Posted on 01/17/2009 7:11:11 AM PST by drellberg
Several years ago in George’s first term, Karl wrote him a memo stating, and I am putting down the general idea of the memo, that George could feel free to do whatever he wanted because Republicans were always going to vote Republican.
For many years, I have been kicking myself for not keeping a copy of that memo. Does anybody out there have a copy of it? We need to look at it again to see how flawed their thinking was.
Karl Rove was/is an idiot with a huge ego, and George was/is an idiot for depending on someone’s flawed thinking.
During the day of the 2006 elections, from what I read at the time, Karl was stunned to see Republicans were giving their votes to Democrats. It caused him to go to bed late that night thinking it could not be true. He was in denile (and not a river).
Thank you.
P.S.
I read that memo here on FR.
Could the Mods find it for us?
Thank you.
Don't give me that "Kept us safe" bull sh*t.
I look at Bush's record and see a guy that stood by as tens of millions entered this country illegally, illegals that have trashed entire cities, neighborhoods...
I see a guy that not only stood by and watched, but publicly encouraged a violent illegal invasion of our country, an invasion that has left tens of thousands of American rape, robbery, burglary, injury and murder victims in it's path.
Not to mention the epic fraud this has caused, to the point where it has literally undermined and compromised our entire system, including our very electoral process.
Tell that to the parents of the 9 year old girl that was warped around the axle of a truck, driven by illegal aliens that had just robbed a home in her neighborhood. Tell that to tens of thousands of American that have become victims of this violent invasion, all aided and abetted by President Bush.
I can list endless tragic events, many of which are no less violent or deadly than any terrorist attack.
Well that worked real well. Obama Pelosi just ran the pas two elections on “look what Bush did”, and that paid off great, for them. Your “ignore Bush's actions and get enraged at democrats “strategy breaks down when the bulk of the public turns off their ears to ANYTHING republicans say and vote democrat. How dare GWB betray fellow elected republicans and cut terrible deals with democrats after he was safely re-elected. He deserves our contempt for that alone.
I heard someone say yesterday why the left so hates Bush.
#1 - they believe he stole the 2000 election.
#2 - Iraq war.
I agree with this analysis. Add to that, the nation has never been more ideologically polarized, and I include myself in that assessment. I feel like we are playing for all the marbles now, from the left stacking the court and dismantling the US Constitution, to implementing all-out socialism. So at least in my case, I certainly see the need for pure polarization. This is a culture war between socialism and freedom, pure and simple.
Now going back to the 2 reasons above why the left hates Bush so much, those points are dripping with hypocrisy...
Which party is rampant with voter fraud? Which party keeps counting until they win? Which party asks judges to throw out military absentee votes? Which party forces the opposition to resign for minor ethics violations while not removing their own from office after committing crimes?
Which party supported every military action under Clinton while opposing every military action under Bush.
The Democrat left and their idiot socialist supporters are so rampant with hypocrisy, it could fill the airtime for Saturday Night Live skits for the next 100 years. Oh that’s right, Hollywood only mocks conservatives, not the left. Yet more liberal hypocrisy.
Michael Savage was brilliant to coin the phrase, “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” He is dead right.
“This is a culture war between socialism and freedom, pure and simple.”
I don’t disagree. But it is a war that is ongoing for a century or more. Is it really now for “all of the marbles” in a way that it was not previously?
In my opinion, as conservatives we lose from the kind of panic that I see routinely exhibited in this culture war ... on both sides. If the sky is falling, there is little to “conserve” and few enduring institutions to defend.
We have been through much worse as a nation than this. Indeed, this is nothing compared to other eras, and nothing compared to what may lie in front of us.
I think that there is more of a balance than folks here realize. The Democrats are ascendant in Congress and the White House. Many of their liberal institutions, such as the MSM, are in their death throes. We can not be complacent about our liberties, but panicing is no good either. This is very much a war of attrition. We are in this for the long haul.
I am very confused by your assertion that we have had worse and “this is nothing compared to other eras.”
Never in the history of this nation have we had such little freedom.
I am connected to my Social Security number like a ball and chain. Everybody I deal with legally demands I identify myself by this number or has to use it in my transaction in some form.
We have gone from having a right to travel over public roads in a privately owned vehicle, to having people give that right away and call it a “privilege” today.
Post 9/11, I can’t even see off a family member in the airline terminal.
A farmer or rancher can’t work his land as he see’s fit, if the tree he wants to fell is environmentally protected by the government, or if the swamp he wants to drain is called a “wetland” or if there is a 0.1% chance that his land could be habitat for some species some bureaucrat calls “endangered.”
It would take a book to go through all the freedoms we have lost and are currently losing. We have never had our God-given rights at such immediate risk as they are today. So I very much disagree with you that we’ve had worse or that other eras were worse. No sir, the creeping incremental socialism that is boxing us in and stealing all of our God-given rights is accelerating in rate. We aren’t getting more rights and we are given more away every year.
Sorry for not being “optimistic” and please don’t give up the fight, but you have to be realistic about how much freedom we have given up and how socialist our society has become, and the continuing trend toward greater socialism and less freedom.
The formation of the Immigration Reform Caucus (IRC) in May 1999 provided Congressional visibility on the issue of illegal immigration. The immigration issue has been around a long time with the various think tanks addressing it, e.g., Heritage, Pew, etc. and the formation of The Center for Immigration Studies in 1985 . There are also groups like NumbersUSA and FAIR that have been around a long time.
The impact of decades of immigration policy has now become more apparent and visible to the public, but it has been well known throughoiut the USG. Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history and by 2050, it will be one in 5. During the period 2000-7, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
Here is an excellent analysis from Robert Rector of Heritage: Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts. I credit Rector for his major role in defeating McCain-Kennedy.
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?
CIS and Pew have done studies in this area, but I can assure you that no one really knows how many illegals are here. Much of it is anecdotal. CIS did the following study on it: Homeward Bound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population
I attended the press briefing of the CIS paper. It appears that the decline in illegals relates more to the defeat of McCain-Kennedy than enforcement if you check the graph. We do know that before the Reagan amnesty, there was a surge in illegal immigration despite the fact that amnesty was only being offered to illegals who had been here for five years. The fact that McCain and Obama both support an amnesty could cause another surge along with the huge infrastructure packages planned by Obama as a financial stimulus.
And deteriorating conditions in Mexico may spark more illegal immigration. “Surge Two”: Northward Flood of Mexicans Likely to Increase after U.S. Election
) 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?
There is no doubt that enforcement must be the sina qua non of any immigration reform effort. However, anything that rewards those who broke our laws by allowing them to stay and work here, i.e., amnesty, is not an acceptable position for a conservative. Just as the open borders types use language to disguise what they are doing, e.g., undocumented workers versus illegal aliens, some moderate Reps like to use phrases like "getting to the back of the line, paying a fine, and learning English" as not being an amnesty. It is. The back of the line is not in the US, it is in their home country.
Attrition thru enforcement is the true conservative position. We have empirical evidence that it works. On Immigration, Enforcement Works
Well said!
Don't blame President Bush for losing the Republican majority in Congress. They did that all on their own with their profligate spending and by turning their backs on the conservative message. The President was concentrating most fully on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of that 90% approval was from folks who still had intact memories of 9/11, and were truly frightened that it could happen again. The further away we got from 9/11, folks started forgetting WHY we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, and started believing the constant negative drumbeat from the MSM, and sadly, from much of what passes for the conservative media in the US.
As for the collapse of parts of the economy, I am truly suspicious of the timing of it. The housing bubble had burst two years ago, but the big bad news about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't come out until the summer before the Presidential election? Color me suspicious; the timing was just a little too coincidental.
President Bush had tried, in 2003, and again, in 2005, to get legislation through that would have mitigated much of the financial distress caused by the problems with mortgages, but the Democrats blocked him. He didn't get much support from Republicans in Congress, either, because they were too cowed by the screaming Democrats and the MSM on the war situation. They also had no credibility with their own voters on any fiscal matters, as they discovered, to their chagrin in November of 2006, when they lost their majority.
I was disappointed that Bush did not fight for conservative principles. He wanted to get along with the Democrats, the MSM and the Washington establishment. That strategy turned out to be a disaster. But I still respect Bush for his tax cuts, his Supreme Court nominees, his fight to protect our country from terrorists, etc. As bad as things are today, it would be a lot worse if Gore or Kerry had been elected. And after we have to deal with that phony Obama we may actually miss Bush.
does the president instruct the fed what to do?
bush carried over greenspan. did bush instruct him to create the balloon?
bush and republicans were criticizing fanny and freddy, but maxine, barney, chris, et al were threatening the r-word.
However, it's over now; let it go. You will have plenty of opportunities to come to Bush's defense in the coming years when all of Obama's trials and tribulations as well as his mistakes and failures will be blamed on Bush.
How to beat Obama and who can the conservatives and republicans field for office are the battles to be fought, not Bush's legacy. His legacy is not for us to decide.
The tax cuts helped the economy. The economy was going well until recently. The Fannie Mae Freddie Mac mortgage fraud that caused the recent financial crisis was partly Bush's fault but more the fault of the Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, etc. Bush has disappointed me but our country's problems today were caused by the Democrats far more than by Bush.
Kabar:
I appreciate the great work you put in here for my benefit. I read everything you wrote, and I clicked through to many of the links you posted. Truly, thank you.
Pls keep in mind that I am largely in your camp on the issue, and while I may not agree that we are on a certain course toward the end of the republic, I think I appreciate the stakes involved, I recognize the urgency, and I am very much in line with you on what is required to do next.
Where I remain unconvinced, with all due respect, is on the issue of Bush being the one overarching devil. I asked this question of you: ‘besides Tancredo, who among Republicans was pushing this during Bush’s first term?’ Your answer was great but did not address the question. As far as I can tell, NONE of the party’s leadership was out in front of the immigration issue until quite recently. There have been a lot of people in our party other than George Bush who have neglected it, and for a long, long time. I get it that he is the leader of the party and needed to lead. And I get it that many folks here hate the notion of ‘scarce political capital.’ I just can’t help but sympathize with a guy who has had to deal with so much, who has gotten most all of the big things absolutely spot on (in my opinion, of course) and who has been treated shabbily by the majority of his own party. The level of vitriol is just counterproductive; and his colleagues were completely AWOL in defending him on Gitmo, Valerie Plame, Katrina, and a host of other total NONSENSE. His fellow party members were happy, I suppose, to let him sink.
Once again, thank you for your measured and detailed responses. They truly have helped me a great deal.
“As for the collapse of parts of the economy, I am truly suspicious of the timing of it. The housing bubble had burst two years ago, but the big bad news about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t come out until the summer before the Presidential election? Color me suspicious; the timing was just a little too coincidental.”
SuzyQ, I am with you. Capital markets are forward-looking, and in terms of timing there is no doubt but that it tanked as the election of Barack Obama became more certain, and as it became clearer that the Dems would take large majorities of both legislative branches.
Conservative pundits are too timid to point out this timing.
I suggest you become better informed on the issue and the impact demographics have on the culture and values of a nation beyond just numbers. Professor Huntington wrote this excellent article, The Hispanic Challenge, on how this huge influx of immigrants, most of whom are not being assimilated, can change a nation. And there are political consequences as more and more red states turn purple and then blue, primarily due to immigration and changing demographics. We are witnessing the greatest peaceful mass migration in history threatening the very fabric of this nation and the values of our founders.
Where I remain unconvinced, with all due respect, is on the issue of Bush being the one overarching devil. .
You are creating a phony strawman. Where have I said that Bush is an "overarching devil?" Bush has been President for 8 years and has been the titular head of the Rep Party. He is wrong on the immigration issue and is associating himself with the Dems on this issue and against the majority of his own party. I can recall watching many of the Congressional debates during the runup to the 2006 midterms. When the subject of immigration came up, the Dem opponent said he/she agreed with the position of President Bush and John McCain. This left the Rep candidate twisting slowly in the wind.
I will be attending CPAC again this year. The issue of immigration is going to be front and center. It is going to be very divisive pitting conservatives against moderate Reps who believe in pandering and identity politics. This one issue could very well split the party or cause a new party to emerge.
I asked this question of you: ‘besides Tancredo, who among Republicans was pushing this during Bush’s first term?’
The immigration caucus founded in 1999 was front and center on this issue during Bush's first term. The problem is that Bush and most Reps did not want to touch the issue for fear of being labelled a racist and anti-immigrant. The 9/11 commission mentioned the need to secure our borders, but even its recommendations were muted. 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity to crackdown on illegal immigration and secure our borders as quickly as possible. It was/is a matter of national security. That didn't happen despite Rep control of Congress. And Bush was even worse than Clinton when it came to cracking down on employers who were hiring illegals. The American Chamber of Commerce has been actively fighting against state legislation passed to do exactly that.
As far as I can tell, NONE of the party’s leadership was out in front of the immigration issue until quite recently. There have been a lot of people in our party other than George Bush who have neglected it, and for a long, long time. I get it that he is the leader of the party and needed to lead. And I get it that many folks here hate the notion of ‘scarce political capital.’ I just can’t help but sympathize with a guy who has had to deal with so much, who has gotten most all of the big things absolutely spot on (in my opinion, of course) and who has been treated shabbily by the majority of his own party.
That doesn't excuse Bush's actions. He not only did not lead on the issue, he sided with the Dems against the majority of his own party. And in his validictory on leaving office, he still laments the fact that he didn't get comprehensive immigration reform passed, which would have destroyed this country with the stroke of a pen. And why didn't Bush enforce the existing immigration laws as head of the Executive Branch? Why in Senate testimony does the head of Homeland Security refer to illegal or unauthorized aliens as "undocumented workers."
The level of vitriol is just counterproductive; and his colleagues were completely AWOL in defending him on Gitmo, Valerie Plame, Katrina, and a host of other total NONSENSE. His fellow party members were happy, I suppose, to let him sink.
Bush won't even defend himself against the outrageous charges of the Dems and MSM. His inability to articulate the issues to the American people has hurt the nation and the party. It is embarrassing to hear Bush speak extemperaneously on the issues, especially when he is on stage with foreign leaders like Tony Blair or John Howard. I have no doubt Bush is an honorable, decent person, but he has become a "Sad Sack" character and the butt of jokes mainly due to his own shortcomings and the MSM's caricature of him. And I find some of actions incomprehensible, e.g., inviting Colin Powell to the WH recently for a Medal of Freedom ceremony after Powell had endorsed Obama.
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.