Bush speech open thread: Hoy blogamos, mañana no votamos
posted at 10:34 am on May 15, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Update: Our affiliate, Bryan of Sanctuary, sends along this snapshot of “quality time”:

We’re ten hours away, but such is the anticipation that we thought we’d open a thread now. It’ll be updated throughout the day. If you’re not in front of a TV at 8 p.m., you can watch live over the web at the White House site or at C-SPAN. We’ll have video afterwards, of course.
The president had better pull a rabbit out of the hat tonight because no one’s buying his line on this issue anymore. Michelle has a serious case of Bush depression syndrome this morning; symptoms include a new Vent and this link extravaganza. PoliPundit’s disgusted, John Hawkins is dismissing the troops-on-the-border ploy as a “gimmick,” and Hugh Hewitt, of all people, is talking schism. Captain Ed soothes the savage beasts by noting that our best chance for real reform lies in the idiocy of open-borders advocates, which, thankfully, is plentiful.
Geraghty, ever the realist, answers angry conservatives who are threatening to stay home with the law of unintended consequences: in a word, RINO-plasty. Personally, I wouldn’t mind that with respect to some domestic issues. But this sure ain’t one of them.
Finally, Gateway Pundit beats me to the punch on a Bush drinking game. He forgot a few, though.
“Guests”/”guest workers” — one shot.
“Comprehensive immigration reform” — chug.
“My friend, Vicente Fox” — two shots.
“Mi amigo, Vicente Fox” — three shots.
If he overenunciates a Latino name — four shots.
If at any point he starts speaking Spanish — finish the six-pack.
Play along at home. I figure I’ll be unconscious by around ten after eight, so if there are no evening posts tonight, don’t wonder why.
Update: Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, says this might be the GOP’s last chance. And here’s an old report from CIS explaining how amnesty — duh — encourages illegal immigration.
Update: Forgot one for the drinking game: if he says illegals will have to “go to the end of the line” — drink. Kaus explains why.
Update: The big M will be on O’Reilly tonight to deliver her verdict. We’ll have video of that too.
Update: The Times of London puts it bluntly, and accurately. They neglect to mention that it’s not working. Moran, meanwhile, chooses to light a candle rather than curse the darkness by offering advice to Bush.
Geraghty’s piece at TKS, which I linked above, is starting to draw reaction from righty bloggers. Hewitt agrees with Jim, as does MacRanger, who cites this post as an example of Republican “whining”. Ace started out on the opposite side, writing, “The Republicans are going to lose in November, and I can’t say I’ll be tearing my hair out about it,” but he’s coming around to Geraghty’s position, too.
It’s a genuine dilemma, and all the more so as it relates to immigration. The Republican House is our best friend here; they’re the only ones holding the line against Bush and the Senate. Sitting out the election would mean not only punishing an ally, but possibly removing the last institutional obstacle to amnesty. And as Geraghty points out, it’s a lot harder to re-install a Republican majority once the Democrats are the incumbents.
On the other hand, if you spin Jim’s reasoning out to its logical conclusion, we should all be out at the polls, year after year, happily rubber-stamping the GOP no matter how bad they get provided that they remain somewhere to the right of Nancy Pelosi. Here’s my question back to him: what if we all turn out in November, the GOP keeps both houses, and then proceeds to drift further leftward still, with the result in ‘08 being a forty-seat swing in the House instead of fifteen or sixteen? How does that sound? How about President Rodham-Clinton on top of it, to ride herd?
Bill Quick has more.
Update: Powerline cites a Heritage Foundation study of the Hagel-Martinez proposal that would in theory allow 100 million people to enter the country over the next twenty years. Hot Air affiliate Ian Schwartz has video of Karl Rove telling the faithful we’ll be “just fine” in November.
Update: Corner mini-roundup. K-Lo fears the worst. Derbyshire expects gassy platitudes. Krikorian says Bush missed his Sistah Souljah moment.
Update: The Truth Laid Bear is keeping a running tally of those live-blogging tonight’s speech. Already RSVP’d: LaShawn Barber, James Joyner, John Hawkins, and Jay Stephenson.
Update: Powerline has excerpts of the speech. Scott Johnson doesn’t sound happy. Neither does Michelle. I’m going to tally up the number of drinks I’ll be having just based on these snippets.
Update: Using Gateway Pundit’s drinking-game rules and my addendum, I count one swig of Dos Equis, one chug, two tequila shots, and one hit from the beer bong.
Update: You’ve got to be kidding. Teddy’s worried that the House bill might “criminalize” … illegal immigrants.
Update: “Comprehensive immigration reform.” Drink!
Update: Captain Ed has seen the full speech and has the high points and low points here.
Update: 6,000 National Guard members for one year until the Border Patrol can be increased. No law enforcement powers.
Update: Glenn has the full speech.
Update: A temporary worker program — which calls for them to eventually return home. Is he kidding?
Update: There’s a “rational middle ground” between an automatic path to citizenship and mass deportation who have deep roots here. We’re going to send illegals … to the back of the line. Arrrrrgghh — see the Kaus link up top.
He’s talking about the melting pot now. In fairness, he did admit earlier that catch and release is a joke.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Need to form the American Rational Party. A wall, smack illegal’s employers, kill off the earmarks and other ‘drunken sailor’ spending. Maybe Michelle would run! :)
Mike O on May 15, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Hey now…. don’t insult us Drunken Sailors now….
We only spend whats in our pockets…
USN Ret.
Romeo13 on May 15, 2006 at 10:37 PM
latinleo, you say:
“I am just following the trends most Cubans are following”
Why don’t you try thinking for yourself? That’s what we do here in America.
-and-
“While we appreciate the fact that we are allowed to become citizens…”
If you really appreciated it, you’d get down on your knees and thank God that America welcomed you out from under one of the world’s cruelest dictators. And you wouldn’t be here bashing people who disagree with you, you’d be working with patriotic Cuban-Americans against the Castro regime that’s enslaving your people. You are a hypocrite.
speed647 on May 15, 2006 at 10:43 PM
jefferson101
Do you live in Chicago because my Critter is Rahm Emanuel, Clinton butt buddy
justpiper on May 15, 2006 at 10:45 PM
First off, I want to just say that my husband and I think we’re nuts and I come back to this site to reassure myself that we’re not. So far, no white coats for us.
Ironmouse voiced one of my complaints- one I’ve been active in expressing to Senators via email and letters- which is selective application of laws. We’re just arbitrary in what laws we apply to whom, if we give a pass to illegal immigrants en masse. I’m tired of the ‘they have families’ excuse; I didn’t invite them here, they were breaking the law when they came here and they knew it. Do we not put people in jail for crimes because they have children?
I’m also tired of the ‘expense’ excuse; as in “it’s expensive to deport people”. Right is right, regardless of how difficult it is. It’s RIGHT to deport unrepentent illegal immigrants, regardless of how difficult a task it seems to be.
A short amnesty period for companies to declare their illegal workers to INS, or face stiff fines and criminal indictment is a two pronged approach. First off, it would encourage employers to turn in illegal immigrants or face crushing penalties; I think most would choose the former. Secondly, it’s psyops of a sort; illegal immigrants who haven’t yet been turned in by their employers would fear it and would probably take the initiative rather than wait for the axe to fall. This ‘attrition’, as Michelle calls it, is the least expensive way as well.
Because how expensive is the alternative? How expensive would it be to process the applications and do background checks for 11 million people?
There’s also a hidden cost to assimilating these people. People fond of ‘illegal immigrant rights’ (let’s be clear, they’re illegal immigrants, not just immigrants), point out how much these people save the US economy, because they are willing to work for lower wages.
What they don’t discuss is that many of these people are currently paid under the table, and at below minimum wage. Once they attain their guest worker status, they will be paid at minimum wage or higher, and benefits to boot; so any economic advantage gained by having an illegal worker (as opposed to an American who wants a ‘fair wage’), is gone.
A corollary to that deals with their potential for advancement. The majority of these people do not even have a high school education; so prospects for advancement and promotions is extraordinarily limited. There are already calls to increase the minimum wage so that people can support their entire families on it. These entry level positions were never meant to support families, but supply teenagers with valuable work experience or serve as a transitional job. What happens when millions of unskilled workers strike to get a $14 minimum wage, so they can support their families? What will this do to the cost of goods and food? Employers will hire fewer employees because the cost to do so will be exorbitant.
A fallout from this will be that our healthy middle class with be taxed, both figuratively and literally. They will feel the greatest effects of increased cost of goods and higher unemployment.
Don’t even get me started on the World Worker’s Party tie in; months ago I was concerned about granting amnesty to a group comprised of one ethnicity- particularly one of low average education- because of the possibility for a worker’s revolution. There’s no excuse to being blind to this possibility.
If we don’t send these people back to Mexico we also become part Mexico’s problems; no one will be motivated to change Mexico’s corrupt government unless they are forced to face it and feel the pain.
All we hear though are SOB stories about someone who has been here for 10 years; what about the legal immigrants who have to dance the INS polka and wait for years and pay taxes into a vacuum?
I am ashamed of President Bush; whatever happened to upholding the laws of the United States?
linlithgow on May 15, 2006 at 10:47 PM
Latinleo,
Leave it to a liberal interloper to cast out the first old reliable accusation of ‘racist’ to anyone who challenges their leftist ideaology. I care not one wit what you think of me or my opinions and as to your reckless charge that I am a racist, prove it. Nothing in that post labels you as anything but a liar and a leftist (not to be redundant). I refuse to knuckle under to your false assertion that if I want to protect my country from lawless invaders that I am a racist. If you are truly a Cuban refugee you would certainly recognize that democracy and the rule of law is the only thing keeping the USA from plunging into another lawless third world country like the one you purport to have escaped from. I think that you are not who you claim to be, but in either case, if you wish to cast your vote for Democrats, be my guest. We are still a free country and you can do what you like.
pistolero on May 15, 2006 at 10:48 PM
I’m as upset and disillusioned about this amnesty “plan” as anyone, but I think I’m more frightened by some of the sentiments expressed on this thread.
If we start sounding like wacko Leftists in our criticism of the president, we will end up handing the Left this country. Reagan had his faults and Reagan (the first amnesty, people!) had to compromise and Reagan had to deal with an often hostile congress, and yet Reagan is still – rightly so – a hero. It’s inexplicable to me too, why W won’t just enforce, enforce, enforce, but hey – he has been an OUTSTANDING commander in chief, and he is still fearlessly and successfully outwitting, demoralizing and killing our Islamist enemies, all against a sickening 5-year flood of Leftist “world opinion”. Give him credit where it is due, and cease and desist with the ridiculously counterproductive “Jorge Bush” impeachment talk, please. If that’s what the Right has become, no one will be happier than the Left.
Halley on May 16, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Halley,
You remind me of something that Reagan once said.
I’m paraphrasing….”When someone agrees with you 80% of the time, he is not your enemy.”
(Hopefully, someone can find the actual quote)
I find that I agree with President Bush on more things than I disagree. And I certainly disagree with Democrats on more things than I do the President.
That said, why do some insist on shooting themselves in the foot to make a point is the intelligent thing to do?
GT on May 16, 2006 at 12:19 AM
I am happy to report that Hugh Hewitt seems to be coming to his senses. When he went to an Administration spokesperson to get some of the details behind what might have seemed a reasonable speech, his optimism faded. It’s good to realize that I was wrong about Hugh on this one and that he seems to be sticking to his guns regarding real fences versus virtual ones. This is good news.
OCBill on May 16, 2006 at 12:30 AM
Just as I knew would happen, the sawed-off little shrimp (that I voted for, no less) has sold our nation to the Globalist goons of the world.
Heaven help us.
Duty, Honor, Country
in that order
Rowane
Rowane on May 16, 2006 at 12:32 AM
The strong and very harsh criticism president Bush has been getting on this, with Michelle and others valiantly leading the way, has been well-deserved. But reverting to adolescent name-calling and even insinuating sinister (!!!) motives (this man is 1. protecting us from and destroying al-Qaeda 2. dismantling the Left-judiciary 3. doing what he can to lower taxes) will only help discredit the pro-enforcement side. Some of the vitriol here reminds me of the Democratic Underground. Surely we should dread ever finding common cause with them?
Halley on May 16, 2006 at 4:42 AM
I thought the speech was very weak. Bush needed to hammer home many points which he instead ignored. He sounded as though-he was more concerned with Mexico than with America.
I am beginning to think he IS.
lizzee on May 16, 2006 at 8:05 AM
He *is* more concerned with Mexico then the United States!
Thats the problem!
Apologizing to Foxx for even this tenth-ass securing of our border (while Fox’es military are actively aiding and abeding the illegals and drug runners).
CrazyFool on May 16, 2006 at 8:38 AM
You know, I missed this, but as noted on the blog at http://www.minutemanhq.com this is brought up by the media spokesman for the Minutemen, quoted verbatim –
In Bush’s speech, he tried (as noted at the Minuteman blogs) to personalize, without saying “illegal” at all, someone who fought for this country in Iraq and was wounded:
“On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two – a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him … and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.”
So, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean defended this country for 26 years. If this is actually a true story, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was in America when Ronald Reagan granted a supposed one-time amnesty 20 years ago.
Denogean was eligible for amnesty 20 years ago. What’s wrong with this picture?
Capt.Herp on May 16, 2006 at 8:51 AM
One last comment on the Denogean story above — does this remind anyone of Clinton talking about all the black church burnings that happened when he was a boy — that actually never happened?
Capt.Herp on May 16, 2006 at 9:02 AM
After the President’s less than inspiring speech, I’ve decided “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”
I’ve always thought being an executive at Microsoft would be a nice job. Big company, good benefits, etc., but they’ve got to be flooded with applications. I don’t want to wait. Fortunately though, I’ve heard the window on the northeast corner at headquarters is often left unlocked.
So, tonight, I’m going to crawl in through that window and plop my butt behind a big desk with a nice corner view. They’ll probably tell me to get out, but I’ll start making demands and by lunch they’ll probably offer to let me stay if I accept a slightly smaller office. Not too shabby.
right as rain man on May 16, 2006 at 10:00 AM
this man is 1. protecting us from and destroying al-Qaeda
Halley on May 16, 2006 at 4:42 AM
He is not protecting us from Al Qaeda. He is allowing every al-qaeda member with a plane ticket to mexico walk across our border and assimilate into our cities, waiting to attack. It’s criminal and he should be held accountable.
Do you honestly think not one terrorist has taken advantage of Bush’s open border, let everyone in, I’ll never build a fence policy? Especially during wartime, Bush’s policy is nothing short of Treason.
msplitt on May 16, 2006 at 11:22 AM
For 25 years I ignored politics. But in 2004 I voted for Bush. The real imminent threat to our country and lifestyle forced me to become engaged. Now the extreme anger, frustration and bitterness I feel are overwhelming. The political elites are motivated not by common sense or logic or a sense of right and wrong but only by their greed and insatiable lust for power. We the people are just cannon fodder and useful idiots to the oligarchs. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” By not voting I changed nothing but did insulate myself from the frustration of participating in sham, corrupt dog and pony shows. Now politics has become the opiate of the masses, all sound and fury signifying nothing. I am going back to sleep now, because there is no meaningful way to influence the outcome. At least in ignorance there is bliss.
Angus on May 16, 2006 at 11:25 AM
The man has zero leadership skills, face it. My liberal friends are right, Bush/Rove are great at getting elected, clueless on how to govern.
honora on May 16, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Today I’ve called my Senators (unfortunately both Democrats), and left a rather ’spirited’ message at the White House comment line. Yesterday I sent faxes, and this afternoon, I sent an email this afternoon to the President and Veep’s offices. The entire contents are here: http://www.theright-stuff.com/archives/000442.html . I’m doing this because it appears the only way the Senate and leadership will understand the ramifications of this is if we hammer it into their heads. As for the House, I am SO proud of them for standing on principles.
Here’s a site that lists the Congressional leadership and their contact info, as well as your state rep info:
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/leadership.cgi?site=congressmerge
Here are two exerpts from my letter:
The President swore to uphold the laws of the United States; not when they were convenient, and not when they suited him. People who break the law coming in to America are still breaking the law. I hear all sorts of excuses from the pro-illegal crowd, including that they are trying to feed their family (who isn’t), so they deserve a break. Are we now tacitly condoning lawbreaking if you’re poor? Is that the type of lowest common denominator society he wants to be the bedrock of his legacy?…
Giving lawbreakers any way to avoid the penalties for their crimes is amnesty in my book, and that’s what the President proposes. He can couch it otherwise and contrive alternate names, but that is what it amounts to. For your reference: am·nes·ty – n. To grant a general pardon to. Having people pay (back) taxes and queue up is just what every other immigrant has to do; so it’s just amnesty by another name. Saying they’ll ‘go to the back of the line’ is just a specious argument, a red herring.
linlithgow on May 16, 2006 at 4:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3