First off, I am steadfast against anything remotely close to amnesty. However, while we are complaining about Bush’s position on the illegal immigration issue, undertand that he as been as upfront and plainly spoken about the subject as he as been in his prosecution of the War on Terror. He has always made it clear that he supports an open border/amnesty type of immigration policy. Like it or not, we are getting what we voted for....as bad as this is, can you imagine how awful things would be with Algore or F’n Kerry in the Oval Office?
That is true. But he was less than candid about planning to use the power of the presidency to thwart border control efforts. He never mentioned not enforcing laws he disagreed with.
Tell me how it would be much different or worse than what we have today.
Only two or three Republicans out of our entire Congress and Senate actually represent the people these days. Bush Cabinet Cronies are globalist sycophants. The WOT has become a joke because our own borders are not secure. Are we really 'fighting them over there' or is our government playing a massive chess game with the Middle East? Our troops are being used as clay flesh pigeons, feeding the giant bomb-breathing mouth of the 'insurgency'.
I've begun pondering what it is that has gone so very wrong with our Republic and asked myself if someone like Abraham Lincoln could even be elected in this day and age. Could a 'middle class' individual win the presidency? No way. How many in Congress are what anyone could call 'middle class'? Money and media have changed everything.
Our 'representatives' no longer represent us; it has become obvious by deals like this one on amnesty that it makes no difference who you vote for anymore. It's all about reaching across the aisle and compromising principles. So I guess if Bush says Teddy Kennedy has my best interests at heart I'm supposed to believe it and take my nice little tax cut and let the bipartisan government worry about everything else. [/end rant]
His “position” is irrelevant. He VOWED to uphold the laws of the country and he did everything he could to sabotage any enforcement.
The choice was Gore or Kerry or Bush. That's why so many voted for Bush.
If Bush cannot govern beyond his personal views and feelings then he has no business taking on the mantle of President of the United States. You speak as if he were king.
We are great because we are (or were) a country of laws, not of men. If this is an idea you have never taken the time to wrap your mind around, you might take a few moments and consider what that means. It is the central idea that separates us from most of the countries and governments that are and have ever been in recorded history.
I too used to think Bush was a good man and a great president. I now think he is very dangerous to the future of my children and this country.
Reading your homepage, I suspect you are a very good man and I in no way wish to belittle you. You and I will probably not live to see all the destruction that Bush's personal views will have upon this great nation, but our children will.
If Bush's vision of the future, based upon his words and actions, are what you want for your children and grandchildren, then I understand your post.
If not, then may I suggest a little time reflecting on the long term effects of Bush's it's-not-amnesty plan.
It is impossible to be against amnesty and for Bush.
No difference. So why bother voting (R)? When (R) values are actually (D)?