No, THAT is the key ingredient missing here!
Posted on 05/17/2006 7:47:58 AM PDT by Pukin Dog
Edited on 05/17/2006 8:30:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
"It was all the fault of the Perot voters."
Most of the Perot voters would have voted for Bush if he hadn't raised taxes. That was the key betrayal that was unforgiveable. He lied to them, and they retaliated.
Now, W hasn't lied to anybody. His Monday night speech was a rehash of where he has always stood, just presented in gussied-up and misleading language to try and make it look like something new. The President is honest about where he stands, but where he stands can't win. He was honest about his support for Miers too, but Miers was a bridge too far for the pro-lifers. In the end, the President had to back down in order to save the unity of the party. And in the Miers case, he did.
Here, the President doesn't really have the lead. He could have taken the lead on Monday night, but he repackaged amnesty and stepped-up weak enforcement of the Mexican border. So, the issue reposes in Congress. The House Republicans want heavy enforcement first. The Senate Republicans are split, with the leaders proposing guest worker and not proposing a full sealing of the border.
The two are far apart.
The President clearly will not change his position an inch, so leadership has to come from Congress.
So, will the Senate cave and agree to House-style enforcement?
I really don't think they will, but they might, and if they do, the President probably won't veto it. If that happens, the BorderBots will come back and the GOP will win this November.
Any other result, though - either a House capitulation to the Senate or status quo (which is an uncontrolled border and no effective enforcement) - and the BorderBots don't come back, we lose, and we have to put the party back together next year.
What is it with people like you who tell people something they posted was wrong, and then deny they ever said any such thing. I am going to repeat here exactly what led to my last post to you and I want you to explain to me what your intent actually was when you posted to me...
Here is your post 2233...
__________________________________________________________
To: Rokke "Yet you seem to honestly believe 200,000,000 immigrants will arrive here in 25 years. Wow."
And you sir, conveniently brush aside the historical reality, and the repeated explanation that Ireland contributed 10 times her own population to the United States over time.
Repeating the straw man statement after being corrected can only have one or two explanations.
2,233 posted on 05/17/2006 8:08:55 PM MDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country) ___________________________________________________________
Now based on that, is it reasonable for me to assume that you do not agree with my discounting the 200,000,000 number, and that you actually try to provide historical precedent to support it. Then you admonish me further about repeating "straw men" despite being "corrected" in this matter. I mean, clearly you are telling me my discounting the 200,000,000 number is wrong. So I respond in post 2240 with the following....
_________________________________________________________
To: Publius6961 "And you sir, conveniently brush aside the historical reality, and the repeated explanation that Ireland contributed 10 times her own population to the United States over time."
Um hmmm....well let me pen you down as one more person who believes that Mexico will soon double its current population and every last one of them will pack their bags and come up north.
Next...
2,240 posted on 05/17/2006 8:16:31 PM MDT by Rokke __________________________________________________________
After which you accuse me of making things up about what you said. So tell me...do you or do you not believe the 200,000,000 number is accurate?
I'd still like to know why there was no anger with Slick over the borders.
Amen
"I'd still like to know why there was no anger with Slick over the borders"
He was a Democrat.
Democrats like open borders.
Hispanics are the demographic salvation of the Democratic Party, and Democrats know it, so of course they are not going to be all over their President about an issue that they think is good for them in the long run.
Business Republicans like open borders because they provide cheap labor that is not protected by the US legal system. So there wouldn't be any grousing about the borders from them.
That leaves conservative Republicans. Many of them DID complain about the illegal flood, but the focus became the Clinton impeachment over perjury, so everything else took a back seat.
The borders issue only counts with Border Conservatives, who are a key element of the Republican base. Democrats aren't going to go after their leaders for border non-enforcement, because they either don't care, or see that, strategically, Latinos are the future majority-makers for the Democrats.
That's why.
Another assumption I'll question is that the Dem rank-and-file want amnesty. I'd really like to see some polling on this. I know LOTS of Dems (old yella-dog TN types) why HATE the amnesty idea and think THEIR leaders are selling them up th globalist river. Most of the ones I know are Lou Dobbs loving union tradesmen. The others don't like the amnesty idea either. They might find a wall or the NG "harsh" in their liberal speak, but in no way do they want a guest-worker program or amnesty. I really dont' thnk there's much popular support for it at all, either party.
If they ram it through, there may be an upheaval in this country like we've not seen since the civil war. I think the revolt will be in far more than just the republican party.
And you keep plugging the holes. We need comprehensize security, and if the GOP wasn't going so bonkers for earmarks, we could pay for it.
But tell me - if you have two holes in your boat the size of nickles, and one the size of a dinner plate, which one do you fix first?
And once again, what is missing IMO is the actual desire to have border security work.
A true desire in the federal government will not make it work, unless it is coupled with true desires on the part of state governments AND municipalities to see that it does work AND a true desire on the part of American citizens to see that it does work.
That's the crux of the problem. I know you're a smart and reasonable poster, but all this inter-conservative bickering will prevent ANY solutions from being implimented.
The problem is, what Bush is proposing with his guest worker agenda is not a solution - it will make the problem worse. NO BILL is better than a bad bill.
**************
I don't support that, in the event that anyone is listening. It wouldn't increase the likelihood of a mod being more objective, but it would likely result in some serious backlash from some members toward the mods.
I guess I question the assumption that an objective mod is desirable on a board such as this.
And it's telling that even a New York pubbie won't go along with Bush on this issue.
Bush's only way to get his agenda passed is to have almost total Dem support along with a few RINOs. THAT ALONE should send a message to those defending Bush on this matter - they are on the wrong side of the issue. And they need to quit yelling at the border security folks and instead yell at Bush to drop the guest worker/amnesty agenda until we have improved border security.
How about neutral and fair....
and respectful.
Oh, I don't think the connection should be made between a moderator and his/her actual screen name. But a mod can always clock out from mod duty and log back in under their screen name.
Then point me to an example. A quote. I want context. Not Howard Dean talking points.
Next point, do you notice the wide disparity between 1 million and 200 million. Do you really put much credence in such an estimate? If someone told you your dinner was going to cost $1 or $200 would you not question their calculations? I mean, I'd want to know what how much I was going to be forking over before I started eating.
"or maybe you'd just like a Illegally founded Mexican plurality in this nation. I sure don't and if that puts me at odds with you or this forum then so be it."
Someone earlier was commenting on straw men. Your rhetoric here is a perfect example.
"What I can't figure out is how much you guys support amnesty or just support anything Bush does?...blindly and justify it as pragmatism or loyalty"
And what I can't figure out is why you are willing to give everything away because you believe illegals are getting amnesty. There hasn't even been a bill worked out, nevermind voted on. And you are throwing out white flags like a French man. Why are you so eager to quit? Do you realize there is a LOT more at stake here than a problem we've been living with for decades?
"I know two of you and realize that two of ya'll are at least not Minority FReepers clamouring for the demise of the gringo..."
What in the world does that mean?
Yep! You know, Vice President Cheney finds it very difficult, I think, to resist gay orthrodoxy on marriage, civil unions and the like. This is understandable given that his daughter feels she has a personal stake in the issue. Were Dick Cheney to disagree with her, would she consider him to be a bigot? I don't know, but I doubt it's anything a father would feel comfortable about risking.
President Bush's nephew, George P. Bush, also feels he has a personal stake in an issue--- namely this issue of Mexican illegal immigration. I wonder how much President Bush mught have been influenced by George P. or George P.'s mother? It would be easy to agree with Mary Cheney or George P.'s mother (or perhaps Jeb) on either issue, respectively, so as to avoid any chance of being thought of as a bigot... especially if this was done before George W. Bush or Dick Cheney were elected to offices where policies on these issues mattered. Then, by the time they did reach such offices, their opinions on said issues might have hardened.
Just my bit two cent psycho analysis! Shelby Steele thinks this sort of dynamic governs a lot of minority/ racial issues (like Affirmative Action)--- the majority grants inncoence/moral authority in the form of victimhood to the minority, while the minority provides innocence to the majority by allowing the majority member to not think of himself or be thought of as a bigot.
>>Take careful notice also of clusters of posts by very old Freeper names who otherwise almost never post with throw away responses to one another, like "I totally agree with that".
Not terribly useful or controversial, but always makes me go, "Hmmmmmmmmm".<<
Why didn't I think of that ...all these times I've been alone on an issue and here I could have had a chorus of support.
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.