« You have to be pretty highly educated to be this dumb | Main | American Idol Coverage At Wizbang Pop! »

The Essential President Bush

If you have not yet read The Essential President Bush by The Anchoress, read it now. It will remind even those that are not so happy with him right now, how much good this President has done, often in the face of unprecedented circumstances. I am not suggesting anyone stop complaining about things they don't like about the President's positions on spending or immigration or any other issue. I am just asking that they acknowledge the good, as well.

Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or "betrayed" by him. He is, in essentials, precisely who he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my NYFD friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised. When the World Series opened in New York City and the President was invited to throw the first pitch, there was no surprise in his throwing (while wearing body armor) a perfect strike....


...Let me tell you what has surprised me about George W. Bush. I have been surprised by his ability to keep from attacking-in-kind the "public servants" in Washington who - for five years - have not been able to speak of the American President with the respect he is due, by virtue of both his office and his humanity, because they are entralled with hate and owned by opportunism. I have been surprised that he has kept his committment to "changing the tone" even when it has long been clear that the only way the tone in Washington will ever change is if everyone named Bush or Clinton or Kennedy is cleared out and "career politicians" are shown the door and - it must be said - every university "School of Journalism" is converted to a daisy garden...

Read it all.

Note: I just updated my original post by adding the above quote.

UPDATE: Some blogger friends of mine (chicks all) have started a site called Hang Right Politics. This is their goal: "I hope we can discuss issues important to conservatives/republicans on this site without so much of the acrimony seen on some other sites. We want free debate but we won't tolerate profanity or name-calling...We will not bash our president or call him names on this site. This does not mean we will not disagree with him when we disagree, but we will attempt to do so in an objective manner." I wish them the best of luck.



Comments (44)

Welcome to Wizbang! What I'... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Welcome to Wizbang! What I've learned in the last few months reading this glorious site:

-Jews are required to wear badges in Iran
-The Iraqi document dump proved Iraq had WMDs
-Ted Kennedy is a "wetback"
-Bush brought democracy to the Middle East and the effect has been like a dam breaking open. (A flood of Hamas!)

Btw, I thought the Anchoress quit writing about politics for a while?

Anyways, welcome to your demotion.

Welcome to wizbang! What I ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Welcome to wizbang! What I have learned about wimpy ass trolls like jp2:
-they should be required to wear bomb vest with a button that says "push me".
-the voice boxes of jp2 clones have been preset by Howard "Insane" Dean.
-jp2s are all bad drivers like the Kennedys (also have "red noses").
-that Bush is not afraid to defend our country something that jp2s just want to "talk" about
-BTW Lorie I am glad you got "demoted" here instead to the bottom of the barrel ( DU, KOS, ETC.)

AMEN! You have done us all ... (Below threshold)

AMEN! You have done us all a great service, and put into perspective what a Great Man GWB really is. Some of the problem, I think, is that many are trying to compare GW to the last Great Man to sit in that chair, RWR. GW isn't RW; get over it.
Anchoress, you are a national treasure! Keep the faith; stay strong in the fight.
cheers

There is your typical right... (Below threshold)
jp2:

There is your typical right-wing response here on Wizbang Lorie.

I bring up substantial points about the credibility of this site, and it's met with name-calling and fantasies of violence. Funny though!

I, too, have been somewhat ... (Below threshold)
Langtry:

I, too, have been somewhat hard on President Bush during the ongoing immigration debate. But call him "an idiot"? Never.

The anchoress really brought home a lot of the things I've admired about GWB, and had relegated to the back of my mind. Especially the incident with the Chilleans trying to separate one of the president's Secret Service agents during the economic forum. GWB silently and confidently reaching back into the hostile throng and pulling his man through the phalanx? A priceless example of integrity in a world of pretentious politicos!

jp2, let's look at those po... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

jp2, let's look at those points:

1) The Iranian dress code thing: corrected and apologized for as soon as it was clear that the story was not confirmed.

2) The Ted Kennedy wetback bit: that was me, and me alone. I regret that, and have apologized for it, but I have not and will not delete it -- you will NOT have the opportunity to say "see, they're trying to hide what they did."

3) Iraq and Afghanistan have had several elections, and have freely chosen their own governments. Syria's grip on Lebanon is crumbling. And Iran is having to crack down on its own reformers. Sounds like a hell of a start in less than five years -- especially when compared to the modern history of the Middle East up until October, 2001.

Actually, I take pride in the first two. We proved we were human and flawed, and that we are willing to step up and admit mistakes, and we do NOT try to hide or delete our messups (vs. Kos and his "Screw them" incident, to cite the example that is seared -- seared -- into my memory).

So thanks for the chance to revisit those past mistakes, and correct you on one more. It's a healthy reminder that we need always try to be a little bit better than we have been before.

J.

There is your typi... (Below threshold)
Langtry:
There is your typical right-wing response here on Wizbang Lorie.

I bring up substantial points about the credibility of this site, and it's met with name-calling and fantasies of violence. Funny though!

jp2: In your post "What I've learned in the last few months reading this glorious site" you reference extreme examples of posts that are at variance with the general tenor of responses to be found here at Wizbang; for example: "Ted Kennedy is a "wetback" and "Bush brought democracy to the Middle East and the effect has been like a dam breaking open. (A flood of Hamas!)". You close by insulting Ms. Byrd with the snarky comment ...

"Anyways, welcome to your demotion."

And you wonder why you're the object of derision? As has been said since time immemorial about whingers who get what they give out ... "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!"


Hear! Hear! to the Anchores... (Below threshold)

Hear! Hear! to the Anchoress' comments - thanks for posting them, Lorie!

Jay, don't worry about the little vermin assigned to annoy you. They never worried about "Kos' Secret Plan to Destroy the DLC" or the "Rove about to be indicted" stories - either last October OR two weeks ago.

These pests actually help our side, by reminding middle-of-the-roaders what vile and disgusting anti-American traitors run the other party.


I'm glad she qualified her ... (Below threshold)
Wellshore Point:

I'm glad she qualified her remarks with "Perhaps I am a dim bulb..."

...because that is precisely what you have to be to say:

"He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells."

When in fact it is widely known that many of the ES cell lines that Bush claimed were viable were not (a misrepresentation), and NONE of them (that's right, ZERO) are of any use for therapeutic purposes, being contaminated by the mouse cells they are grown on.

There is nothing "moral" about that, except that he has succeeded in crippling US research efforts to appease his Crazy Christian base. In the wake of this pandering, other nations like Sweden and Japan push ahead. As a consequence, they will reap vast economic and intellectual awards in the process, while scientists and industry in the US have been hamstrung by Bush. However, the fundy's sure were happy for a while, but not any more! Nice job, George!

But as long as you don't expect your leaders to, you know, lead, I guess its OK. At least that's what the Anchoress is saying, and you endorsing.

It's as pure a piece of political puffery, excuse making and tomfoolery as I have seen written about our failed president.

What's more telling perhaps is that it reads like an ode to the guy she lost her virginity to.

JPw, what do you think Sadd... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

JPw, what do you think Saddam used to gas the Kurds? Why would Saddam need mobile hydrogen producing vans, with the US Army on his border? Why did Saddam order a million doses of atropine? I do not wish to be insulting, but you not only believe the lies of the left, you believe your own lies. Only a fool does that. If the shoe fits, wear it, and it is your size.

When in fact it is wide... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

When in fact it is widely known that many of the ES cell lines that Bush claimed were viable were not (a misrepresentation), and NONE of them (that's right, ZERO) are of any use for therapeutic purposes, being contaminated by the mouse cells they are grown on.

There is nothing "moral" about that, except that he has succeeded in crippling US research efforts to appease his Crazy Christian base. In the wake of this pandering, other nations like Sweden and Japan push ahead. As a consequence, they will reap vast economic and intellectual awards in the process, while scientists and industry in the US have been hamstrung by Bush. However, the fundy's sure were happy for a while, but not any more! Nice job, George!
-------------------------------------------------
Why is the left so focused on abortion (even partial birth abortion) and now ES? Why is the left willing to ignore facts about the progress on adult stem cells relative to ES? Is it to satisfy its fundamentalist atheistic base ? This leftist base was so fascinated with the crazy socialistic utopia that they were willing to ignore or excuse the hundreds of millions people killed by their communist brethren?

Congratulations on your new... (Below threshold)
Truzenzuzex:

Congratulations on your new blog home, Lorie. Ditto to Wizbang.

Conservatives have had single-issue voters forever. What we have in the sudden rash of "base frustration" is a bunch of unrelated single-issue people making common cause with those who demand ideological purity (whatever that actually means). It makes for a nice group grope, and some may try to "all or nothing" Republicans right into a minority again. Sad, but the nature of the beast it is.

Anchoress, as usual, writes a beautiful piece that comes straight from her heart, while remembering to engage her brain first. She reminds me a bit of Peggy Noonan (except not quite as jaded).

Hmmmm.1. So. Anyb... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

1. So. Anybody want to link to cures produced by ES research in Sweden and/or Japan?

2. Frankly I've been surprised a number of times by Bush when he's taken off into really strange directions.

The illegal aliens issue is one of them.

2. Frankly I've been surpri... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

2. Frankly I've been surprised a number of times by Bush when he's taken off into really strange directions.

The illegal aliens issue is one of them.
--------------------------------------------------
He may simply want to build a bridge with the fast growing Hispanic community (and to enlarge the Rep coalition). He may be wrong, but it is easy to understand.

"The Iranian dress code thi... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"The Iranian dress code thing: corrected and apologized for as soon as it was clear that the story was not confirmed."

Please link Kim's correction.

"anti-American traitors"

Again with the name calling...let's move on, ok?

Wellshore:So, what... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Wellshore:

So, what is the Europeans' excuse for opposing genetic engineering? It certainly isn't religiously based.

Is it so wrong to want to consider the ethics of something before proceeding? Isn't this one of the laments about Oppenheimer, Fermi, and the rest of the nuclear physics community, that they didn't think things through first?

jp2, BTW can you li... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

jp2,
BTW can you link the correction about the false Iraq vet at daily kos for example? Or the correction about the phone database at USA Today and NYT (not even the leftist blogs)? These are just two recent examples of numerous "false information" (or lies by the Dems).

So can we be intellectually honest enough to say that at least Kim is more upfront about the mistakes than the less than honest liberal MSM (or most of the leftie blogs)?

Love America : (awesome nam... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Love America : (awesome name!)

I never saw the Iraq vet story anywhere, so if you could link it to me, that would be helpful. Also, I am not affiliated with that site in any way, so I really have no need to defend any specific writer. (Of the thousands upon thousands of them)

As far as the NSA story - I still think BellSouth provided the NSA with records. They are allowed to legally deny they did, and they are allowed to use third party sources to provide that data. (Legal scapegoats) Either way, the story still stands. If you have contrasting data, please post links.

And JT - please provide a link to Kim's retraction.

what if they steal a few so... (Below threshold)
dave:

what if they steal a few social security numbers and cook some meth and shoot a few people, after all they're just trying to make a living.
some bloggers are starting to sound like the feminists who opposed abusing women all their lives and then stood up for Clinton when he was caught.
one reason the dems are in trouble is they sold out. you gwb lovers are endorsing identity
theft because gwb does. its in your bill.

It would have been entirely... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

It would have been entirely appropriate for the phone co's to hand over pen register information if NSA had asked... Such information isn't a violation of any specific person's privacy, since it requires further exceptional effort to link a specific person to a specific phone call, and no content is at risk of exposure.

What will happen, if these leaks are further allowed to continue, is that more and more tools used by our intelligence agencies will be crippled, and we will no longer have the ability to develop the information necessary to prevent attack.

JP, Here is the lin... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

JP,
Here is the link to the Iraq vet story
http://wizbangblog.com/2006/05/23/when-your-opponent-is-drowning-throw-the-son-of-a-bitch-an-anvil.php#postcomment

Since you seem to be concerned about truth, I assume that you already write off the liberal MSM and the Dems (and the left in general) wrt the truth. We can agree that the Dems and the liberal MSM have no respect for the truth at the very least. They simply go for one falsehood after another with the singleminded intention to attack Bush. They simply prop up these "heroes" (like Kerry, Richard Clarke, Wilson, now McBeth) who are now proven liars.

Hmmmm.He ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

He may simply want to build a bridge with the fast growing Hispanic community (and to enlarge the Rep coalition). He may be wrong, but it is easy to understand.

And WHY is it a *fast growing* Hispanic community?

Because about 3 million are illegaly crossing the borders each year. And for this Bush is willing to really piss off a substantial number of supporters?

Wellshare point: You remind... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Wellshare point: You remind me of that pillar of vertue who through Michele Malkin a slite woman off his program, But cowered from a seventy something Senator from Georgia. He's a coward as are all" brave" oppologist from the the loony left.And I say if the shoe fits.

jp2: if you go back to Kim'... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

jp2: if you go back to Kim's original piece, she added an update saying the story appears to be falling apart. And as section editor around these parts, you may feel free to consider my piece about the story turning out to be bunk to be the "official" word from us. (Kevin, Kim, and Paul may disagree with that, but that's their choice. Lorie doesn't get a vote but that's solely because this matter predates her arrival.)

That's 3 up, three down, jp. (Perhaps I should rename you "jp3," in honor of your three strikes.) To me, that puts us better than the New York Times, CNN, and CBS for owning up and fixing the inevitable mistakes to which we are all prone -- and probably puts our accuracy rate not only past them, but closing in on the National Enquirer.

J.

And WHY is it a *fast gr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And WHY is it a *fast growing* Hispanic community?

Because about 3 million are illegaly crossing the borders each year. And for this Bush is willing to really piss off a substantial number of supporters?

Illegal immigration will substantially increase the magnitude of the problem. Even without illegal immigration, the birth rate among the Hispanics community is simply higher. Also they have legal means to get more people here (for example, the legal Hispanics can go back to their home countries to marry their "sweethearts" and bring him here).

Bush may also believe that what he is doing is right (love him or hate him). Given he is wrong on immigration and spending, he gives you 75% of what you want as the Anchoress pointed out (the GWOT, tax cuts, and the court). If you truly care about the country and the immigration issue, the alternative Dem control is simply not viable. Best to elect more convervatives to Congress (just look at what happened in PA) to reduce the influence of the RINOs and most importantly the Dems. As many has said: push for the best conservative candidates in the primary. In the general election, make sure you vote for a Rep. The court alone is too high a price to pay to teach the Reps a lession.

Who-ray for our side. It is... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Who-ray for our side. It is now JP with a big fat O. (LOL)

Hmmm.lleg... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

llegal immigration will substantially increase the magnitude of the problem.

That's my point.

Even without illegal immigration, the birth rate among the Hispanics community is simply higher.

The current legal hispanic population is relatively low enough that it couldn't possibly be described as "fast growing" without the presence of illegal aliens.

Also they have legal means to get more people here (for example, the legal Hispanics can go back to their home countries to marry their "sweethearts" and bring him here).

And there are built-in limitations on doing that for those that choose to do so, and not every hispanic will choose that path.

Bush may also believe that what he is doing is right (love him or hate him). Given he is wrong on immigration and spending, he gives you 75% of what you want as the Anchoress pointed out (the GWOT, tax cuts, and the court).

Excuse me but I did not get 75% of anything.

I didn't choose the GWOT. It's something that came about because of 9/11. And whether or not it's being prosecuted well is still frankly up for debate.

Tax cuts without corresponding decreases in spending is not a bonus.

And I'll remind you that without conservatives getting very angry we'd be dealing with Associate Justice Harriet Miers.

On the flip side:

$500 billion for Iraq
$1 trillion new entitlement for Medicare
$$$ in pork spent by Congress, approved by Bush
Arlen Specter
No Child Left Behind, but *without* vouchers
Nearly zero enforcement of the borders
Less than 5% of human smugglers prosecuted
Over 300,000 illegals let go due to a lack of detention space
$500 billion spent on illegal aliens since 2000

If you truly care about the country and the immigration issue, the alternative Dem control is simply not viable.

Have you taken a look at that Senate bill? It *is* by the Democrats. Even if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they couldn't have put together a more Democrat immigration bill.

Best to elect more convervatives to Congress (just look at what happened in PA) to reduce the influence of the RINOs and most importantly the Dems.

Which is why I'll support conservatives, but not one damn Republican.

As many has said: push for the best conservative candidates in the primary.

Yup.

In the general election, make sure you vote for a Rep.

Not a chance.

The court alone is too high a price to pay to teach the Reps a lession.

Not if the alternative is a terrible immigration bill. I'd rather have a crappy Supreme Court than a crappy immigration bill. We can survive a crappy SCOTUS. Conservatives have lived with a crappy SCOTUS for 30 years.

But a crappy immigration law could deal extraordinary damage to America and that's not worth keeping a fat Republican ass in a congressional seat.

Hmmm. llegal im... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hmmm.

llegal immigration will substantially increase the magnitude of the problem.

That's my point.


The current legal hispanic population is relatively low enough that it couldn't possibly be described as "fast growing" without the presence of illegal aliens.

The Hispanic community is the largest minority group in America right now surpassing the black community already. The one thing that has helped keep the Dem in power for a long time is the monolothic support of the black community (>90%). THe Hispanic community is relatively still in play



And there are built-in limitations on doing that for those that choose to do so, and not every hispanic will choose that path.

With higher birth rate and the readily available family links for them to do that. Compared to other minority groups, their rate is higher. They have grown past the black community already. Some towns and even cities in Texas are more than 50% Hispanics already.



Excuse me but I did not get 75% of anything.

I didn't choose the GWOT. It's something that came about because of 9/11. And whether or not it's being prosecuted well is still frankly up for debate.

Tax cuts without corresponding decreases in spending is not a bonus.

And I'll remind you that without conservatives getting very angry we'd be dealing with Associate Justice Harriet Miers.

On the flip side:

$500 billion for Iraq
$1 trillion new entitlement for Medicare
$$$ in pork spent by Congress, approved by Bush
Arlen Specter
No Child Left Behind, but *without* vouchers
Nearly zero enforcement of the borders
Less than 5% of human smugglers prosecuted
Over 300,000 illegals let go due to a lack of detention space
$500 billion spent on illegal aliens since 2000

What is the bill under a Democrat gov? Are you serious that the Dems will give you better in any of these? So you want Patrick Leahy instead of Arlen Specter? So you want both tax increase and even more spending under the Dems? THe Dems openly advocate open border and instant normalization. Now you want that?

Without going to Iraq, the cost of containment and protecting AMerica will go into the trillions. Remember one lone shooter can shut down the economy of the whole region. What is the cost of not going to Iraq (oil-for-food corruption to fill up Saddam 's coffer and all the cost to defend every mall in AMerica...).


Have you taken a look at that Senate bill? It *is* by the Democrats. Even if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they couldn't have put together a more Democrat immigration bill.

Just look at DiFi amendment. It is far worse than the Senate bill now. The Dems would give instant amnesty if they can. AT least let 's be honest about it. The Dems are far worse.

Best to elect more convervatives to Congress (just look at what happened in PA) to reduce the influence of the RINOs and most importantly the Dems.

Which is why I'll support conservatives, but not one damn Republican.

As many has said: push for the best conservative candidates in the primary.

Yup.

In the general election, make sure you vote for a Rep.

Not a chance.

The court alone is too high a price to pay to teach the Reps a lession.

Not if the alternative is a terrible immigration bill. I'd rather have a crappy Supreme Court than a crappy immigration bill. We can survive a crappy SCOTUS. Conservatives have lived with a crappy SCOTUS for 30 years.

But a crappy immigration law could deal extraordinary damage to America and that's not worth keeping a fat Republican ass in a congressional seat.

THen you are not really serious about immigration. A scrappy SC can declare all your tough immigration laws unconstitutional and impose amnesty. Then what are you going to do?


You know what the Dems are going to do wrt immigration and you are willing to pay that price. Don't tell me that you are serious about immigration.

Right on Ed!... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Right on Ed!

The curr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:


The current legal hispanic population is relatively low enough that it couldn't possibly be described as "fast growing" without the presence of illegal aliens.

The Hispanic community is the largest minority group in America right now surpassing the black community already. The one thing that has helped keep the Dem in power for a long time is the monolothic support of the black community (>90%). THe Hispanic community is relatively still in play



And there are built-in limitations on doing that for those that choose to do so, and not every hispanic will choose that path.

With higher birth rate and the readily available family links for them to do that. Compared to other minority groups, their rate is higher. They have grown past the black community already. Some towns and even cities in Texas are more than 50% Hispanics already.



Excuse me but I did not get 75% of anything.

I didn't choose the GWOT. It's something that came about because of 9/11. And whether or not it's being prosecuted well is still frankly up for debate.

Tax cuts without corresponding decreases in spending is not a bonus.

And I'll remind you that without conservatives getting very angry we'd be dealing with Associate Justice Harriet Miers.

On the flip side:

$500 billion for Iraq
$1 trillion new entitlement for Medicare
$$$ in pork spent by Congress, approved by Bush
Arlen Specter
No Child Left Behind, but *without* vouchers
Nearly zero enforcement of the borders
Less than 5% of human smugglers prosecuted
Over 300,000 illegals let go due to a lack of detention space
$500 billion spent on illegal aliens since 2000

---------------------------------------------
What is the bill under a Democrat gov? Are you serious that the Dems will give you better in any of these? So you want Patrick Leahy instead of Arlen Specter? So you want both tax increase and even more spending under the Dems? THe Dems openly advocate open border and instant normalization. Now you want that?

Without going to Iraq, the cost of containment and protecting AMerica will go into the trillions. Remember one lone shooter can shut down the economy of the whole region. What is the cost of not going to Iraq (oil-for-food corruption to fill up Saddam 's coffer and all the cost to defend every mall in AMerica...).


Have you taken a look at that Senate bill? It *is* by the Democrats. Even if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they couldn't have put together a more Democrat immigration bill.

------------------------------------------------
Just look at DiFi amendment. It is far worse than the Senate bill now. The Dems would give instant amnesty if they can. AT least let 's be honest about it. The Dems are far worse.

Best to elect more convervatives to Congress (just look at what happened in PA) to reduce the influence of the RINOs and most importantly the Dems.

Which is why I'll support conservatives, but not one damn Republican.

As many has said: push for the best conservative candidates in the primary.

Yup.

In the general election, make sure you vote for a Rep.

Not a chance.

The court alone is too high a price to pay to teach the Reps a lession.

Not if the alternative is a terrible immigration bill. I'd rather have a crappy Supreme Court than a crappy immigration bill. We can survive a crappy SCOTUS. Conservatives have lived with a crappy SCOTUS for 30 years.

But a crappy immigration law could deal extraordinary damage to America and that's not worth keeping a fat Republican ass in a congressional seat.
-------------------------------------------------
THen you are not really serious about immigration. A scrappy SC can declare all your tough immigration laws unconstitutional and impose amnesty. Then what are you going to do?


You know what the Dems are going to do wrt immigration and you are willing to pay that price. Don't tell me that you are serious about immigration.

Hmmmm.The... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

The Hispanic community is the largest minority group in America right now surpassing the black community already.

But not anywhere close to the *conservative* community. Pissing off your supporters to woo a demographic that's actually smaller, is not a smart move.

The one thing that has helped keep the Dem in power for a long time is the monolothic support of the black community (>90%).

Funnily enough isn't this YOUR argument? That conservatives, regardless of the aggravations brought on by Republicans, MUST vote Republican?

Under your guidelines aren't conservatives just as captive to Republicans as blacks are to Democrats? How is it bad for blacks to be captive to unresponsive Democrats and yet it's a good thing for conservatives to be captive to unresponsive Republicans?

Better have a good answer for this one.

THe Hispanic community is relatively still in play

And it'll still be in play a decade from now because race based politics can be trumped by ideological politics.

With higher birth rate and the readily available family links for them to do that. Compared to other minority groups, their rate is higher. They have grown past the black community already. Some towns and even cities in Texas are more than 50% Hispanics already.

And like I said there are built-in limitations on this stuff.

What is the bill under a Democrat gov?

I'm pretty damn certain that if President Hillary proposed the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan we wouldn't be talking about the damn thing now. It would have been killed off.

So if a Democrat were President we'd be $1 trillion frigging dollars richer.

Are you serious that the Dems will give you better in any of these?

Are you seriously suggesting that a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House has spent less money than a Democrat would?

No offense but Bush and the GOP have spent more in 4 years than Clinton did in 8. And that's NOT including Iraq.

So you want Patrick Leahy instead of Arlen Specter?

I'd take the Cookie Monster over Arlen Specter.

So you want both tax increase and even more spending under the Dems?

Why not? I've got the spending already. The tax increases are bound to follow at some point.

THe Dems openly advocate open border and instant normalization. Now you want that?

WTF? Have you fucking read the Senate bill? The one produced by Republicans?

Without going to Iraq, the cost of containment and protecting AMerica will go into the trillions.

Well considering that no real effort has been made at protecting America. WTF? Is this your best argument?

Remember one lone shooter can shut down the economy of the whole region.

Then you'll want to explain the logic behind Bush's lack of border enforcement. Provide plenty of detail.

What is the cost of not going to Iraq (oil-for-food corruption to fill up Saddam 's coffer and all the cost to defend every mall in AMerica...).

I don't oppose going to Iraq, obviously you missed that. What I oppose is spending $500 billion dollars doing so. I don't expect fighting wars on the cheap. But a huge amount of money has been wasted in Iraq because idiots were assigned to high positions, duplicated efforts and dead-end projects.

Just look at DiFi amendment. It is far worse than the Senate bill now. The Dems would give instant amnesty if they can. AT least let 's be honest about it. The Dems are far worse.

And President Bush would do the exact same thing if he thought he could get away with it.

Why don't you explain the lack of enforcement? He doesn't need Congress to give him permission, it's already in the law books. Explain why less than 5% of the coyotes have been prosecuted? Wouldn't prosecution of the coyotes, the human smugglers, make a huge dent in the invasion?

Why don't you spend some time explaining all of this instead of the pom-pom cheerleader routine.

THen you are not really serious about immigration. A scrappy SC can declare all your tough immigration laws unconstitutional and impose amnesty. Then what are you going to do?

I am very serious about illegal immigration. What I don't see is that the GOP is serious about any damn thing under the sun except for spending any amount to grease their fat asses.

You know what the Dems are going to do wrt immigration and you are willing to pay that price. Don't tell me that you are serious about immigration.

I know what the REPUBLICANS are trying to do with illegal immigration. As it is I'm more worried about Republicans than Democrats on this issue.

Frankly you've offer absolutely jack-shit. You've done nothing but repeat that nonsense mantra of 2004 "don't let the Democats win because they'll fuck things up".

Perhaps that was good enough for 2004. It is damn well not good enough for 2006. And I'm pretty certain it'll fall very short for 2008. If the best argument Republicans have for re-election is "the Democrats MAY be worse", then that's absolute garbage.

Welcome to the private sector.

But not anywhere close ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But not anywhere close to the *conservative* community. Pissing off your supporters to woo a demographic that's actually smaller, is not a smart move.
What happened in CA? I still wonder about that. Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986. Wilson was able to win in the 1990's. So what happened to the Rep since then? So Dem domination like CA is what you want?



Funnily enough isn't this YOUR argument? That conservatives, regardless of the aggravations brought on by Republicans, MUST vote Republican?

Blacks voted for Dem based on emotion, not the facts on the ground. Your vote against the Reps and effectively for the Dems is based on emotion as well. The Dems give you none of what you want. At least you get 75% of what you want with Bush and Rep: tax cuts, GWOT, and the court. A rational person would not trade 75% for 0%.


Under your guidelines aren't conservatives just as captive to Republicans as blacks are to Democrats? How is it bad for blacks to be captive to unresponsive Democrats and yet it's a good thing for conservatives to be captive to unresponsive Republicans?

Better have a good answer for this one.

If you are a real conservative, you will get 0% of what you want with the Dems. With the Reps, you get at least 50%. Make your rational choice instead of emotion.


THe Hispanic community is relatively still in play

And it'll still be in play a decade from now because race based politics can be trumped by ideological politics.

So what happened in CA? If you are willing to give the store away to the Dems, sth like CA will happen.


With higher birth rate and the readily available family links for them to do that. Compared to other minority groups, their rate is higher. They have grown past the black community already. Some towns and even cities in Texas are more than 50% Hispanics already.

And like I said there are built-in limitations on this stuff.

Built-in limitation or not, the fact that the Hispanic community is the fastest growing community in the US. That 's the fact. You can be tough on immigration while be smart about reaching them. Some of the rhetorics are at least undesirable.


What is the bill under a Democrat gov?

I'm pretty damn certain that if President Hillary proposed the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan we wouldn't be talking about the damn thing now. It would have been killed off.

So if a Democrat were President we'd be $1 trillion frigging dollars richer.

Are you serious that the Dems will give you better in any of these?

Are you seriously suggesting that a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House has spent less money than a Democrat would?

No offense but Bush and the GOP have spent more in 4 years than Clinton did in 8. And that's NOT including Iraq.

So you want Patrick Leahy instead of Arlen Specter?

I'd take the Cookie Monster over Arlen Specter.

If you are that irrational, then nothing will matter.


So you want both tax increase and even more spending under the Dems?
Why not? I've got the spending already. The tax increases are bound to follow at some point.

--------------------
Is this your logic: since I lost one arm, I might as well lose the other. We are going to die in any case, why don't we kill ourselves now?


THe Dems openly advocate open border and instant normalization. Now you want that?
WTF? Have you fucking read the Senate bill? The one produced by Republicans?

Has you read DiFi 's amendment? You don't think it is far worse?


Without going to Iraq, the cost of containment and protecting AMerica will go into the trillions.
Well considering that no real effort has been made at protecting America. WTF? Is this your best argument?

America hasn't been attacked since 9/11, this is a fact. We went to Iraq and put the terrorists on the run and busy over there. That 's the only viable long term solution to the ME. There is a significant cost of not going to Iraq, far exceeding the cost of the war. Please explain away that cost.


Remember one lone shooter can shut down the economy of the whole region.

Then you'll want to explain the logic behind Bush's lack of border enforcement. Provide plenty of detail.

You have more border security including 376 miles of the fence now. That 's much better than the Dem position of no fence and immediate amnesty.


What is the cost of not going to Iraq (oil-for-food corruption to fill up Saddam 's coffer and all the cost to defend every mall in AMerica...).

I don't oppose going to Iraq, obviously you missed that. What I oppose is spending $500 billion dollars doing so. I don't expect fighting wars on the cheap. But a huge amount of money has been wasted in Iraq because idiots were assigned to high positions, duplicated efforts and dead-end projects.

As explained above, the cost of not going to Iraq is in the trillions. The cost of containment itself (no-flyzone etc...) is between 200B-600B aone. Not counting the oil-for-food and the extra-cost of PERFECT protection at home.



Just look at DiFi amendment. It is far worse than the Senate bill now. The Dems would give instant amnesty if they can. AT least let 's be honest about it. The Dems are far worse.

And President Bush would do the exact same thing if he thought he could get away with it.

Just be honest and look at the facts. His proposal is far better than DiFi. At least as conservatives, we should be honest with the facts.


Why don't you explain the lack of enforcement? He doesn't need Congress to give him permission, it's already in the law books. Explain why less than 5% of the coyotes have been prosecuted? Wouldn't prosecution of the coyotes, the human smugglers, make a huge dent in the invasion?

Why don't you spend some time explaining all of this instead of the pom-pom cheerleader routine.

THen you are not really serious about immigration. A scrappy SC can declare all your tough immigration laws unconstitutional and impose amnesty. Then what are you going to do?

I am very serious about illegal immigration. What I don't see is that the GOP is serious about any damn thing under the sun except for spending any amount to grease their fat asses.

-----------------------------------------
I will get far more enforcement with the Rep than with the Dems. That 's another fact. If you care about immigration, you absolutely have to keep the Dems out of power. If you get more Ginsburgh on SC, they will impose foreign laws on you.



You know what the Dems are going to do wrt immigration and you are willing to pay that price. Don't tell me that you are serious about immigration.

I know what the REPUBLICANS are trying to do with illegal immigration. As it is I'm more worried about Republicans than Democrats on this issue.

Frankly you've offer absolutely jack-shit. You've done nothing but repeat that nonsense mantra of 2004 "don't let the Democats win because they'll fuck things up".

Just look at the facts: you want more Ginsburg and Breyer on the SC? The Dems are openly for open border and instant amnesty. Spitzer threatened employers in NY with sanctions if they dare to fire employees taking off from work to attend the May 1st rally. The Dems are openly advocating the very opposite of what you want. They are not even hiding it.

ANchoress has a good point: you get 0% of what you want with the Dems. Bush gave you tax cuts, GWOT, and the court. YOu would get none of those with the DEms. THat 's a fact.

John Hawkins at RWN is a vo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

John Hawkins at RWN is a vocal critic of Bush, but he is rational.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15096

That doesn't mean that we conservatives should engage in a bunch of fake "rah-rah" or refuse to criticize Republicans if they deserve it, but it does mean that when November rolls around, conservatives should show up at the ballot box and pull the lever for the GOP.

Hmmmm.Wha... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

What happened in CA? I still wonder about that. Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986. Wilson was able to win in the 1990's. So what happened to the Rep since then? So Dem domination like CA is what you want?

I keep seeing that as justification, but I'm not seeing any evidence.

Why don't you provide *evidence* that a major shift in hispanic votes was responsible for Democrats taking control. Prove it. Because a similar argument could be made that the Republican candidates available all sucked.

Blacks voted for Dem based on emotion, not the facts on the ground. Your vote against the Reps and effectively for the Dems is based on emotion as well. The Dems give you none of what you want. At least you get 75% of what you want with Bush and Rep: tax cuts, GWOT, and the court. A rational person would not trade 75% for 0%.

That's a pretty pathetic dodge. That's nothing close to an answer. You want me to expound at length and then you respond with this claptrap?

There is no emotion in my responses. They're all based precisely on the facts.

And like I pointed out previously, had you actually read what I wrote, I didn't get "75%" of anything. And what little I, as a fiscal conservative, got was vastly outweighed by the crap the GOP actually did and failed to do.

So why don't you actually answer the question I posed instead of dodging.

If you are a real conservative, you will get 0% of what you want with the Dems. With the Reps, you get at least 50%. Make your rational choice instead of emotion.

Again this idiot charge of "emotion" is nothing more than a canard designed to denigrate my concerns. No emotion is involved, only facts. Frankly what emotion there is, is in your responses since you've got bupkis.

And again a Democrat couldn't have pushed this amount of garbage that Bush has. Right now a split Congress is looking extremely good. And I'm more than willing to hand the Senate to the Democrats if that'll result in a chastened GOP.

So what happened in CA? If you are willing to give the store away to the Dems, sth like CA will happen.

Since you're relying on California so much, why don't you actually prove your case.

Built-in limitation or not, the fact that the Hispanic community is the fastest growing community in the US. That 's the fact. You can be tough on immigration while be smart about reaching them. Some of the rhetorics are at least undesirable.

And LIKE I POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY it is the fasted growing largely because of illegal immigration.

Got that? Do I have to fucking repeat myself yet again?

Are you serious that the Dems will give you better in any of these?

I'm pretty damn certain a Republican controlled House would have killed that measure if pushed by a Democrat.

As for the rest. Would a Democrat give me fucking worse? That is a question isn't it? And a bar that's extemely difficult to meet considering the vast amount of money being spent by Republicans.

If you are that irrational, then nothing will matter.

Again you fail to actually meet the requirements of debate.

If this is all you've got, then you've got jackshit.

Is this your logic: since I lost one arm, I might as well lose the other. We are going to die in any case, why don't we kill ourselves now?

Completely wrong so stop trying to shove your words into my mouth.

My point is that the Republicans are already doing many of the same things that the Democrats would've anyways. Except for the occasional bone thrown to conservatives. Evidently, according to you, all Republicans have to do is confirm the occasional conservative to the judiciary and all is well.

No wonder they've dragged their feet on judicial nominations. They're saving them for when they need to throw another bone.

Has you read DiFi 's amendment? You don't think it is far worse?

I think the crap being pushed by Republicans is bad enough. I think DiFi's amendment isn't going to make things any worse because the actual wording of the fucking senate bill is crappy enough.

Don't you get it? There are no limits in that bill. What limits there are, are just an illusion.

Just like 1986.

America hasn't been attacked since 9/11, this is a fact.

Correct. So far. But the most basic element of providing national security is securing the borders. Frankly if there is a terrorist attack in America by an illegal alien, then I would fully support impeachment proceedings against Bush.

We went to Iraq and put the terrorists on the run and busy over there. That 's the only viable long term solution to the ME. There is a significant cost of not going to Iraq, far exceeding the cost of the war. Please explain away that cost.

Oh yeah? Prove it.

We all hope there's a positive side to Iraq, but that's all guesswork. There's nothing actually known about any of that. And guessing as a foreign policy is not all that impressive.

As for putting terrorists on the run. Have you actually looked at the data on terrorists in Iraq? They're largely from ME countries. We haven't made ourselves more secure. We've made Saudi Arabia more secure. I'm not certain that this is worth our current casualty list.

So before you start trumpeting Iraq as a success, I'd suggest you actually wait for it to be a success.

You have more border security including 376 miles of the fence now. That 's much better than the Dem position of no fence and immediate amnesty.

The border with Mexico is 2,000 fucking miles long and you're boasting about securing less than 400 miles?

I'd suggest you look at a fucking map.

As explained above, the cost of not going to Iraq is in the trillions. The cost of containment itself (no-flyzone etc...) is between 200B-600B aone. Not counting the oil-for-food and the extra-cost of PERFECT protection at home.

Oh yeah? You made this assertion. You PROVE it.

As explained above, the cost of not going to Iraq is in the trillions. The cost of containment itself (no-flyzone etc...) is between 200B-600B aone. Not counting the oil-for-food and the extra-cost of PERFECT protection at home.

His proposal is a fucking LIE.

Why do you think I pointed out repeatedly his failure to prosecute? His failure to arrest? His failure to protect the borders?

It doesn't matter one whit what laws are passed if they aren't enforced. And Bush will not enforce them. Past history, solid history that cannot be refuted, shows this.

A proposal based on a lie is worthless.

THen you are not really serious about immigration. A scrappy SC can declare all your tough immigration laws unconstitutional and impose amnesty. Then what are you going to do?

Utter bullshit.

I will get far more enforcement with the Rep than with the Dems. That 's another fact. If you care about immigration, you absolutely have to keep the Dems out of power. If you get more Ginsburgh on SC, they will impose foreign laws on you.

Republicans were the ones responsible for the amnesty in 1986.

Republicans have been responsible for border control since 2000

Republicans were responsible for securing the borders after 9/11

And not one damn thing was done. As I pointed out again and again and again and again.

Just look at the facts: you want more Ginsburg and Breyer on the SC?

If it means finally securing the borders then I'm willing to exchange 2 liberal Justices for 2 liberal Justices. Why? Because that's neither a loss nor is it a gain. Just a continuation of the status quo. So it's not that big a deal.

Do I want to? No.

Is the Republican party forcing me to? YES.

The Dems are openly for open border and instant amnesty.

And what the fuck is the difference?

DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT YET?

I've been pointing this out endlessly but you simply aren't willing to get it. There IS NO DIFFERENCE between the Democrat plan and the Republican Senate plan. They are one and the same.

What "limits" there are in the Republican plan are worthless because of the enormous loopholes put in.

With less than 400 miles of fencing, how isn't that an open border?

With the Border Patrol not enforcing the law, how is that not an open border?

With the REPUBLICAN senate bill requiring all domestic law enforcement to NOT enforce immigration laws, how is that not an open border?

With the documentary requirement for amnesty limited to testimony by a FRIEND, how is that not instant citizenship?

GOT THAT? THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Spitzer threatened employers in NY with sanctions if they dare to fire employees taking off from work to attend the May 1st rally. The Dems are openly advocating the very opposite of what you want. They are not even hiding it.

And the Republicans are directly legislating what the Democrats are openly advocating.

No fucking difference. Got that?

ANchoress has a good point: you get 0% of what you want with the Dems. Bush gave you tax cuts, GWOT, and the court. YOu would get none of those with the DEms. THat 's a fact.

And, yet fucking again, I didn't get any of that shit.

Tax cuts without corresponding decreases in spending are worthless.

GWOT. What the fuck is that? Is that the TSA making people take off their shoes? Is that the GWOT? Because without controlling the borders this isn't any damn Global War on Terror?

It's a Global War on Terror Except For The Mexican Border.

It's not a GWOT. It's a GWOTEFTM.

And am I supposed to swoon because Bush appointed two constitutionalist to the SCOTUS? Hey. Why don't you count the number of LIBERALS currently on the SCOTUS that were appointed by Republicans.

Frankly your arguments always boil down to "vote Republican because then you can pray and hope you won't get an ass-fucking like you might from the Democrats".

Unimpressive. You think this will get the GOP anything in November? Good luck.

Hmmm.And just for ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

And just for the record: You want to use California as an example, then you prove it.

-------------------------<b... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

-------------------------
I keep seeing that as justification, but I'm not seeing any evidence.
Why don't you provide *evidence* that a major shift in hispanic votes was responsible for Democrats taking control. Prove it. Because a similar argument could be made that the Republican candidates available all sucked.
--------------------------
The fact remains that you don't get what you want with the Dem in control in CA! Arnold is a RINO, but at least you get tax cuts. Wilson was no conservative, but at least he was much better than the Dem alternative. If you know about the situaltion in CA, please help me understand it better

Blacks voted for Dem based on emotion, not the facts on the ground. Your vote against the Reps and effectively for the Dems is based on emotion as well. The Dems give you none of what you want. At least you get 75% of what you want with Bush and Rep: tax cuts, GWOT, and the court. A rational person would not trade 75% for 0%.

That's a pretty pathetic dodge. That's nothing close to an answer. You want me to expound at length and then you respond with this claptrap?

There is no emotion in my responses. They're all based precisely on the facts.

And like I pointed out previously, had you actually read what I wrote, I didn't get "75%" of anything. And what little I, as a fiscal conservative, got was vastly outweighed by the crap the GOP actually did and failed to do.

You got tax cuts (which kept the economy growing under the threat of terrorism and the cost of the war). It is definitely better with spending cuts, but it is still much better than tax increases. It is another fact.

So why don't you actually answer the question I posed instead of dodging.

If you are a real conservative, you will get 0% of what you want with the Dems. With the Reps, you get at least 50%. Make your rational choice instead of emotion.

Again this idiot charge of "emotion" is nothing more than a canard designed to denigrate my concerns. No emotion is involved, only facts. Frankly what emotion there is, is in your responses since you've got bupkis.

And again a Democrat couldn't have pushed this amount of garbage that Bush has. Right now a split Congress is looking extremely good. And I'm more than willing to hand the Senate to the Democrats if that'll result in a chastened GOP.
Basically you are willing to have the CA situation in the long term if it comes to that. In other words, you are willing to get none of what you want in immigration just to teach the Reps a lession. John Hawkins is more rational than that. You can read his whole article. You cannot say that he is a Bush boot-licker

So what happened in CA? If you are willing to give the store away to the Dems, sth like CA will happen.

Since you're relying on California so much, why don't you actually prove your case.

Just look at Mike Pence proposal. He adopted basically the House bill without the 2 measures: (1) make it a felony, (2) threat to punish Catholic charities helping illegals. You don't need to push the Hispanic community into the arms of the Dems.

Built-in limitation or not, the fact that the Hispanic community is the fastest growing community in the US. That 's the fact. You can be tough on immigration while be smart about reaching them. Some of the rhetorics are at least undesirable.

And LIKE I POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY it is the fasted growing largely because of illegal immigration.

Got that? Do I have to fucking repeat myself yet again?
Illegal Hispanics are not allowed to vote. The legal Hispanic community has surpassed the black community as the largest minority group at 20% (nothing to sneeze at)

Are you serious that the Dems will give you better in any of these?

I'm pretty damn certain a Republican controlled House would have killed that measure if pushed by a Democrat.

They still can when it goes to conference. The Dem control gave you Ginsburg and Breyers. That is another fact. The House is giving you what you want and you are willing to let the Dem control the House? How is that rational?

As for the rest. Would a Democrat give me fucking worse? That is a question isn't it? And a bar that's extemely difficult to meet considering the vast amount of money being spent by Republicans.

If you are that irrational, then nothing will matter.

Again you fail to actually meet the requirements of debate.

If this is all you've got, then you've got jackshit.

Is this your logic: since I lost one arm, I might as well lose the other. We are going to die in any case, why don't we kill ourselves now?

Completely wrong so stop trying to shove your words into my mouth.

My point is that the Republicans are already doing many of the same things that the Democrats would've anyways. Except for the occasional bone thrown to conservatives. Evidently, according to you, all Republicans have to do is confirm the occasional conservative to the judiciary and all is well.

No wonder they've dragged their feet on judicial nominations. They're saving them for when they need to throw another bone.

Has you read DiFi 's amendment? You don't think it is far worse?

I think the crap being pushed by Republicans is bad enough. I think DiFi's amendment isn't going to make things any worse because the actual wording of the fucking senate bill is crappy enough.

Don't you get it? There are no limits in that bill. What limits there are, are just an illusion.

Just like 1986.

America hasn't been attacked since 9/11, this is a fact.

Correct. So far. But the most basic element of providing national security is securing the borders. Frankly if there is a terrorist attack in America by an illegal alien, then I would fully support impeachment proceedings against Bush.

We went to Iraq and put the terrorists on the run and busy over there. That 's the only viable long term solution to the ME. There is a significant cost of not going to Iraq, far exceeding the cost of the war. Please explain away that cost.

Oh yeah? Prove it.
The containment cost alone to continue the no-flyzone (200B-600B over 3 years); the cost of oil-for-food corruption; the cost of protecting the US against terrorism will run into trillion dollars (one lone shooter can shut down the economy of Northern Virginia. Imagine the terrorist blowing malls). THe fact that we still cannot close our border right now and if you don't take the fight to the terrorist, can you expect to defend the US perfectly? What is that cost, if not trillions of dollars. The conservative estimate already exceeds the cost of the Iraq war itself.

We all hope there's a positive side to Iraq, but that's all guesswork. There's nothing actually known about any of that. And guessing as a foreign policy is not all that impressive.

As for putting terrorists on the run. Have you actually looked at the data on terrorists in Iraq? They're largely from ME countries. We haven't made ourselves more secure. We've made Saudi Arabia more secure. I'm not certain that this is worth our current casualty list.

So before you start trumpeting Iraq as a success, I'd suggest you actually wait for it to be a success.

You have more border security including 376 miles of the fence now. That 's much better than the Dem position of no fence and immediate amnesty.

The border with Mexico is 2,000 fucking miles long and you're boasting about securing less than 400 miles?

I'd suggest you look at a fucking map.

As explained above, the cost of not going to Iraq is in the trillions. The cost of containment itself (no-flyzone etc...) is between 200B-600B aone. Not counting the oil-for-food and the extra-cost of PERFECT protection at home.

Oh yeah? You made this assertion. You PROVE it.

As explained above, the cost of not going to Iraq is in the trillions. The cost of containment itself (no-flyzone etc...) is between 200B-600B aone. Not counting the oil-for-food and the extra-cost of PERFECT protection at home.

His proposal is a fucking LIE.

Why do you think I pointed out repeatedly his failure to prosecute? His failure to arrest? His failure to protect the borders?

It doesn't matter one whit what laws are passed if they aren't enforced. And Bush will not enforce them. Past history, solid history that cannot be refuted, shows this.

A proposal based on a lie is worthless.

THen you are not really serious about immigration. A scrappy SC can declare all your tough immigration laws unconstitutional and impose amnesty. Then what are you going to do?

Utter bullshit.

I will get far more enforcement with the Rep than with the Dems. That 's another fact. If you care about immigration, you absolutely have to keep the Dems out of power. If you get more Ginsburgh on SC, they will impose foreign laws on you.

Republicans were the ones responsible for the amnesty in 1986.

Republicans have been responsible for border control since 2000

Republicans were responsible for securing the borders after 9/11

And not one damn thing was done. As I pointed out again and again and again and again.

Just look at the facts: you want more Ginsburg and Breyer on the SC?

If it means finally securing the borders then I'm willing to exchange 2 liberal Justices for 2 liberal Justices. Why? Because that's neither a loss nor is it a gain. Just a continuation of the status quo. So it's not that big a deal.

Do I want to? No.

Is the Republican party forcing me to? YES.

The Dems are openly for open border and instant amnesty.

And what the fuck is the difference?

DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT YET?

I've been pointing this out endlessly but you simply aren't willing to get it. There IS NO DIFFERENCE between the Democrat plan and the Republican Senate plan. They are one and the same.

What "limits" there are in the Republican plan are worthless because of the enormous loopholes put in.

With less than 400 miles of fencing, how isn't that an open border?

With the Border Patrol not enforcing the law, how is that not an open border?

With the REPUBLICAN senate bill requiring all domestic law enforcement to NOT enforce immigration laws, how is that not an open border?

With the documentary requirement for amnesty limited to testimony by a FRIEND, how is that not instant citizenship?

GOT THAT? THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Spitzer threatened employers in NY with sanctions if they dare to fire employees taking off from work to attend the May 1st rally. The Dems are openly advocating the very opposite of what you want. They are not even hiding it.

And the Republicans are directly legislating what the Democrats are openly advocating.

No fucking difference. Got that?

ANchoress has a good point: you get 0% of what you want with the Dems. Bush gave you tax cuts, GWOT, and the court. YOu would get none of those with the DEms. THat 's a fact.

And, yet fucking again, I didn't get any of that shit.

Tax cuts without corresponding decreases in spending are worthless.

GWOT. What the fuck is that? Is that the TSA making people take off their shoes? Is that the GWOT? Because without controlling the borders this isn't any damn Global War on Terror?

It's a Global War on Terror Except For The Mexican Border.

It's not a GWOT. It's a GWOTEFTM.

And am I supposed to swoon because Bush appointed two constitutionalist to the SCOTUS? Hey. Why don't you count the number of LIBERALS currently on the SCOTUS that were appointed by Republicans.

Frankly your arguments always boil down to "vote Republican because then you can pray and hope you won't get an ass-fucking like you might from the Democrats".

Unimpressive. You think this will get the GOP anything in November? Good luck.

The facts remain: DiFi amendment is far worse. With the GOP, you got: tax cuts (unless you would rather have recession than growth), GWOT (even AlQ admitted that they are losing in Iraq!), and the courts (SC and appellate judges). The court is one of the most important inst even for immigration. If you are serious about immigration, you wouldn't throw the Senate margin away for the court.

Let me explain to you again: if a lousy SC rules that the House immigration bill is unconstitutional and impose amnesty as the law of the land, then what would you do? They did it with abortion and eminent domain.

Here is the simple fact aga... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Here is the simple fact again: the GOP majority is far better than the Dem majority; the conservative majority is even better, but we don't have it yet. At best we have 40% self-identified conservatives in the country right now.

You get what you can now and continue to work to change it over time. Just look at the vocal critics of the Senate immigration bill like Rush Limbaugh and John Hawkins. They don't advocate giving Dem control of either house of Congress. These people are rational and want to retain the conservative gains we have so far.

Here is the bottom line aga... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Here is the bottom line again
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_05_21.PHP#005773

"Is the satisfaction of, "teaching the Republicans a lesson," worth the price? Think back to the Clinton years: conservatives certainly stuck it to Old "Read My Lips," but the price turned out to be eight years of, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." In my book, that wasn't such a great trade-off and keep in mind, when you're talking about Congressmen and Senators, it could be worse. Incumbent politicians are tougher to get rid of than a cockroach infestation and 40 years from now, do you really want to be sitting around, remembering how you stayed home and helped the next Robert Byrd get into office?"

I should vote for my congre... (Below threshold)
dave:

I should vote for my congressman because he's GOP?
he represents armenia first, mexico second, the USA
never. He promised 3 terms and is running for the 5th. I'm voting for the dem.
i haven't seen so much blindness since all the dems had to defend clinton.
there is no reason to support crooks or liars or immorality.

Hmmmm.Her... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Here is the simple fact again: the GOP majority is far better than the Dem majority; the conservative majority is even better, but we don't have it yet. At best we have 40% self-identified conservatives in the country right now.

If this is the best you've got, then you've got nothing. I've pointed out endless issues that you simply ignore. The simple fact that actual enforcement is reliant upon the President makes any such illegal immigration bill a complete non-starter.

I'll support and vote for conservatives, regardless of party. But blindly support the GOP? Never. And if the Republican party passes this monstrosity of an amnesty then it'll be the second time in twenty years that the Republicans are guilty of such. And when we're addressing the issue of 50 million illegals in twenty more years then you'll evidently be right there proclaiming that once again we should all bow down and do the GOP's bidding.

Just because.

BTW the containment cost for the No Fly Zone was NOT $600 billion over 3 years. Do you know what forces were involved in that effort? What a ridiculous number.

there is no reason to suppo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

there is no reason to support crooks or liars or immorality.
-------------------------------------------------
When you are supporting the Dems, you are doing exactly that.


I'll support and vote for conservatives, regardless of party. But blindly support the GOP? Never. And if the Republican party passes this monstrosity of an amnesty then it'll be the second time in twenty years that the Republicans are guilty of such. And when we're addressing the issue of 50 million illegals in twenty more years then you'll evidently be right there proclaiming that once again we should all bow down and do the GOP's bidding.
-------------------------------------------------
The Dems are the anti-conservatives. No conservatives would allow them the levers of powers at this point. I would vote for a better conservative alternative any time. But the Dems are not that. Rational conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or John Hwkins know that


BTW the containment cost for the No Fly Zone was NOT $600 billion over 3 years. Do you know what forces were involved in that effort? What a ridiculous number.
-------------------------------------------------
The estimate is 200B-600B. You still sidestep the issue that the cost of not going to Iraq is far higher than the cost of going to Iraq. I know this is standard debating tactics. But I thought we conservatives are better than that (eg. we do care about facts etc...)

HmmmmThe ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm

The Dems are the anti-conservatives. No conservatives would allow them the levers of powers at this point. I would vote for a better conservative alternative any time. But the Dems are not that. Rational conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or John Hwkins know that

And I'll point out that *rational* conservatives have gotten us here. 20 years later and 20 million illegals.

The estimate is 200B-600B. You still sidestep the issue that the cost of not going to Iraq is far higher than the cost of going to Iraq. I know this is standard debating tactics. But I thought we conservatives are better than that (eg. we do care about facts etc...)

The estimate is not "200B-600B". That is utter bullshit.

You do realise that the entire DOD budget during those years wasn't all that much over $200 billion a year? What you're suggesting, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, is that the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq, something that involved about 100 aircraft at any one time, cost almost as much as the entire DOD annual budget. Each and every year. What utter tripe.

And, as I've pointed out endlessly before, I have no objection to OIF. What I object to is the massive lack of efficiency in this operation.

And like usual you simply didn't bother to read what I wrote.

Here's some links for you:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZlZDA3ZTNiM2UwMmQ2NGIwNDIwMWM1OWJiOWQwYjM=

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15145

http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=5073&Month=5&Year=2006

The senate bill is completely unsupportable and if the GOP thinks they can pass this crap and not pay the price in November, then we'll have to see what happens then.

And I'll point out that ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And I'll point out that *rational* conservatives have gotten us here. 20 years later and 20 million illegals.
Most rational conservatives would agree that Rush Limbaugh has made at least a very significant contribution to the conservative movement in the last 20 years. He has not advocated abandoning the Rep party and effectively give the Dem more power. He is frustrated with the immigration issue as much as you do, but he is more rational in my opinion. The same with Reagan. He didn't quit the party when he didn't get his way. He didn't go a 3rd party route. He worked harder to change the Rep party to a more conservative philosophy. Look at what REAL conservatives accomplished in PA just recently for example.


The estimate is not "200B-600B". That is utter bullshit.
Here is a link for you:
http://www.saljournal.com/blogs/?p=653
Under these assumptions, they "estimate that the expected cost of containment would have been around $400 billion, only a little less than the $410 billion that they now expect the war to cost," according to The Economist.

Whatever the cost of the Iraq war, the cost of containment is about the same. Then the other cost of playing defensive against the terrorists easily dwarf the cost of the war itself.

The senate bill is complete... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The senate bill is completely unsupportable and if the GOP thinks they can pass this crap and not pay the price in November, then we'll have to see what happens then.
--------------------------------------------------
The house still holds strong and we still have the conference to go. Even then, just look at what Hastert has just done about the FBI raid. He made me pull my hair out. Yet would I want to lose the house to the Dem. No way.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy