|
|
June 6, 2007Part II: Bush Betrayal & the Nation’s SoulThis very long post disappeared on me twice while I wrote it, causing me to re-write it, twice. Untold grief. If it reads a trifle rough, please excuse that. And damn all computers. This is long, but I hope worth reading: In Part I of what it appears will be a three-part carry-on, I wrote:
Big Lizards, along a similar vein wrote:
Sufferers of Bush Betrayal Syndrome are easy to spot – they are the ones who continually repeat, “Bush Betrayed Us. I Feel So Betrayed! He Betrayed Us!” I’m one of the few lucky ones, I suppose, because I have never felt betrayed by Bush. He is, still, the same guy he was when I voted for him. You knew, by the way, that George W. Bush favored eventual naturalization for illegal immigrants. He said it when he was Governor of Texas. He said it when you elected him in 2000, and again when you voted him in again in 2004. Then, in 2005, you said, “fix the long-standing immigration problem and fix it immediately, perfectly and exactly as we tell you to.” (C’mon, you know that’s what you said!) And when Bush responded, “but I’ve been really thinking about this issue since ‘way before I was president – even back when you weren’t thinking about it – and I disagree with your solution and here is why,” and you cried “betrayal.” But the thing is, you’ve been crying “betrayal” since he nominated Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS. Big Lizard is quite correct in that there seems to be, almost, an impulse to look for betrayal, even when none is there. For a while now, and really, since shortly after the 2004 election, I have gotten emails from folks who say, “Bush forgot that you have to dance with the one that brung you.” They’ve been sending me that message for so long, on so many different issues, that I suspect Bush feels a little like a girl who is invited to a fancy ball - and proves to be excellent company for most of the night, despite being hated by many of the guests – but manages to fall out of step, at which point she is abandoned on the dance floor and told to find her own way home. Falling out of step is not betrayal. It’s uncomfortable dancing, but it is not betrayal. Betrayal is such a strong word; did he betray you, really? Did he protect us from the reach & province of the International Criminal Court? Yes. Has he really been your Judas? Has he really betrayed you? Did he ever question your patriotism, or tell you you were a bad person? No, actually, he didn’t. Go read his remarks in context, instead of looking at one sentence blared at you by the very media you distrust. Be intellectually honest enough to admit that in this immigration controversy there are (sadly) some who are using fear to move their agenda, and there are some (only some, but they hurt us all) who reveal bigotry in their rants. You needn’t be offended if you can remember that there are those “somes” in every group; conservatives have no corner of perfection. You actually do have a choice as to how you receive what you hear, see and read, just as you have a choice as to how you receive a good, that is, with “open” or “closed” heart. And ask yourself : is it reasonable to worry about the soul of a nation while contemplating big questions of life/liberty/enforcement issues for human beings, including children, and when you’re discussing ideas like “raids” and “surveillance” (that will affect not just “illegals” and their employers, but average people who are just passing by) and when deciding just how broad or harsh measures should or can be when dealing with a problem of huge scope and size? I think it is reasonable, when contemplating this huge issue, to worry about the soul of a nation, and about how to protect that soul from the crippling effect of callous, emotional and reactive righteousness that stops seeing (and respecting) the God-begotten humanity of others. Once you allow that thoughtless oversight and absolutism to enter the heart of a nation, the soul of a nation…you may damage that nation irreparably. And perhaps we have done that on some issues, already, in our past, because we were not thinking of the nation’s “soul.” But this president does think of it. Hate him or love him for it, but for goodness sake, don’t be insulted by it. It’s no betrayal. The Pharisees came to be thought of negatively not because they were “bad people” but because they were inflexible as to the application of law – they refused to see individual cases for what they were. In America, our laws are purposely flexible, meant to suit a situation, whereby one murder is murder, and one is self-defense. One car accident is an accident and one is reckless homicide. In America “enforce the existing laws” is much more complicated than it sounds…and if it were not, well…then our national soul would already be lost. Perhaps it is time to stop eating our own, and to stop whimpering “betrayal” at a man with whom you are merely having a strong disagreement. The Democrats don’t have to destroy the right; it seems willing to commit suicide. It must be that “win by losing” mentality I can never quite wrap my head around. Will any of this help assuage your feelings of betrayal and help you move beyond the emotionalism that has infected this issue? I have no idea. I hope so. See Sister Toldjah’s righteous rant. Damn, I’ve never seen her so fired up!, and yet still admirably even-handed! Jeanette reads through and AP report on the sausage-making aspect of writing this bill and has some sensible thoughts. Siggy says we’ve screwed ourselves.
He’s for crafting new policy - in a very smart post. BigLizard wonders if surprising lines are being crossed by surprising people in an effort to “win” for their “side.” Oh, boy. AJ Strata says This is the end of the conservative run. I don’t know about that…but it’s certainly time to think and pray. Bruce Kesler says this bill is salvagable if the legislators want to get serious. This is a surprise: John Derbyshire was an “illegal alien”. One sees how easily folks who come on temporary visas end up staying, while not necessarily being “bad” people or meaning harm to America. Part III later…but here is a sort of Part II-A. If you have not read yet Part I, please be sure to check into the comments section, which has folks on both sides of the issue having real, mature, sane dialogue about ideas, solutions, possible problems and solutions. I have the best readers on the internet, and they’re doing us all proud. They’re using…a LOT of bandwidth…but doing us proud. Also please check out some of the trackbacks…other bloggers writing in agreement or disagreement about these posts. I wish that those who disagree did not feel that I’ve “attacked” them - I’m “attacking” no one and working very hard to keep these posts and comments as respectful as possible (on all sides) - but if they want to feel “attacked,” I can’t do much about how they feel. As I said in the post, we all choose how we receive what we see, hear and read. I don’t do intra-blog dialogue (not even when other blogs agree with me) - never have and am not about to start - but all should certainly be heard. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/06/06/part-ii-bush-betrayal-the-nations-soul/trackback/ 86 Responses to “Part II: Bush Betrayal & the Nation’s Soul” |
June 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
[...] Part II: Bush Betrayal & the Nation’s Soul [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
[...] Anchoress has a second post, Bush Betrayal & The Nation’s Soul, a must read. We will offer further comment on that excellent effort, [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Bush Betrayal Syndrome…
There is a new sickness in the political realm and The Anchoress has got the scoop. We all know that those on the left have BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and spout out such idiotic statements such as Bush is Hitler,…
June 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I totally agree with you. You have always been a light of sanity in an insane political realm. I do not agree with everything that Bush has done, and I don’t even think he is areal Conservative, but it is who we elected freely and we supported in 200 and 2004. He was the better in both elections. We knew of his flaws and is thoughts on Immigration and Healthcare before we elected him, so why is everyone up in arms now over one subject. Im also thought it was a joke during the nomination of Meyers to the Supreme Court. I think that she would have been a great Supreme Court Justice. I think the thing that is wrong with the Republicna Party right now, is the posture of the Religious Right and them thinking that they own the party.
Keep up the good work.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
THANK YOU for writing this! I just hope certain commenters from OpinionJournal, NRO, and certain of your Pajamas Media colleagues are listening.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Thank you Anchoress. Bush was the first Republican I ever supported for President. I hope he won’t be the last, but I am beginning to wonder if I want to be associated with some of what I am hearing.
BTW, why was it that no one discussed this issue in any detail in 2000 and 2004 if it was so important and if people think Bush betrayed them what kind of policy do they think we would see with Gore or Kerry?
No, Bush has remained steady in his convictions and true to his principles, he is not the one who did the betraying, I think the conservatives betrayed him. And a lot of the rest of us too. The Republican party is a political party, it is not a movement. It has to win elections and come up with viable solutions to problems. Ranting is not a policy.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
It really is unseemly of one’s so-called friends to cry “betrayal” when they have shown their own disloyalty by repeatedly fragging and stabbing him in the back. And what do they think they have gained by their multiple abandonments of him — the best friend they could possibly have in the current climate? We are now looking for his successor, and what a sorry lot they are. All that is gained by this kind of internal uncivil civil war is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Bender B. Rodriguez
#7
That is correct. I read a ton of articles on How Bush should pardon Libby to get support from the same people that are saying betrayal
Leaving aside the fact if he should or not. Pleaseeee. He would pardon him then the blogs , the self proclaimed conservative spokespeople, etc would praise him for two days and then it would be lets start the great divorce again. The biggest things he gave the Conservatives were Alito and Roberts that really changed that court. YEt that is all forgotten like it is ancient history.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
That is quite a list. The one that takes my breath away:
Has he kept the promises he made as he held a dead cop’s shield before the Joint Houses? Yes.
And Terrye, thanks for another reminder — why exactly was it that the red hot, do or die, end of the world issue of immigration wasn’t discussed in 00 or 04?
June 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Sallyv
That is correct. As I mentioned else where I got involved in politcs as a youngster since I was 16. I don’t recall this being in big issue in 88 .90,92,94,96,2000,2002, and not huge in 2004. That includes Presidential or Congressional races. I don’t recall people yelling at Bob Dole “WHY ARE YOU NOT ENFORCING THE LAW!!!” in 96. In 92 Bush I was not hearing “Its the Border Stupid” he was hearing “Its the Economy Stupid?”
In the end we took in the benefits of illegal alien labor and ignored that this might some other things attached to it. In the end most of the congress that was there in 86 has either retired or died. In the mean time we sent people that mirrored our concerns perfectly. Even in the days of the Cold war, I never heard people say “We need to secure the border so the Soviets don’t smuggle in Nuclear Bombs that mysteriously go off in our cities”.
That being said the blame is not on Bush. The blame is on us. Bush pretty much dared to bring up the problem in a huge way. I have to wonder if Kerry had been elected would this issue had been so hot or would he had just ignored it.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sally: I can understand the subject not being brought up in 2000. But in 2004, during a time of war, there were a lot of potential questions Bush could have been asked on the subject of our lack of border security, and it is entirely the fault of the base, not Big George himself, that those questions were never asked.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
[...] Kudos to The Anchoress for having the memory and the discipline to come up with this list (and typing it over 3 times after multiple computer failures!!) that should remind us all of how [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Well back then they were more concerned with embryonic stem cell research. Bush did not support it in spite of the fact that people like Michael J. Fox painted him as a bad man for not doing it. And remember how awful the conservatives thought it was that Fox would use emotion to promote an issue.
I know this, I don’t just think they betrayed Bush, they betrayed the rest of us too. We have a war on and Bush is the president and they are deliberately weakening for no other reason than because they want to strut their stuff, show their power, make noise. To hell with the rest of us. Moderates and centrists and RINOs are to be seen at the voting booth, but not heard.
I remember during the Miers mess a guy pretty much told me that. He said Bush owed the Conservatives, the rest of us were just along for the ride.
The last time these people started acting this stupid Bill Clinton ended up President. Maybe this time they will do the same favor for his wife.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Then there are those who were never really ‘for’ Bush as they were against the alternatives of Gore and Kerry. They started out on day one making a compromise when they cast their vote ‘for’ Bush - they are the ‘damage control voters’ that put Bush over the top. They voted mainly against the ideology of big government and because of their disappointment, may be lost to the GOP for some time to come. To them, Bush’s election was a relief more than a victory. These people cannot legitimately claim betrayal. Perhaps the term ‘alienated’ is more accurate. Or better yet, ‘disillusioned’ upon realization that their basic assumptions about national sovereignty, borders, illegality, cultural identity, and common sense are not as shared as they had believed. They are now nothing more than economic hindrances - outdated concepts that only bigots, hate-mongers, and Luddites embrace.
Peggy Noonan is quite correct. The ‘conservative coalition’ is probably over.
Perhaps one day a true leader emerges that gives conservatives something to actively vote ‘for’. Looks like they’ll be staying home again as they did in ‘06.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Achoress: If you feel a rant coming on next time, write a draft in MS Word and cut/paste into the blog. If you “SAVE” often enough, you won’t feel like whipping the beastly computer when it is being uncooperative.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
[...] The Anchoress has written a very important article which attempts to reason with those who believe that President Bush has betrayed the right. It should be read. [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Perhaps one day a true leader emerges that gives conservatives something to actively vote ‘for’. Looks like they’ll be staying home again as they did in ‘06.
Well, that worked out very well for the “real” conservatives (and the country) in ‘92 and ‘06, didn’t it? Now they have no “hand” in congress. If they stay home in ‘08 to teach everyone a lesson, they’ll be able to watch a socialist president and mostly socialist Dem-controlled house and Senate do all the things the Right has accused President Bush of doing - and more - but hell…at least they’ll have the purity of their unyielding principles to keep them warm at night. And they’ll finally get to tell the rest of us that the country is “wrecked and over” with some truth behind it.
I fail to see how “surrendering an election” is any different from the Democrats saying, “this Iraq thing is hard and unpopular, so let’s just walk away.” How is one dyspeptic and bitter “take the marbles and go home” more noble than the other?
I must say I do understand why so many people are identifying themselves as affiliating with no party. The absolutism and demands to ideological purity and conformity on the Left drove me rightward - Bush made me a Republican - but the absolutism and demands to ideological purity and conformity on the Right are repelling me as much as the Democrats did.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
RoyE:
What you, Ms. Noonan and others don’t realize is that a “coalition” is “a body formed by the coalescing of originally distinct elements” (Miriam Webster). It is not a body formed by nitpicking every last difference to death. It is inherent that you will not have total agreement or sameness of thought in a coalition. Malkin, Noonan, and others are doing more to splinter your party than independents like me could ever do. Whatever happened to the big tent?
June 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
It’s called a failure of leadership and we are witnessing the very predictable consequences of it.
People worked very hard for a very long time to get a GOP executive, House, and Senate. Nothing positive came of it. We did get runaway spending, corruption, earmarks, un-prosecuted security leaks, government expansion, an explosion in entitlement spending, and tone-deaf ‘representatives’. That’s not what we fought for! How disappointing.
It may actually be better to have a minority GOP party that gridlocks legislation rather than a majority status frat party that rubberstamps everything.
The GOP moniker ‘The Stupid Party’ is not without merit. They squandered their supporters trust and confidence. When you do that, everybody loses.
Leadership counts. When it fails it is not the troops’ fault. And when he leadership starts blaming the troops for en mass defection well, that’s a major clue that you have a serious problem on your hands.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I see this mania for Fred! Fred! Fred! to enter the presidential race, and I wonder if his current supporters will find a reason to turn on him for reasons as ultimately petty as the reasons they’ve turned on President Bush. I wonder if Fred! will prove to be stubborn about what he believes, like Bush, and if he is, will his former supporters fantasize in blog comments about the Democrats impeaching him?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I think Roy, that it all works both ways. President Reagan talked about how the far right never agreed with him that sometimes you fight for everything you want, accept 60% and fight for the rest another day - thus is the nature of politics. I’d say that both the president and the “troops” as you call ‘em have failed in allowing each other to get by with 60% and while demanding 100%-all-the-time. That cannot work. You seem content to blame only the “leadership” here, but I think some intellectual honesty demands that - as Big Lizard demonstrated in the link I provided in Part I - the “troops,” in 2005 (with the troop “elites” possibly sowing discontent with just this sort of “split” in mind to usher in some sort of “purity” candidate) decided that the leadership was no longer trustworthy or capable.
You say the president “squandered” his supporter’s trust - even with that incredible list I’ve provided for you, he’s “squandered” their trust. Perhaps “the troops” should think about the effectiveness and the trust they also squandered, when they decided that the CIC simply wasn’t as admirable a conservative as they. Think back to the incredible furor over Harriet Miers, with some calling her “the charwoman” and calling Bush “a crony-loving moron”…some put the “Bush isn’t good enough for the likes of us” pedal to the metal and never looked back, and that has weakened both his leadership and their positions.
As with a marriage, it is rarely one person’s fault when a relationship falls apart…it’s nearly always both’s fault. You cannot blame the guy whose been trying to give you most of what you want in security, the economy, social issues, etc - who worked like hell to give you 75% against a hostile congress, a hostile press and a hostile world and figured he’d “get the rest later” as Reagan said - simply because he dares to be president to ALL of the country and not just for the “ones who brung him” to the dance.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
All the conservatives claiming that this country is doomed are preaching a self-fulfilling prophecy.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I guess I’m one of those conservatives whimpering about betrayal.Am I really supposed to give Bush credit for having the border patrol install monitoring devices at the border- while failing to stop vast numbers of illegal aliens from crossing that border? Or removing the wall between the CIA and FBI? Wasn’t that just obvious? Failing to get his tax cuts made permanent when his party controls congress is a blunt example of failure and is not a reason to support him.Harriet Miers was an unknown quantity and proved unable to successfully answer constitutional law questions that senators on the judiciary committee put to her.This nomination was an embarrassing failure and would not have happened if Bush had just picked Alito in the first place.Failure.Bush somehow managed to get almost all the blame for the idiotic performance of the Louisiana Democrats that ran that unfortunate state.Again, failure.Faced with millions of Mexicans waving Mexican flags marching through US cities and making demands-well, Bush had the border patrol install monitoring devices on the border and lectured conservatives about jobs Americans won’t do.Meanwhile, in Iraq-the surge is working.After some serious missteps, that is.No offense to the site hostess, but why the hell are serious missteps STILL taking place? Shouldn’t they have figured it out by now? This isn’t the first war this country has fought, and it isn’t even the first insurgency.Again, I blame the Commander-in-Chief.The new border bill isn’t even the last straw.Pardon me, but I’m just tired of the bumbling incompetence.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Harriet Miers proved unable to successfully answer constitutional law questions that senators on the judiciary committee
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe she never had the opportunity to appear before the judiciary committee to present herself because she and the WH said the hell with it in the face of the incredible - I remember it was pretty damn vicious - movement against her.
One of the great scandals of that whole episode, to my way of thinking, was that the very conservatives who had said - over and over again - during Robert’s nomination/hearing that “the president is entitled to his nominees” conveniently forgot that bit of wisdom when they didn’t like his choice.
Failing to get the tax cuts made permanent…do you remember Democrat obstruction? Do you remember how they banded together to defeat everything they could coming out of this White House?
No offense to the site hostess, but why the hell are serious missteps STILL taking place? Shouldn’t they have figured it out by now?
Armchair generalcies sure are easy to manage aren’t they? Yes there were missteps. We’re fighting a war unlike any other, with an enemy unlike any other - no uniforms, no honorable warfar - they hide behind women and children and wear citizen clothes and build bombs in the sand…but we should have figured it all out immediately, and been able to also convince people tyrannized for 35 years and abandoned once before by America that all they had to do was listen up and act right.
Bumbling incompetence…yes…it would all be so easy if he’d just do what the hard-right says. I note you pointed out what did not impress you on that list and ignored the rest of it. You’ve got 18 months of this bumbling incompetence left…and then we’ll be treated to the spectacle of competent socialism. And that will be…right, Bush’s fault, because you got mad at him, and then stayed home in a fit of picque.
I just hope you and others don’t end up saying “we didn’t appreciate what we had until it was gone.” And it’s just about gone, now.
There is no perfect president. There is no perfect man. Too many let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I’m sorry but if you’re thinking Tancredo has the stuff to run a nation of diverse people and opinions…well…I can’t believe that. And if you’re looking to Fred to “save” the country, well…as I’ve said, he is slick enough to make a cute video, he’s smart enough to play with people’s heads and he likes cigars. He’s all too Clintonian for me.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
RoyE wrote: People worked very hard for a very long time to get a GOP executive, House, and Senate. Nothing positive came of it. We did get runaway spending, corruption, earmarks, un-prosecuted security leaks, government expansion, an explosion in entitlement spending, and tone-deaf ‘representatives’. That’s not what we fought for! How disappointing.
RoyE has hit the nail on the head. I was one of those who worked here in Texas back when the GOP could have held its state convention in a phone booth. It is horrifying to watch Bush and other “Republicans” slowly tear apart what we built.
The Anchoress wrote: think Roy, that it all works both ways. President Reagan talked about how the far right never agreed with him that sometimes you fight for everything you want, accept 60% and fight for the rest another day - thus is the nature of politics.
We are not getting 60% from this president. Not even 30%. We are getting 0% in terms of border security. No one wants to admit is, but this Democrat-controlled Congress is just what Bush needed to push his disastrous amnesty bill.
If, for some reason, Bush were the GOP nominee for the 2008 Presidential election, I would both vote for him and work for hi campaign. It would be solely because of Iraq. The Democrat Party is now openly demanding surrender in both Iraq and on the border. Bush is only demanding surrender on the border. I guess that this is progress.
Anchoress, RoyE and I and other Bush critics are not the enemy. It may be easy to dismiss us as the “far right” and “nativists” and whatever other label folks can call us, but what we are doing is pointing out the serious, potentially fatal flaws in this administration. I believe that Bush started his administration as one of the greatest and most courageous presidents in history. His willingness to fight terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere is awe-inspiring. But this immigration “reform” bill is as serous and disastrous as surrendering in Iraq. It declares in loud and unmistakable term, that US immigration laws are negotiable. It also says to legal immigrants like my wife that you are fools and chumps for having obeyed the law. The amnesty bill - what an awful conclusion to what should have been one of the greatest presidencies in history!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I am majorly pro-immigration and do not believe Bush has betrayed my trust. I do believe that we need all motivated people who are looking for opportunities to suceed in the United States, and to leverage their skills and willingness to contribute to economic success of America.
My beef with the proposed legislation is that it requires the government to act on background checks for Z-Visa applicants within 24 hours of application or status is automatically granted. Due process should never be sacrificed for expediency’s sake. In addition, for the many applicants that have been in queue for years, it is a repudiation for those following the rule of law.
The reason for my dissent on these grounds is that the government has proven time and again that they are not equal to the task (In Chicago, the Post Office can not even be relied upon to deliver mail at the most elemental level required by law; how do we expect government entities to provide due diligence on much more serious transactions?). Until the systems and processes are re-engineered, normalization should be on hold. Re-engineering of systems should be top priority as we have many eligible folks already in queue who are awaiting resolution of their status. By all means, we should try to accommodate all folks as quickly as security checks permit.
While I do not propose deportation for any but convicted felons, I do not support normalization until proper background checks can be performed. I do not think that this qualification is too much to expect. American citizens would never be afforded the same accommodation in any other country.
I support expanded immigration (faster, better please), but conditioned on the premise that local, federal and state governments step up to the plate and address the deficiencies in the systems and processes in place today.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Look, we all knew–I knew–that we didn’t see eye-to-eye with the President on immigration. The war on terror trumped that issue when I voted for him in 2004. My rage is reserved for my representatives, whether it’s because they’re opportunistic, blind, or simply stupid. I’m not going to be argued out of my position in condemning the Senate immigration bill until I see the border closed. It’s a stupid bill and makes a bad situation worse. You can be upset about the rage and vitriol coming from the right on this issue, but you know what? The actual immigrants, 12 million, 20 million, are a secondary issue. The border, national security, and the untrustworthiness of the current Congress are issue numero uno.
If we want to get all compassionate about the 12-20 million illegal children of God, minus the terrorists that snuck in with them, we can do that. There aren’t many conservatives that can’t summon sympathy for the plight of Mexicans, people from Venezuela, and anyone living in poverty the world over. This bill is not the way to help them, any more than it helps American citizens. The Senate bill isn’t going to stop them from risking their lives on foot in the desert, or packed like cattle into the back of an 18-wheeler to get here. Because the border’s not secured. And won’t be, according to the words of the bill. The wall, the agents, the four unmanned aircraft (one for each border state)–flat-out aren’t sufficient, practically speaking, to close the border down. They’re bones thrown to the anti-amnesty majority.
The bill’s not going to stop employers from taking advantage of them, because, as the NY Times editorial page kindly pointed out, when we run out of passes for guest workers, more illegals will come and live here illegally. It won’t stop them from being afraid to report rapes and robberies for fear of deportation, because we’ll still have illegals. The flood will become a tsunami because there’s not a realistic provision in this bill to stop it, and I have YET, I say again, to hear a single proponent of the compromise prove that this really is the bill that will solve the problems. Not with this many loopholes and flatly unrealistic promises. The compromisers’ support seems to be this: “something must be done.” A rousing endorsement for any piece of legislation.
Look, my major area of study is radical Islam, and if you want to talk about people who deserve to be in this country, the truly oppressed longing to breathe free, talk about some of the Muslim women around the world who get fingers cut off if they polish their nails, get stoned to death if they get raped, etc. Look up the plight of women in Pakistan, or the women in Somalia that suffer genital mutilation as a matter of course. Most conservatives wish we could accept all these people into the US. I can sympathize with Mexican immigrants or any immigrants that want to come to the US, seeking a better life, but this isn’t the way to do it. The open border leaves us open to drug traffic, crime, not to mention terrorism, and it leaves these people vulnerable to robbery, violence, and death. This bill will not solve these problems.
From a humanitarian perspective, I believe Bush means what he says, and that he’s really trying to be helpful and Christian. He’s just flat-out wrong. If the flood continues, there won’t be an American dream left for anyone. I already described what I’ve seen in Northern Virginia due to illegal immigration. Chickens running in the street, ‘day laborers’ camped out in front of 7-11, packed suburban neighborhoods with eight cars parked in the front yard of one house, my office building tagged by MS-13. By all means, keep letting them pour in. Then your neighborhood and place of work can be like that, too. We’ll have a little Mexico in the US. We’ll have a resurgence of tuburculosis and polio. Wait, that’s already happened, due to uncontrolled immigration. Not, for the record, because of the freaking ethnicity or color of the illegals in question.
We can’t afford to sustain the welfare state with millions upon millions of dependents, most of them not even citizens. Because yes, those z-visa recipients will be eligible for all benefits and programs, and I guaran-damn-tee you there will be more than 20 million of them when all is said and done. The process for verifying them is impossible. Impractical. Which is what makes me call it a sop to the hard-liners in the first place, because again, if we can’t enforce the current laws, how are we going to enforce these new ones? Compromisers, I am asking you that question for the third time.
Thank you! Excellent. For some conservatives, immigration is the redwood that broke the camel’s back. It’s NOT just about Bush. It’s about the Republican Party.
As an aside, you look at the polls, the reports from the Senate itself on how many phone calls and emails they’re receiving, and you can see where the American people are on this issue. This is not a “nitpicky little difference.” There is a gigantic rift between public opinion and government opinion on immigration, and you can’t pin the rage on Republican hardliners. I’ve seen posts on the Democrat Underground opposing this bill, with a majority of responses agreeing to the opposition. America is united in condemning this bill as we haven’t been on any issue I can remember, and the Senate is refusing to respond to that. Instead, we’re getting insults. Yeah, that tends to provoke a little rage. When the consequences are this dire and a representative government this unresponsive, you can bet there will be rage.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
mwali wrote: this Democrat-controlled Congress is just what Bush needed to push his disastrous amnesty bill.
Then maybe folks should have gone and and voted in ‘06 instead of staying home, to keep the houses in GOP hands and prevent this sneaky liberal president betrayer from having the tools he needed to force this bill down our throats?
I’m just playing. However, this has me a little steamed:
Anchoress, RoyE and I and other Bush critics are not the enemy. It may be easy to dismiss us as the “far right” and “nativists” and whatever other label folks can call us…
Forgive me, but…when did I ever refer to you folks as “the enemy?” I must necessarily use imperfect labels like “far right” (I don’t believe I have ever used “nativist” and wouldn’t because it’s very prejudicial) or “hardliners” in order to identify and differentiate between opinions during dialogue, but please demonstrate to me when I have treated you folks like “the enemy,” when I have denigrated your ideas or been anything but respectful in these dialogues? I invited your differing opinions, I invited your solutions and ideas, asking only that you submit them with some acknowledgment of where difficulties or resistances may lie, and you think you have to tell me that you’re not the enemy?
Maybe you need to tell the rude person who just emailed me and told me that my Catholicism made all of my opinions suspect, that my “pollyanna lies about the goodness of Mexicans” who “do not want to be citizens” that “I” am not the enemy, either. And the president isn’t either.
declares in loud and unmistakable term, that US immigration laws are negotiable. It also says to legal immigrants like my wife that you are fools and chumps for having obeyed the law.
See, to me it declares in a loud and unmistakable voice that 30years of leaving this problem unaddressed has forced us to look at workable solutions. I don’t know if you have read the comments thread in Part I of this mess of mine, but I would urge you to…some people on both “sides” of the issue have some interesting ideas and some interesting solutions, and the thread was also eye-opening as to just how difficult some of the “easy-sounding” solutions (like putting up a fence) can really be.
I’m sure your wife jumped through incredible hoops to get her citizenship. I have friends who suffered through the legal hassles, too. Some of them feel like “chumps” and some don’t, and some of them recognize that many of the Hispanic illegals who are here, working, raising families, going to church, etc, came in legally and then found themselves daunted or simply overwhelmed by the hoop-jumping and tried to simply make the best of it. Is that the right thing to do? No. But if the guy has demonstrated for years that he’s a respectable, clean-living, family-oriented, America-loving fellow, does “enforcing the law” and disrupting the life of his whole family seem like the absolutely perfect solution, or does helping him finally get grandfathered into the country (with a nice fine) make a bit more sense and make the “enforcement” load a little less arduous?
Please don’t tell me that such a creature doesn’t exist or is a distinct minority. I know these folks - they go to my church, they worship faithfully and bring their impeccably turned out kids with them when they come to the church to do the sort of volunteering that so many won’t do - planting the flowers, weeding the gardens…you may not see them because they’re the ones living quietly and trying to be good citizens - as best they can, anyway. They’re not the ones A.N.S.W.E.R managed to round up for the ‘06 photo op (just a few months before the election…notice, they didn’t bother to roundup a mob this year). I know the single guys who work all day and then ride their bikes to night classes to learn English so that they can be better “Americans.”
I’ve used this Abe Lincoln quote before, and it’s really a good one to remember in this issue: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” Lincoln’s Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
The dogmas of the past are yes, absolutely inadequate to the stormy present need. I must part ways with those who think “no bill is better than this, a continuation of the status quo is better than this” when a continuation of the status quo will only make the next attempt (and the one after that - if there is one) even more complicated.
We need border security, yes. Absolutely. We also need a refurbished and fixed immigration SYSTEM, an “Ellis Island West” - so to speak - to help process those who wish to be citizens…I can guarantee you that had we not had such a place available 100 years ago, my Irish grandfather would have come in illegally - and I believe many others would have, too. The “legal immigrants” we hold so dear who came through Ellis only did the right thing because America made it easy for them to do it. 12 million people mean 12 million stories…and yes, President Bush is right…how we deal with these PEOPLE will tell us much about the soul of the nation.
Obviously, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I would appreciate it if, in your next not-unjustified-grouse about Bush and the rest of us damn bleeding hearts (I’m teasing) you tell us your ideas for how to pragmatically work through this, with the requested appraisals of where your ideas may hit a snag. I married an engineer…he’s taught me that you never plan something without anticipating what can go wrong.
Because something always goes wrong.
I, in the meantime, am going to bed. Part III tomorrow…and my rude correspondent of this evening will hate it, since it’s going to be looking at all that soul and spirit stuff and it may even (ugh) get a little Catholic!
Be well.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Invernessie wrote: My beef with the proposed legislation is that it requires the government to act on background checks for Z-Visa applicants within 24 hours of application or status is automatically granted. Due process should never be sacrificed for expediency’s sake. In addition, for the many applicants that have been in queue for years, it is a repudiation for those following the rule of law.
I agree with that, every word.
So, let’s work to scrap that - let’s work to MAKE THE BILL BETTER - not to just kill the thing. There are always going to be objectionable parts of any bill…if we can’t start insisting that congress FIX THE THING and get moving on this issue instead of just continuing to demand that bills be killed…we will never make any progress. We can’t simply permit the status quo to continue.
‘Night, all.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I don’t think my criticism of Bush came from a hard right perspective.For example every provision of the border bill I would likely support (or at least forgive) if the border was secured FIRST.And I certainly support the war effort.But it is NOT evidence of political genius- or even minimal competence- when your nominee can’t adequately answer constitutional law questions in writing when members of the presidents own party ask them.There were numerous distinguished conservative judges to choose from-why pick the White House counsel for God’s sake? And the Democrats obstructed? Please.How in the world Bush could fail to get his tax cuts made permanent when his party controls congress- well, I’m amazed.I’m sure many US generals have heard of the Philippine insurrection and how the US army defeated guerillas back then, and also the success the US and South Vietnamese government had defeating the Vietcong.Too bad none of them told George Bush-or he never asked.Why did the successful tactics put in place for the “surge” only start now? They aren’t new, and neither are the tactics of the insurgents.I ignored items on the list because I wanted to make my monobloc paragraph as short as possible, and thus chose a couple of items to focus on.Believe me, much more on that list failed to impress me.That you and others feel the need to write lengthy defenses of George Bush is a clear example that something isn’t right with his leadership.Some folks bail on him because they disagree with him and some stick with him because they believe the alternative is worse.Well, it will be-and yes I will blame Bush-because he could have prevented it.If he was competent.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Which is Worse? Bush Derangement Syndrome or Bush Betrayal Syndrome?…
The Anchoress says: "Sufferers of Bush Betrayal Syndrome are easy to spot – they are the ones who continually repeat, “Bush Betrayed Us. I Feel So Betrayed! He Betrayed Us!” I’m one of the few lucky ones, I suppose, because…
June 7th, 2007 at 1:14 am
God bless you for writing this post. And don’t worry about losing the other drafts. This post is perfect!
June 7th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Anchoress, thank you for a dash of cold water to the face.
I agree that Bush has always been plain spoken and open about his beliefs regarding immigration. As you have said, he didn’t betray us. In electing him many of us confessed how we had gotten tired of a President who did things with an eye on the polls and we initially welcomed George W. Bush because he’d stick by his guns. Well, seems theres a down side to that also.
I voted for the man twice and would vote for him again even though I’m constantly annoyed by his unwavering position regarding immigration reform. Guess you’ve just got to take the bad with the good and suck it up. Life isn’t Burger King, we’ll never get it “our way”.
One point that seems to get lost in all of this is that we elect a Chief Executive, not a temporary dictator. For the government to work with any sort of success there has to be a willingness on the part of Congress to work with the man and each other. That willingness has been lacking from the Democrats because they seemed more intent on pandering to the BDS sufferers than to working for the good of the country. On the Republican side it can be attributed to a lack of spine in standing for what’s right and ignoring the polls. Both sides of the aisle in Congress need to be reminded that we want character in our politicians, not for our politicians to be characters. There are some such as Lieberman who “get it” but they’re too few and far between.
Finally, We The People need to remember that everything comes with a cost and we should have the patience and fortitude to bear it if the objective is really worth it. We seem to want an instant cessation of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan yet forget how long we remained in both Germany and Japan after WWII (and that was a more conventional, easily understood war). We desire universal health care but don’t want the increased taxes and regulations from the “nanny state”. We want our immigration problem solved NOW and forget how long it’s been brewing. The list can go on and on. Isn’t it time we grew up and stopped expecting instant gratification?
As I said earlier, life isn’t Burger King so we don’t get it “our way”.
Once again, thanks for the dose of reality.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:24 am
XENNADY
To answer your question why he chose Miers the answer is this. He knew she was conservative. He was very afraid of getting Soutered and he knew she was a conservative and could trust her
As to her qualification I will say this. She did not have a ton of appeals experience which showed. However she had other benefits including her corporate background, White House back ground and just provate practice. As a Lawyer I can tell you that would have been benefical to have that viewpoint on the court. All the the Presidents aides were for it. The only person that warned the President was Gonazales because he feared a a backlash
You said
“There were numerous distinguished conservative judges to choose from-why pick the White House counsel for God’s sake?”
Did you notice he got Roberst and Alito on the court. Does that mean anything? I don’t think conservatives have any clue unless they watch the Court how dramatic that is.
You said
“How in the world Bush could fail to get his tax cuts made permanent when his party controls congress-”
Ok lets go back in History. Remember in 2001 that liberal Republican Jeffords from Vermont in switched to independent. Before then the Senate was 50/50. After he switched the Dems had control untill 2003. I don’t think you can blame Bush for the cuts not being made permament at all.
“That you and others feel the need to write lengthy defenses of George Bush is a clear example that something isn’t right with his leadership.”
In 1863 Before Sherman took Atlanta and the various other victores that followed after that I suspect they said the same about Lincoln. Truman by the way s could have used some help with people defending him at the end of his term. Also despite how President Kennedy is glamorized today in 1963 the following year and relelection was still in doubt. Can we admit we didnt appreciate Ford till he left. Bush surely could have used the blogs defending him and reminding conservatives of what he did right. We didnt appreciate that either. Bush II is no different than many other Presidents that at later times we look back and only appreciate after they are gone
June 7th, 2007 at 1:42 am
The Anchoress wrote: See, to me it declares in a loud and unmistakable voice that 30years of leaving this problem unaddressed has forced us to look at workable solutions. I don’t know if you have read the comments thread in Part I of this mess of mine, but I would urge you to…some people on both “sides” of the issue have some interesting ideas and some interesting solutions, and the thread was also eye-opening as to just how difficult some of the “easy-sounding” solutions (like putting up a fence) can really be.
I have followed the previous posts very closely. Thirty years of leaving the problem unaddressed has forced us to look at solutions all right, but these solutions may not in fact be workable. As the saying goes: Wishes do not create fishes.
Perhaps you did not remember my previous post on the other thread (I don’t expect you to read and remember everything people have written), but what I said was that there are no good solutions to this problem - only a choice among very bad ones. But if the choice is the current bill (or an “improved” version) or doing nothing, then by far the last damaging option is to do nothing.
However, if you want my “solution”, I will repeat what I wrote yesterday. Start departing illegals - as many as you can find. Seal the border - as much as you can. No amnesty - period. Obviously what I proposed is not going to be a “workable solution”, in the sense that it is highly unlikely to do much good even if put into practice. Only a tiny handful of illegals can be caught, even with vigorous enforcement. And any border fence will get blocked by legal challenges. But to surrender and give up - which is what this bill does - will only make the problem vastly worse. I said it before and I will say it again - there are no good solutions, only a choice among very bad ones. At least a border fence and deportations will signal (i>some interest in enforcing the law, no matter how little and how late. Call me a pessimist if you insist, but like the umpire, I gotta call ‘em as I see ‘em.
The Anchoress wrote: But if the guy has demonstrated for years that he’s a respectable, clean-living, family-oriented, America-loving fellow, does “enforcing the law” and disrupting the life of his whole family seem like the absolutely perfect solution, or does helping him finally get grandfathered into the country (with a nice fine) make a bit more sense and make the “enforcement” load a little less arduous?
All this depends upon USCIS actually being able to process applications in a timely manner and make competent judgments. I live in a town with a large public university with a large number of foreign students as well as professors. I have yet to meet a single one who has found USCIS to be anything other than totally incompetent. I have already related our own horror story with USCIS, which is actually fairly tame compared to some of the others that I know of.
The Anchoress wrote: Please don’t tell me that such a creature doesn’t exist or is a distinct minority. I know these folks - they go to my church, they worship faithfully and bring their impeccably turned out kids with them when they come to the church to do the sort of volunteering that so many won’t do - planting the flowers, weeding the gardens…you may not see them because they’re the ones living quietly and trying to be good citizens - as best they can, anyway.
I can match that - in my wife’s home country, I know folks who would make excellent citizens as well. But because of geography, they do not have the option of crossing the border illegally and waiting for amnesty. I know that government cannot make all things “fair”, but the end result of the bill’s amnesty is that those who have already come here illegally get to cut ahead of those who must wait from far away.
The Anchoress wrote: We need border security, yes. Absolutely. We also need a refurbished and fixed immigration SYSTEM, an “Ellis Island West” - so to speak - to help process those who wish to be citizen.
Here is the most serious flaw confronting the current bill - or any bill for that matter. For 30 or so years the immigration laws on the books have not been enforced to any real degree. This indicates to me a serious malfunction in government and the American body politic. I don’t see how we can fix and refurbish the immigration system under those circumstances.
Look at the number of so-called sanctuary cities. Look at the recent decision by New Haven to issue ID cards to illegals. These are blatantly illegal actions taken by public officials in defiance of current immigration laws. When we applied for my wife’s visa, we had to prove that we did not get married in order to evade immigration laws. Had the immigration officers who handled our case felt that we had done so, my wife and I would have been prosecuted (this very thing happened recently to a couple who lived in our town). But in New Haven and elsewhere public officials conspire openly to violate federal law. Why are they not being punished?
This is why I oppose the current bill – or any bill, for that matter. Unless a massive sea change takes place in American politics (an incredibly unlikely event) any “enforcement” provisions will be kicked to the curb like others in the past. Amnesty is the true heart of this bill, and will be the one and only change that takes place if it becomes law. As long as it does not become law, there is hope.
Like you say, however, we may have to agree to disagree.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:02 am
invernessie
Ok let me try to take your objections
“The border, national security, and the untrustworthiness of the current Congress are issue numero uno.”
I agree. Also if the people that were in control of the HOuse last year could have moved a a little and compromised a tad then we might have had even a tougher bill last year. But games were played. Played and cheerleaded on by I hate to say many that hate the bill
“This bill is not the way to help them, any more than it helps American citizens. The Senate bill isn’t going to stop them from risking their lives on foot in the desert, or packed like cattle into the back of an 18-wheeler to get here. Because the border’s not secured. And won’t be, according to the words of the bill. The wall, the agents, the four unmanned aircraft (one for each border state)–flat-out aren’t sufficient, practically speaking, to close the border down. They’re bones thrown to the anti-amnesty majority.”
We have 12 million people with about 2 million that need to go. THe bill is a good start. Out of these 12 million we have 3.1 million American children involved. At some point we have to deal with that. Again the key is not so much the “wall” the key is the employer verifcation system, ID card, andthe new fines. We must remember taht 1/3rd of the illegal alins if not more are people that overstayed their visas. If we don’t compromise we don’t get this. THe problem will get worse. IF you can show me the votes to get enforcement first I would like to see it. Remember there might be something far more lineral that you will really hate coming down the pike
You said:
“because, as the NY Times editorial page kindly pointed out, when we run out of passes for guest workers, more illegals will come and live here illegally.”
Then perhaps we should work on making the Guest worker program better. One that is suited to economic realities. Again the Senate bill is just part of the process
“The flood will become a tsunami because there’s not a realistic provision in this bill to stop it, and I have YET, I say again, to hear a single proponent of the compromise prove that this really is the bill that will solve the problems. ”
Again the workplace verfication system and the ID card. Senator Simpson who worked on the bill in 86 and knows more about immigration than anyone in this Country said then that without the card and ID it would fail because prosecutuions would be impossible. This bill has that.
“The flood will become a tsunami because there’s not a realistic provision in this bill to stop it, and I have YET, I say again, to hear a single proponent of the compromise prove that this really is the bill that will solve the problems.”
This sounds in part like the rumors of Leposary. All the AMericans(that includes Mexico) was declared pretty much polio free in 1994. In fact
“Due to a concentrated effort to eradicate polio from the world, there have been no cases of “wild” (i.e., natural) polio acquired in the United States since 1979, and no cases of wild polio acquired in the entire Western Hemisphere since 1991.”
http://www.vaccineinformation.org/polio/qandadis.asp
So I guess the illegals are not bringing polio. But yet this like the Leposary thing spreads like wildfire. As to TB I am not sure Illegals are to blame for that. The drug resisant strains are largely occuring because of the drugs that people are taking. Also we started to see these rise in the 80’s and was closely related to the worse of the HIV epidemic. Not saying that people from other countries might bring some. But I don’t think illegals are the main cause at all since we this increasing on a world wide level
I disagree with you I suppose that this bill is a total disaster. In the end the immigrant rightrs groups and others have the power to stop enforcement first. WHy? Well because as we are getting the border fixed they don’t want families broke up. THey also don’t want the goalpost moved.
In the end I stand my assertion that if “amnesty” was not in this bill everyone would be praising all the stuff in the bill. YEt because it is dealt with everyone predicts disaster and say ITS IMPOSSIBLE THE GOVT WILL NOT DO IT.
If people do not wish to make a deal now fine. BUt don’t blame BUsh, or the THE GOP that you pressured for no deal when the a much more liberal bill gets through. In the end that will happen.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:13 am
I see a alot of people that are saying Bush is doing nothing and has done nothing on the border.
I think this is false. I also am concerned that a lot of misinformation on this is taken as fact. TOmorrow I will try to put a list together of what Border Security has been done by the adminsitration and what is now in the pipeline and have links to that. I think that would at least go a good ways to at least seeing where we are at
June 7th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Isusportsfan:About Miers-”he knew she was conservative”-well, why do you believe that ? I personally suspect Bush isn’t a conservative so I think that wasn’t it.Maybe he picked her because Harry Reid said he wouldn’t filibuster her.But in any case the nomination blew up in his face.That isn’t an example of competence.Few things are more important to conservatives than judicial nominations to the supreme court-which is why the Miers nomination was so disappointing to us.Bush eventually proved able to get both Roberts and Alito through the senate-so the choice of Miers was inexplicable-if he cared what conservatives wanted.Apparently, he didn’t.I don’t fault Bush for not making the tax cuts permanent in 2001-2003.In fact, I give him great credit for getting them through congress at all.But from 2003-2006? Plainly this wasn’t a priority for him and, honestly, I only chose this as a surprising example of failure from the list presented by our gracious host.But if he claims to be a conservative with a vision for the future-why wasn’t this a priority? I feel compelled to disagree with you about Lincoln.The Civil war was over by this time in Lincoln’s second term-and he was dead.The analogy to our present situation would be if Sheridan had failed to clear the Shenandoah valley,Sherman had failed to take Atlanta,and Grant had retreated after the Wilderness battle-and Democrats controlled congress and wanted to let the Confederacy go.In that case the union would have surely splintered,and Lincoln would be remembered as a failure.For Bush II to be remembered fond