Bush to conservatives: Agree with me on amnesty or you're anti-American

[Don Corleone]

I guess the 4th horseman of a lame-duck presidency (the point you realize an administration has accepted it's lame duck status) is when it turns on the supporters that got them the 2 terms in the White House in the first place. President Bush, in terms eerily reminiscent of the notorious (but apocryphal) 'why do you hate freedom', denounced detractors of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill (S: 1348) as 'unwilling to do what's best for America'. He sent his lap dog, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the offensive, saying "We're going to tell the bigots to shut up". And he got Michael Cherftoff (the much-maligned Homeland Security chief) to go on FoxNews and infer that in his opinion, those opposed to amnesty just wanted immigrants to die in the desert. Bush and allies attack conservative base. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/)

Well, if we're going to resort to namecalling, so be it. There's been a lot that the current administration has done that I haven't agreed with. I've been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of assigning malfeasance of intent. But when it comes to this, there is only one reason why Bush would so blantantly abandon the conservative principle of respect for the rule of law: he's on the take. He's lining his pockets with graft, courtesy of the large lobbyist groups that represent those industries that hire illegal immigrants.

I'd like to keep this thread focused not so much on S1348 itself, as on this new tactic by the administration, to get an amnesty passed 'by any means necessary', even if it means cheap demagoguery and throwing the party faithful to the wolves (in fact, leading the charge of false attacks). Do you see this as a betrayal of conservatives in America by a so-called conservative president? Or do you see it as just deserts? Or do you even take it to another level: that Bush and Graham actually have the courage to speak against their own party where they believe them to be wrong?

[Marshal Murat]

I am thinking about re-assessing my views on amnesty as a whole, but this does smack of bad for America.

(Waits for Zak to come in)

[macsen rufus]

IMHO "Agree with me on (insert latest policy here) or you're anti-American" has been this administration's take from the get-go.

Maybe folks don't notice this until they finally come across a policy they don't agree with? (With me, that was pretty early ~D)

[Kralizec]

that Bush and Graham actually have the courage to speak against their own party where they believe them to be wrong?

I don't see anything wrong with this in itself...

The "why do you hate freedom" tactics (I know that's satire, but it's a good name) worked to a degree around the time of the invasion of Iraq, because Bush still enjoyed credibility and a fairly high approval rating.
Apparently he doesn't realize he's already lost both, and that the tactic only helps when your base is pointing fingers at the rest.

[Odin]

I guess the 4th horseman of a lame-duck presidency (the point you realize an administration has accepted it's lame duck status) is when it turns on the supporters that got them the 2 terms in the White House in the first place. President Bush, in terms eerily reminiscent of the notorious (but apocryphal) 'why do you hate freedom', denounced detractors of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill (S: 1348) as 'unwilling to do what's best for America'. He sent his lap dog, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the offensive, saying "We're going to tell the bigots to shut up". And he got Michael Cherftoff (the much-maligned Homeland Security chief) to go on FoxNews and infer that in his opinion, those opposed to amnesty just wanted immigrants to die in the desert. Bush and allies attack conservative base. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/)

Well, if we're going to resort to namecalling, so be it. There's been a lot that the current administration has done that I haven't agreed with. I've been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of assigning malfeasance of intent. But when it comes to this, there is only one reason why Bush would so blantantly abandon the conservative principle of respect for the rule of law: he's on the take. He's lining his pockets with graft, courtesy of the large lobbyist groups that represent those industries that hire illegal immigrants.

I'd like to keep this thread focused not so much on S1348 itself, as on this new tactic by the administration, to get an amnesty passed 'by any means necessary', even if it means cheap demagoguery and throwing the party faithful to the wolves (in fact, leading the charge of false attacks). Do you see this as a betrayal of conservatives in America by a so-called conservative president? Or do you see it as just deserts? Or do you even take it to another level: that Bush and Graham actually have the courage to speak against their own party where they believe them to be wrong?


It boils down the legacy Don, he gets this amnesty bill through and its nice tag line 20 years from now that he would have to be given credit for.

Cynical as that maybe, thats my take on it, he's desperate, sadly he missed the boat on the economy and pitching that as a positive to his legacy. Its hard to argue with the numbers (well maybe wealth distribution but unemployment has been very low), this whole amnesty bill stinks and its a total ass grab at legacy. IMHO

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It boils down the legacy Don, he gets this amnesty bill through and its nice tag line 20 years from now that he would have to be given credit for.


Isnt it strange that all that Clinton claims as his legacy was best for conservatives and in reality passed by a republican congress while under Bush his will be mostly the war of course but most of the rest are things that liberals would want like the Education bill and this. It shows again the danger of too much power in one party as the republican congress went along with all this. I suppose just because it was their man at the helm.

[Odin]

Isnt it strange that all that Clinton claims as his legacy was best for conservatives and in reality passed by a republican congress while under Bush his will be mostly the war of course but most of the rest are things that liberals would want like the Education bill and this. It shows again the danger of too much power in one party as the republican congress went along with all this. I suppose just because it was their man at the helm.

and thats part of the rub Gawain, because now if he gets this cluster *bleep* of an initiative passed he can claim it was a bi partisian effort, thus more credence to the legacy. Any of his other messes can be blamed on to much power in one party, any of his successes glossed over by failure in Iraq.

This is his one shot a legacy void of the taint of either

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why don't we just save time and open the borders entirely?

Nationalism is simply fatuous crud anyway, no?

What moral right do we have to a good life when someone else somewhere in the world is goes to sleep hungry?

If anything, opening our borders to all will help to pay back the almost incomprehensible "debt" we owe the rest of the world for our profligate consumption of their resources to fuel our own success.

[Xiahou]

This isn't the first time the administration has taken a swipe at the base either, Don. Remember how everyone who was skeptical about Harriet Meyers being appointed to the SCOTUS was sexist? They even went as low as sending Laura Bush out to make that suggestion. Now, if we don't support the immigration bill we're racist... and hate America.

I have to wonder if this is really some backhanded effort to torpedo the immigration bill while looking like he's supporting it. Such incompetence in turning your own base against you is hard to believe.

[drone]

This is his one shot a legacy void of the taint of either
Why anyone would want this bill as part of their legacy is beyond me. :inquisitive:

As to the administration's attitude, it pretty much fits the pattern ever since the Decider-in-Chief got into office. "I know what's right, do it my way, or I will throw a hissy". This worked when he was popular, and the GOP controlled Congress. Now with the Dems ruling Capitol Hill, and many Republicans jumping off the sinking ship, it just looks silly.

Hopefully the administration will be marginalized and told to just sit in a corner for the next year and a half. At this point, I want Bush to: A) use his veto on anything stupid the Dems try to pass, B) not abandon the troops, and C) that's about it.

If he quacks like a duck, and if he limps like a duck, let's just hope Cheney doesn't mistakenly shoot him in his face. ~D


And, yes, just for the record, I hate freedom.

[Odin]

I have to wonder if this is really some backhanded effort to torpedo the immigration bill while looking like he's supporting it.

Boy thats optomistic, if he is smart enough to pull it off I'll support his visage on a future coin.

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, nothing in the administration thus far has shown that they're that politically savvy in terms of their actions. That they really are that cluless and arrogant actually seems to be more likely. And even if the White House itself is doing as you say, how do you explain Lindsey Graham going to a La Raza benefit dinner and (when speaking about opposition to amnesty) "We're going to tell the bigots to shut up". For South Carolina especially (and he has Senator LeMint right there with him), that's gotta be political suicide.

[Devastatin Dave]

Forget yoU Bush...:wall:

[Xiahou]

Boy thats optomistic, if he is smart enough to pull it off I'll support his visage on a future coin.
I didn't mean to suggest I seriously believe that- but it does leave you wondering how they could take such a profoundly stupid approach to their base.

If it were just Bush's comment by itself, I wouldn't really make too much of it- he's a horrible public speaker and regularly puts his foot in his mouth. However, this seems to be a concerted effort to demonize opposition to the bill when you look at the other comments people are making on his behalf. Again, it really reminds me of the Harriet Meyers debacle and I suspect it will work out just as well for the administration this time....

[Odin]

I didn't mean to suggest I seriously believe that- but it does leave you wondering how they could take such a profoundly stupid approach to their base.

If it were just Bush's comment by itself, I wouldn't really make too much of it- he's a horrible public speaker and regularly puts his foot in his mouth. However, this seems to be a concerted effort to demonize opposition to the bill when you look at the other comments people are making on his behalf. Again, it really reminds me of the Harriet Meyers debacle and I suspect it will work out just as well for the administration this time....

Oh I know you werent serious, Im just grasping at any glimer of hope I can find.

[Lord Winter]

Is this really much different from what the democrates have been doing before? Support boarder control and you're atomaticaly a freedom hating racist.

Not that I agree with the tacti hopefully we can get above name calling.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

: Bush to conservatives: Agree with me on amnesty or you're anti-American

It looks as though he is looking for a consensus and has managed to make everyone Anti- Bush. Congratulations Mr President.:laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Like Gawain said, he's finally becoming a uniter - soon everyone will hate him.

CR

[Gregoshi]

The really sad part of all this is that we must put up with another year and a half of his non-sense. I shudder to think how much lower he can go and will he be able to drag the country with him. And to think I had such high hopes for Bush when he was elected. Now I just wish he'd go away.

[Odin]

And to think I had such high hopes for Bush when he was elected. Now I just wish he'd go away.

that makes two of us.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm intrigued by the levels of conservative disillusionment that have developed over the last couple of years.

Just as a straw poll, is there anyone here who would vote for George W Bush again - on his merits and record to date - should it be possible?

I know much of the political process depends on choosing between candidates, but I'm interested to see if any supporters still have some confidence in President Bush.

[Zaknafien]

that makes two of us.

no, make that about 80% of us. :help:

[Lemur]

Forget yoU Bush...:wall:
Welcome to the club. Now you, too, can be accused of lacking patriotism, loving terrorists and irrationally hating Bush. It's not much fun when you disagree with our Decider.

A more nuanced version, Banquo, would be a "What Broke the Camel's Back?" poll, where people could describe the moment when they lost all faith in the administration. For the lemur, it was the invasion of Iraq. For many people it was Katrina. Or Harriet Myers. Nobody seems to have been swayed by Cheney shooting an old man in the face, which is a shame, 'cause that was hilarious. For many Republicans it seems to be immigration being shoved down their throats with the President's usual level of subtlety.

Well, as I said, welcome to the club.

-edit-

If the Republican base won't see reason, and 70%-80% of America keeps on disapproving of our Presidente, the Arkansas G.O.P. chief (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942) has an idea:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

[Gregoshi]

The non-existent WMD broke this camel's back. When it became clear that we went to war in Iraq under false pretenses (basically lied to everyone), I felt Bush should withdrawn from the 2004 election as the only respectable thing he could to do. Since he didn't, I felt it necessary to remove him myself, so, as much as it pained me, I voted for Kerry. :shame:

[Odin]

it was spring 04 for me, thats when sadr's paper was shut down and he rebelled, along with a boat load of sunni's in Fallujah. It was then that it was 100% clear to me (I was about 85 up until then) that Rummy and Bush had no idea what they were doing that they would need hundreds of thousands more troops to secure Iraq and do it the right way.

they didnt and the mess we have today is the result, the fact that it took the midterms to refute the policy for rummy to resign complimented my train of thought.

The WMD was bothersome to me as well, but in all candeor not many people thought saddam actually destroyed what he had in 91. turns out he might have, thats a secondary one for me, but the mismangement of the war is when I signed off.

[Xiahou]

Just as a straw poll, is there anyone here who would vote for George W Bush again - on his merits and record to date - should it be possible?It entirely depends on who he's running against. I certainly wouldn't want to vote Bush- but put up another Kerry as an alternative and I might have to just to keep the other guy out of office.

I don't know of anyone in the current crop of Democrat hopefuls that I'd be willing to vote for, but luckily Bush is ineligible to run again- so I won't be faced with the possibility of having to hold my nose and vote for him. :2thumbsup:

[Don Corleone]

I actually have a huge issue with the Democratic party for forcing me to vote for Bush in 04 because I desperately wanted to vote against him then, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I really should have voted Libertarian or written in Alan Keyes.

I began to lose confidence with the invasion of Iraq. I saw it as misguided and dangerously distracting from what we should be doing, flushing Al Queda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan (and Pakistan for that matter).

My gnawing doubt grew exponentially when the administration put forward Medicare Part D and Harriet Meirs.

But the 'straw' as you say was when in light of all evidence to the contrary, the administration continued to say they would not bolster troop strength in Iraq through 2005 and 2006. I knew we didn't have a clue when Cheney gave the "insurgency in its last throes" crap, the first time...

[Whacker]

This is his one shot a legacy, void of talentthe taint of either
Fixed that one for ya there buddy.

:balloon2:

[Whacker]

I actually have a huge issue with the Democratic party for forcing me to vote for Bush in 04 because I desperately wanted to vote against him then, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I really should have voted Libertarian or written in Alan Keyes.

I have a bigger issue now with our whole political system as is. The whole 'two party system' is really a big losing point for us, it's either one or the other and really nothing in between. When I say that, I mean that in essense when one does vote for something/someone other than Dem/GOP, (as much as I hate to say this) one is throwing their vote away and it's really not going to account for much, except in a few instances where it's perhaps a tiebreaker. I really do think we need several more real honest-to-god political parties to balance out the mix and give people a much wider range of selection of candidates that they can choose from, as opposed to "jerk A" or "jerk B". In this aspect, I really look up to and respect the situations in other countries like Germany, France, Canada, where there really ARE multiple parties to chose from.


But the 'straw' as you say was when in light of all evidence to the contrary, the administration continued to say they would not bolster troop strength in Iraq through 2005 and 2006. I knew we didn't have a clue when Cheney gave the "insurgency in its last throes" crap, the first time...

I dunno about you mate, but I became a whole lot more disenfranchised after the 9/11 shock wore off, and I realized the whole military knee-jerk reaction wasn't losing any traction at all, if anything it was picking up speed. It was just a train wreck from there on.

[AntiochusIII]

A Million Dollar Question:

What does this Bill actually do?

I mean, I hear a lot of opinions 'bout it. I just don't really know what it is actually doing, which tends to make forming my own opinion [of the Bill] difficult.

Of my opinion of the tactic, well, ah...

The President is desperate. :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm intrigued by the levels of conservative disillusionment that have developed over the last couple of years.

Just as a straw poll, is there anyone here who would vote for George W Bush again - on his merits and record to date - should it be possible?

I know much of the political process depends on choosing between candidates, but I'm interested to see if any supporters still have some confidence in President Bush.

No, no, and hell no. Not even if it was him or Kerry. Bush might well lose Iraq, but at least Kerry would have done it quicker.

As for the straw that broke the back - I'd say a year or so ago, when Bush started his push for Amnesty.

CR

[drone]

Just as a straw poll, is there anyone here who would vote for George W Bush again - on his merits and record to date - should it be possible?
I was never really happy with him as president, I had wished for a better choice in 2000, but I was sure that I didn't want Gore in the White House. Doesn't really matter anyway, since Virginia usually goes close to 60/40 GOP/Dem for the presidential election. By 2004, I was already fed up the theft of our liberties, the incompetence apparent in the administration, and the realization that we were sold a bag of lies to invade in the first place. So I threw my vote away and checked the Libertarian box. No way I was voting for Kerry. And, again, I live in Virginia, so it didn't matter. If Bush could run again, I would probably vote for whatever idiot the Dems nominate, even Hillary, and pray that Congress flips back to the GOP.

Having 2 big parties hurts, but I don't think it would be so bad if the nomination process were changed. The current process is just one long money-sucking charlie foxtrot.

[Slyspy]

A vote is never thrown away so long as it is used, even in protest.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If the dems had run Lieberman for pres they might have actually won . Bush did talk a good game however before he was elected. Thats why I dont take much stock in the debates. They try to tell you what you want to hear but rarely come through. The republican class of what was if 96 is a good example of being swallowed by the machine.

[Xiahou]

I would probably vote for whatever idiot the Dems nominate, even Hillary, and pray that Congress flips back to the GOP.
Hah! Hillary might be the best that the Dems have to offer this go round. :wall:

[Odin]

Hah! Hillary might be the best that the Dems have to offer this go round. :wall:

Sadly you might be right, so that means since 1980 there would be a Bush or Clinton on the ballot in every election.

Enough already

[drone]

Hah! Hillary might be the best that the Dems have to offer this go round. :wall:
Well, fortunately Bush can't run again, so I won't be forced to vote for her. :2thumbsup:


A vote is never thrown away so long as it is used, even in protest.
Try out the electoral college method for your next election. It's teh bomb! :stwshame:

[Lemur]

Hah! Hillary might be the best that the Dems have to offer this go round. :wall:
You know, this nation is not a monarchy or an oligarchy, so I would find it deeply depressing if we had Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. That's just all kinds of wrong. Our highest offices are not family baubles to be traded among the First Citizens. I hope we never, ever see another Bush of Clinton in the White House.

[Gregoshi]

I hope we never, ever see another Bush of Clinton in the White House.
Freudian slip Lemur? :laugh4:

That aside, I agree with you 100%.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now if you took non out of clinton you would have Bush and ....Nevermind:oops: