Here's a picture of Mr. Steel Balls making a deal with the chief financier of Islamic extremism. W wanted to keep our borders wide open while declaring Islam the religion of peace.
Posted on 01/17/2009 7:11:11 AM PST by drellberg
And shamnesty, no one forced him to support that either. Face it he’s not a conservative and wasn’t a good President.
Hussein will make many Democrats long for Bush again.
Hussein will make many Republicans miss Bill Clinton.
LOL, understatement!!
“Where was his veto pen?”
Dear Pessimist:
That is a very good question. I, too, wish in retrospect that he could have taken a harder line. But could he? As Bismark’s cliche says, politics is the art of the possible. My own guess is that Bush woke up every morning during that time, got his intelligence briefing, and after crapping in his pants decided that nothing mattered but the war. I think Bush’s adversaries and even more sadly Bush’s friends exploited that.
Maybe I’m wrong in that hypothesis, and I suppose that we’ll only really know many years from now. But I also think it is very easy for you to look back with perfect hindsight at that time and assert that he could have just gotten out his pen and by writing his name made everything all right.
I am on record in these postings and elsewhere conceding various mistakes that Bush made. Bush himself has been forthcoming. To my way of thinking, at breathtakingly low cost he has kicked the sh*t out of the bad guys, to an extent that will only become clear in years to come; and he did it over the opposition of his own party. I love him for that, and I am willing to forgive many mistakes, including the completely inconsequential ones such as Harriet Meiers.
I wish his fellow party members had defended him more vigorously on Guantanamo Bay, on Katrina, on Valerie Plame, and a host of other tempests in teapots. Where were they? I find their silence inexcusable and self-defeating.
And I would ask you what I asked someone else in this thread: Who is it that you want to lead this party and carry the conservative mantle? If Bush is so bad, who is superior?
Now, that is a no, no, you bush hater!!!!! LOL
The “ political capital.” argument is such a pile of horse crap. I don’t know who put that meme out there. Some Bushbot apologist in conservative media (Fred Barnes, Sean Hannity) who kissed his butt for 8 years instead of criticizing him when was wrong.
Bush started his presidency by allowing the outgoing Clinton staff to vandalize the White House with human feces and the theft of property. He should have had them arrested and prosecuted.
Every time he let the left trash him, he just made them more audacious.
Bush should have kicked the Democrats' asses from day one.
If , he did not have the back bone for the job he should have resigned..
If he thought nothing mattered but the war then he’s history’s biggest fool. I doubt anyone would be that stupid. I think he’s just for big spending cause he’s not a conservative. Remember he signed the farm pork bill BEFORE 911.
And if “nothing mattered but the war” then he would’ve sent more troops and freaking won in 2006 instead of 2008.
And now because of him a guy who went to Muslim school and wants to “talk it out” with them will be President. Think that will set us a back just a smidge?
I won’t go further against the tide here. But I will ask the question again that I’ve posed to a few people here. If the true conservative case put forward by the posters here at FR is so compelling, and if Bush is such an abject knucklehead, in whom are you all putting your faith going forward?
I guess I’m just befuddled. If it is so obvious what needs to be done, and if the case is so easy to make, why isn’t anyone out there making it?
While it may be true that “politics is the art of the possible”, leadership is something else again.
As for your narrative regarding Bush’s motivations: I think you’re far to generous. I wonder though if your generosity isn’t really directed toward yourself for having supported him. Think about it. No doubt well meaning Clinton suporters had a lot of experience doing the same.
As to who I want to lead “this party”. What party is that? I no longer consider myself a republican. Party aside though, I really haven’t seen anyone that enthuses me right now.
Anything wrong with that?
I should answer my own questions, and just so you all know my political sentiments, if I could pick anyone, it would be Rick Santorum. I wouldn’t put him up, because he can’t even win an election in his own state. But just so you know that I’m not some bleeding heart RINO.
I just think y’all have worse Bush Derangement Syndrome than any Democrats I know, and I live in Ann Arbor, MI.
Reagan didn't create the problem, LBJ and the 1965 Immigration Act did. The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster
Reagan signed the one-time 1986 amnesty bill that was clearly a mistake in addressing the illegal alien problem. The USG estimated 1 million would apply and the real number turned out to be 2.7 million. Fraudulent documents were the rule. And the enforcement provisions of the 1986 amnesty were never carried out. Many of those same provisions can be found in the 2006 Hagel-Martinez bill and the 2007 McCain-Kennedy bill. Bush 41 signed the 1990 Immigration Act that raised the annual ceiling from 270,000 to 700,000 for 1992-94 and 675,000 afterwards (including 480,000 family-sponsored, 140,000 employment-based, and 55,000 "diversity" immigrants). Clinton was better than both Bushes on immigration enforcement.
The issue has been building since 1965 as the demographic impact of immigration becomes more and more pronounced. In 1965, Hispanics were 1% of the US population. Today, they are 15% and by 2050 they will be 30% and that is without an amnesty. Tancredo became more visible on the issue, but it was raised long before 2005. Rove, McCain, Graham, and others branded their fellow Reps who wanted the rule of law respected as nativists, xenophobes, and bigots. In the meantime 87% of the 1.2 million legal immigrants who enter this country annually are minorities and almost all of the 500,000 to 1 million illegals are minorities. Minorities and immigrants vote Dem.
My only point is that there is lots and lots of blame to go around. I’m not defending Bush. But I’m also unwilling to lay all of the blame at his feet. The venom and invective that is focused entirely on Bush is simply stupid.
You are making excuses for an indefensible position. Bush is the President. He was taking a position opposite most of his own party. He deserves most of the blame for dividing the party and making this a divisive issue.
Second, Bush’s recent efforts at enforcement have been quite effective, judging by demonstrated empirical evidence. This is the first real progress in a quarter-century. I would find those who hate Bush’s immigration policy more credible and sympathetic if they would give him his props
It is all relative. The reality is that it has had very little effect on illegal immigration, certainly less than the economy. You can expect a new surge as Obama, McCain, et. al. try again on amnesty. And the disintegrating situation in Mexico will add to those numbers. And nothing has been done with our legal immigration policies, which are far more insidious and difficult to change. We simply do not need 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, most of whom are uneducated and unskilled. They are going to be a net drain on our society and be of little use in making us competitive in the global economy.
And they will account for about two thirds of our 165 million increase in population over the next 50 years. In 1970, the US had a population of about 200 million. Today it is 305 million by 2050, it will be 439 million. Our pro-population growth immigration policies are going to have a major impact on virtually all of the major challenges facing this country, whether it is energy, infrastructure, the environment, entitlement programs, education, law enforcement, etc. And there are also the social consequences that may result from the Balkanization of this country along cultural and linguistic lines.
To say that Bush has come through with too little too late effectively invites the Obama Administration to drop the effort.
LOL. You are really naive. I am an immigration grassroots activist who has been lobbying on the state and national level on immigration issues. Obama has hired a former VP from La Raza to be his policy advisor [McCain had Juan Hernandez] and selected Napolitano to be his head of Homeland Security. Obama aided by folks like McCain are not going to be enforcing our immigration laws and they will push for an amnesty, which will destroy the country with the stroke of a pen. Not only will an amnesty legalize the status of the 12 to 20 million illegals already here, it will enable them to sponsor another 66 million to 100 million thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification.
Third, Bush and Rove are right that we must formulate immigration policy in ways that do not alienate Latinos, Asians and other demographic groups. Our immigration policy can not be punitive. It must be hopeful.
Give me a break. Punitive? Since when is enforcing the law punitive? Reps can't play identity politics like the Dems and pander to various groups. McCain, aka the Amnesty King among immigration activists, was the perfect candidate for those moderates advocating a policy of outreach to minorities. Latinos voted 70% to 30% against him. The reality is that even if McCain had received 70% of the Latino vote, he would have lost. Rove and Bush are wrong on immigration, substantively and politically.
The Republicans’ Hispanic Delusion Amnesty is not just wrong in principle, it’s bad politics.
Fourth, everyone wants their own agenda items. I want the war prosecuted well and with no holds barred. You may want immigration reform. Others might want lower taxes. Bush’s popularity gave him virtually no political capital. Let’s be real.
Yes, let's be real. There are only two issues that can destroy this country: immigration and the entitlement programs. The real problem with Bush was his inability to articulate and defend his positions. He lacked vision. And he was beset by issues like the WOT, Katrina, the collapse of the housing bubble, etc. that had him fighting fires and not focussing on the really big, long term issues affecting this nation. He became reactive rather than proactive.
Pessimist: I am sad that you are not a Republican, because while the party has lost its way, it is a great party, and the great hope for our nation.
Yes, I am guilty of supporting the guy I voted for. I make no bones about giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think anyone who heard him speak about “compassionate conservatism” in 1999 would be under any illusions about his centrism. I consider myself rather conservative, and I wish he were more to the right; yet I voted for him anyway, and I have no big problem with the fact that he governed as he said during the campaign that he would. It is beyond my comprehension that folks here would think we would have been better off as a nation with Gore.
For those who think that Gore would have been better than Bush, or that Obama is preferable to McCain, you are the 5% that would have put McCain over the top. I held my nose and voted for the guy, who I like personally but abhor politically. You folks wanted the perfect conservative; you rejected the good centrist; and now we have the far leftist.
You would rather be right and out of power, which of course is your prerogative. But these next few years will be hell, and when 2012 rolls around, I hope you reconsider the wisdom of this approach.
Post 5
Please ping me when you have a rational thought which results in a salient post, that will require logical thought instead of the pathological thinking you seem so comfortable with.
Kabar:
You clearly know your facts; as I have said, I am not in the Bush camp on immigration (though I am obviously not as passionate as you); and as such, I am reluctant to push you. But since you clearly have such a good grasp of the facts, and since immigration is the issue that vexes folks here far more than any other, let me ask three questions:
1) Again, besides Tancredo, who among Republicans was pushing this during Bush’s first term?
You don’t mention anyone other than Tancredo, and the link you provide is to 2006, after the Republicans had lost control of both the House and Senate. I just want to press you on this ... If no one in the party but Trancedo was making this an issue, then how is Bush the sole bad guy?
2) I read that more than 1 million illegals have left in the short time that enforcement has been stepped up; and I read that the check that employers must now make is both simple and effective. So why are these efforts so deficient?
3) My own not-all-that-well-informed position is that we must secure the borders first and step up internal enforcement, and then I’m willing to discuss anything, including amnesty; but the former must completely precede the latter, because no immigration policy is credible unless enforcement is secure. Would you consider this a conservative position?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Here's a picture of Mr. Steel Balls making a deal with the chief financier of Islamic extremism. W wanted to keep our borders wide open while declaring Islam the religion of peace.
Look, W made some significant agendas come true that worked: tax cuts, picking Alito and Roberts, pursuing the Islamofascists when the Dems caved to terrorism, but he also failed in the education, farming, over spending areas. Altogether, a decent man, an average Pres because he failed to stand for conserv Pub principles and let to the failures of much of the Republican Party’s standings.We shall see how the socialist pacifist nee change artist, the Messiah does with his stimulus, spending, not cutting the proper taxes and dealing with Islamofascism. Then historians can judge whether W did better than BO or the reverse happened.
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.