundits. And a few of them, such as Trent Lott, clearly do need to be thrown out and replaced.
It's possible to be wrong about someone, but to me it makes more sense to decide on an case by case basis rather than "throw the bums out." We need seasoned politicians as well as idealistic new ones, just as long as they understand where the lines are drawn.
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.