Bush shocked to find his supporters don’t like having their motives impugned
posted at 6:59 pm on June 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Go figure, huh? Turns out it was all a big misunderstanding and he didn’t really mean to accuse critics of the bill of scaremongering and not wanting to do what’s right for America when he accused them of scaremongering and not wanting to do what’s right for America.
He’s got some tough Iraq funding votes coming up this summer and fall. I guess he figures he needs us after all.
President Bush did not intend to single out his conservative supporters for criticism in a speech on immigration reform last week and was “surprised” that his remarks angered Republicans, Jon Ward and Ralph Z. Hallow will report Thursday in The Washington Times.
“He was surprised by the reaction,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said of Mr. Bush’s speech in Glynco, Ga., last week. “The speech in Georgia was, ‘We’ve got a serious problem and we need to fix it.’ It was not in any way designed to be pointed at Republicans.”…
While one recent poll indicated that Republicans oppose the Senate bill by a 3-to-1 margin, Mr. Bush and his supporters have repeatedly accused the measure’s critics of being “anti-immigrant.” In a Wall Street Journal interview last week, the president compared the bill’s opponents to those who opposed civil rights for blacks.
I know Tony the tiger’s in a tough spot here, but I simply have to ask: if Bush’s criticism wasn’t pointed at Republicans, at whom was it pointed? Tony’s not seriously suggesting Bush meant the far-left, no-borders-at-all faction, is he? Because they’re not the ones who are typically accused of using “fear tactics” to push their position.
Exit question: Was Bush also referring to the no-borders-at-all crowd when he hinted that people who haven’t grown up in areas with large Hispanic populations can’t appreciate their basic decency and humanity?
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: « 1 [2] 3 »
Having looked at the roll call…Lindsey Graham is a disgrace. His office will be hearing from me eventhough I’m in NC. I was born and raised in SC and those votes are not what South Carolinians want.
I’m so mad I can barely type.
SouthernGent on June 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM
bmac on June 6, 2007 at 8:41 PM
My husband just added House painters, Commercial Building Painter, Roofers, pool cleaners, auto mechanics, auto body repairers…to the list…
If they were here legally doing this then okay we live in a free market, capitalist society….but that not the case…they leave their county because it’s full of corruption etc…but they don’t demonstrate there…We are going to be a 3rd world country soon.
And, if Bush is thinking like a humanitarian and believes that a North American alliance or whatever it’s called is going to bring up Mexico and the rest of Central America and make them successful like us…not going to happen. Parts of Downtown L.A. look exactly like Tijuana, Mexico. it’s scary.
CCRWM on June 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM
That’s just it, he isn’t saying that at all. He’s saying the people who oppose his bill don’t want what’s right for America. I don’t think he cares who those people are. He thinks he’s doin’ what’s right for America and YOU’RE trying to stop him. So he bulldozes you like he bulldozes all his opponents. It hurts to be under that bulldozer, but it isn’t personal in the slightest. People take it personally, but he doesn’t mean it that way, which is, I think, why he’s surprised at people’s reaction. He’s just fightin’ in a political fight, this is how it’s done and this is how you win. He’d be appaled that people were talking about withdrawing their support from him entirely over this. It’s entirely irrational. But htat’s what happens when you hurt people’s feelings. And there’s a lot of hurt feelings in here. I only hope people come to their senses later.
The Apologist on June 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Sorry Bush, you lost us.
You have thrown out all your conservative ideals for big business.
You sir are down with Jimmy.
msipes on June 6, 2007 at 9:08 PM
He is more important than you or I and your and my feelings aren’t the most important thing going right now In my view.
I can be pissed at him and have my feelings hurt but I can rise above that because I have to. I have written letters and have expressed feelings but I won’t say it in a bad way.
Be mad and make your feelings known, but act like you have been there.
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM
tomas, sorry your fax number was not working today. If you send us your email address, we will email your talking points and how you should live tomorrow.
Sincerely,
The Whitehouse
jeffNWV on June 6, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Bush’s second term has been a complete disaster. I have vague knowledge of American history but here’s a question for the rest of you. Can you name another two-term president who had a brilliant first term and a meltdown second term? Seriously, I’m curious.
aengus on June 6, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Well, the Mexicans destroyed the state GOP. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, immigrants just vote Democrat. The GOP can kiss itself goodbye if this bill passes. Latinos vote Democrat 2:1.
PRCalDude on June 6, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Soooo…. you’re saying that Bush isn’t attacking Republicans, he is just completely thoughtless?
Otherwise the argument doesn’t work.
As Allah said, he obviously can’t be talking to the “World Citizen”/”Life Without Borders” Left. And he obviously isn’t talking about the Big Business Republicans supporting the bill. Who does that leave? Otherwise you have to believe that Bush didn’t intend to target Republicans (the only group mounting a serious stink over this) and he just doesn’t have a thought in his head when he’s spouting off in front of the camera. So either he meant it, or he doesn’t know what the hell is going on.
Lehosh on June 6, 2007 at 9:12 PM
I am s-o-o-o over Bush. He stance on immigration is just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Apologist - If you don’t think ROE aren’t generated by civilian suits, written by lefty JAG Off.s and enforced through Courts Martial. . . well, you need to spend some time on patrol.
MCPO Airdale on June 6, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Then you have given up on our soldiers…the whole lot of ya. You have the covenience of saying such horrible things…they don’t.
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 9:15 PM
NEWSFLASH tomas: Bush is not the damn Emperor of Earth. Being done with Bush doesn’t mean being done with the troops.
Lehosh on June 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Sorry, dude, but here’s the order of loyalty:
Christian, patriotic nationalist American, conservative, Republican, and I can take or leave the Republican part on any given day, or would if there was a choice. Blind partisan loyalty is stupid, imho, and only gets us politicians like Trent Lott and Lindsay Graham.
Jaibones on June 6, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Heck yeah, it’s personal. The people who have talked trash on him since day one are the people who are impossible to please. These are the same people who said he was involved with September 11th after his awesome leadership. These are the same people who said that Bush was at Virginia Tech faster than New Orleans, and that that obviously made him racist, forgetting that New Orleans was underwater at the time. It’s a darned if you don’t, darned if you do situation with the libs who will hate him anyway. But…
Anyone w/an ounce of sense, much less an Ivy-League degree, should know that this bill is acceptable to very few beyond those who are absolutely loaded or illegal immigrants themselves.
I’ve disagreed with him before, I disagree w/him about not funding stem cell research, but I didn’t bail on him. But, when he gets in my face and calls me a bigot and questions my patriotism for disagreeing w/him after all these years of heat I’ve taken for supporting him…that’s when I’m out!
hollygolightly on June 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM
He’s facing a complicated enemy made up of several competing factions backed by numerous outsider groups, some states some independant actors, without the help of Europe or the Chinese or Stalin’s Russia and dependent on a weak Iraqi govt. coalition in a country savaged by a brutal dictator for 35 years and trying to fend off a civil war, that’s frankly justified by history, for the sake of a peaceful future for them and us. But you know, Patton would have had all this wrapped up three years ago.
Who’s blackmailing you? Either you think it can and should be won or you don’t.
And you’re fear of America becoming Mexico is absurd as well. Second generation immigrants are more American than people who stood in line for 10 years and by the third generation you can’t even tell how long their family has been here at all. Build the fence and enforce the law and let them have their amnesty. But you already know that.
The Apologist on June 6, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Oh, I think he’s cut the base a lot of slack, considering the heat he took from them over Harriet Miers (he caved on that, eventually) and the UAE port deal (that one sunk), for starters. And you’re right, he should be ‘above the fray’ but the man is a human being and after being told you’re selling out to Mexico, that you’re ignoring the constitution - as he’s been told the last several years, you’re bound to want to strike back. No, he shouldn’t be surprised that the base is firing on all cylinders on this one, but the base shouldn’t be surprised either that after years of criticism for his position on immigration that he fires back. The whole debate has become too way too vitriolic, IMO.
His impeachment has also been called for by the likes of Mike Savage and Pat Buchanan, and the popular anti-illegal immigration website VDare. Numerous other conservative bloggers, pundits, etc have given him nicknames like “El Presidente Bush” etc (reminding me of when liberal bloggers have posted pix of the President hand in hand with the Saudi king).
That’s not to say that there hasn’t been any constructive criticism about the bill - there’s been plenty of that. But that’s been lost in all the hyped up rhetoric on both sides of the coin as it relates to this issue. The name-calling started long ago, and once that starts escalating, the debate - unfortunately - turns into being one about personalities, rather than the actual substance.
SisterToldjah on June 6, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I’ve felt that I’ve been in a abusive relationship with the Bush administration, the RNC, and a large part of the GOPers in Congress for a while now and I’m tired of making excuses for the bruises and black eyes. It no longer surprises me that he’s surprised we want to leave just as it doesn’t surprise me that he would make nice just to get what he wants… again. I no longer believe anything President Bush says and I totally question his motive.
Buzzy on June 6, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Exactly,
After this abortion of a bill, that President Bush is pushing, I so wish Bush would resign and let Cheney take over for the rest of his term.
That is not giving up on the troops, it is giving up on the President.
F15Mech on June 6, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I’m sorry Sister, but the heat HE took over Harriet Miers? The “heat he took” for using Texas cronyism to nominate a woefully unqualified “buddy” to this nation’s highest court, then calling the conservatives wondering about her qualifications sexist relics from the suffrage days?
please
Lehosh on June 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM
I’m from NC, too, and I don’t like Lindsay Graham, either. What a HUGE disappointment he’s been on a multitude of issues. A lot of conservatives in SC had high hopes for him. He lost me when he joined the “Gang of 12.”
SisterToldjah on June 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Yeah. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Thanks for playing. I think the recess bell just rang so I’m gonna have to go now. See you kids later.
The Apologist on June 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Of course; almost everyone gets stupider when they get really, really pissed off. Thing is, everyone I read here that is ripping Bush is convinced that they have our country’s interests at heart, first. Bush thinks otherwise, but from where I sit, we have history and common sense on our side.
His quote that he doesn’t understand why we won’t join him to fix this “once and for all” is the clearest sign yet that he his either an idiot, or completely insulated from all sensory input.
CBO estimates that this bill will reduce illegal alien traffic by only 25%. History says that it will dramatically increase the number of people who try to come here illegally, that Democrats will gut the law and turn the trickle into a flood, that the fence will not get built, and that the border patrol promises will be cut back.
Teddy Kennedy’s own aides have already told us how they’re going to f**k us, by continuing chain migration with the Mexican legal immigrant quotas.
So don’t tell me about stupid. It just doesn’t get any stupider than that.
Jaibones on June 6, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Yes, the heat HE took. It’s not everyday a USSC nominee steps down before she’s had her day in front of the Senate (well, the official word was that she stepped down, but I still think Bush asked her to to spare her further embarassment with an announcement that he was withdrawing her nomination). It wasn’t conservatives who backed down - he did.
SisterToldjah on June 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Well… is it possible he deserved the heat?
You talk as though Bush has been incredibly patient with us for pointing out - on very rare occasion I might add - only the most glaring missteps in his administration. When you say “cut a lot of slack” that implies that Bush has somehow been gracious in the face of an undeserved attack… He completely deserved the UAE and the Harriet Miers dustup.
Or are you saying something else?
Lehosh on June 6, 2007 at 9:34 PM
And another thing: I love your comments about Bush’s tenacity and fight, and it’s quite impressive, really. I just wish he had fought like this while he was fighting Democrat leftists, or maybe vetoed a pig farm spending bill.
Michelle Malkin made the perfect point in a Good News, Bad News scenario: the Good News, Bush has finally taken off the gloves; the Bad News, he took them off so he could slug conservatives.
Jaibones on June 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I don’t intend to vote for any Democrats. I intend to vote for Republicans who are real Republicans. Just because I’m disgusted with Bush on this issue doesn’t mean I’m leaving the Republican party…unless of course the Republicans leave the party…I’m starting to get really concerned…
CCRWM on June 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Patton, Ike, Bradley, any of them would have had this wrapped up. You’ve included every bit of history but the most relevant: Islamic history. Do you think Arabs with an Inshallah fatalism that want to be slaves to Allah want what Bush wants?
Where do you live again? Have you seen southern California lately? Does anyone here honestly believe that the US isn’t going to become a Latin American country if this bill passes?
PRCalDude on June 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Yes, he did. Even then, some of it was over the top, though. In the end, however, conservatives got what they wanted. A more solidly conservative nominee.
Indeed, he has been gracious through most of the criticisms launched on him by the base, and as I noted earlier he caved on at least a couple of the criticisms that come to mind (Miers and the UAE port deal). My understanding on “cut a lot of slack” in terms of political debate must be different than yours, because I understand it to mean to hold back from really cutting loose in response.
I mentioned the UAE port deal and Harriet Miers not because I wanted to argue over the merits of whether or not the criticism was justified but instead to point out that 1) the president has bent to the will of the base in the face of stinging criticism before (on those two issues at least) and to note that 2) criticism from the base towards Bush is not rare nor new.
SisterToldjah on June 6, 2007 at 9:48 PM
The heat he took over those two was well deserved. Harriet Miers was utterly unqualified and wasn’t even close to being the best candidate available. The base by and large didn’t attack him personally, the only went after the qualifications of the nomineed, with good reason.
Similarly, he deserved plenty of heat over the Dubai ports deal. Many critics pointed out the dozens of security holes such a move would leave, and given our recent history with people in that part of the world, we were absolutely right to be critical of the deal. Again, very little of the bases criticism was personal, most of it, while heated, was based on a common sense security rationale.
Please see my distinguishing above between the base at large and a few fringe actors - the latter term which applies to Mike Savage and Pat Buchanan (does any conservative even pay attention to him anymore?). Don’t graft their crap onto other long-time critics of Bush’s immigration policies and lack of enforcement.
thirteen28 on June 6, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Just more proof that the man we’ve supported since Nov 2000 is completely out of touch with everyday Americans.
infidel4life on June 6, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Even Michael Vick’s pit bulls know better than to bite the hand that feeds them.
As David Limbaugh observed, “I do believe the president should hesitate before assuming the worst of motives in the very people who have tirelessly defended him, particularly on the war, against the people who are now his best friends on this abominable immigration bill.”
“Sadly, this is nothing new. Too often there is an inverse relationship between the level of graciousness President Bush metes out versus that he receives. He sometimes reserves his harshest words for his allies.”
TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Oh yes. Tony Snow. He’s that mountain of bubbling truth. What a weasel.
Of course, we attack Snow for being a bit disingenuous here, but some of us don’t have a problem completely shutting down the IDEA that there might be a plan to work toward a North American Union (by default), based solely on a John Hawkins phone call to the man. Oh yes. He also had a phone call to Robert Pastor also. Both men of equal honesty and integrity.
I have to ask …
Based on the John Hawkins and Allahpundit worshiping of Snow’s unequaled honesty and straight-talk, shouldn’t Allah be posting a statement apologizing for getting Bush’s quotes all wrong? Shouldn’t HotAir be issuing an apology and making it clear that Bush never said the things that he actually said? I mean, Tony Snow says it didn’t happen! Isn’t that enough? It’s enough to ignore mountains of evidence in other areas, so I’m not sure why it’s not the same here.
Tony Snow says it didn’t happen. Case closed. It’s all in our imagination.
Gregor on June 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Wow, I’d actually forgotten about that one.
So in addition to Bush and his allies on this bill referring to his supporters as unpatriotic and bigoted, he personally has also referred to us as sexist.
Yep, I was wrong that he waited until the present fight to take off the gloves … silly me.
thirteen28 on June 6, 2007 at 9:59 PM
I haven’t called the White House yet…maybe we should call there, too…assuming some of us haven’t already.
SouthernGent on June 6, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Again, as I said to another commenter, I didn’t bring up those criticisms to debate them on their specific merits (the justifiable criticism, I might point out, because some of them were not justifiable, IMO), just to point out that he has taken heat from the base and in the end caved to their demands so it’s not like he doesn’t give a damn what the base wants.
Me:
You:
I’m sorry, but you don’t get to pick and choose which critics of the administration’s immigration position should be highlighted and singled out for discussion. If we get to talk about the fair critics we can talk about the unfair ones, too. And re: Buchanan, yes, conseratives will pay attention to just about anyone who disagrees with the administration on the immigration bill. His columns - whether they be about immigration or not - do seem to get a fair amount of attention over at Townhall.
But it’s not just prominent conservative critics like Savage and Buchanan (and founder and CEO of WND Joe Farah). Take a look at Free Republic sometimes, for starters. They are the base. And as I noted earlier, VDare a popular anti-illegal immigration sites that has called for Bush’s impeachment. That doesn’t mean that every single person who visits the site agrees with them that the president should be impeached, but the fact that their site is still popular with conservatives even after they called for his impeachment should tell you something. I repeat: this is not just a ‘few fringe actors.’ It’s more widespread than you think, and I’ve provided examples.
SisterToldjah on June 6, 2007 at 10:16 PM
And sometimes his allies reserve their harshest words for him, and then become outraged when he addresses them similarly.
SisterToldjah on June 6, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Indeed, you were wrong. But it happened a few months after 9-11 and was directed squarely at the left, who were the ones who squandered the president’s good will in the aftermath of 9-11 (David Frum wrote about this in his book “Right Man”).
SisterToldjah on June 6, 2007 at 10:19 PM
The impeachment thing is beginning to look appealing
drjohn on June 6, 2007 at 10:20 PM
While we’re at it let’s go after Cheney, too. Because once we support Bush impeachment, the Democrats won’t stop there. Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Don’t bother; I called the White House to voice my disgust over Michael Chertoff’s remarks that we (people that oppose the bill) want to see illegal executed.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/25/roasting-michael-chertoff/
Then there were the comments by Bush…
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007622.htm
and finally by Linda Chavez
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/30/linda-chavez-if-youre-against-open-borders-you-might-be-a-nazi/
Sorry 3 strikes and you are out.
They had at least one person call and let them know I was not happy with Chertoff’s remarks, and they still continued their attack.
F15Mech on June 6, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I hope Fred! is careful about which Bush/Cheney holdovers he brings on board. Not all of them are on board with the Reagan legacy for which Fred! appears to be heir apparent. In fact, some of us were around when die-hard Reaganites were leaving Washington in droves before the end of Reagan’s first term, when it appeared that too much deal-cutting was being made. Some of those compromisers are still hanging around the White House. Time to give the lot of them the heave-ho.
Otherwise we may as well nominate Jeb.
manwithblackhat on June 6, 2007 at 10:42 PM
I called a few days ago, and their lines were so flooded I was on hold for about 20 minutes.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 10:50 PM
which states will hold all the jailed aliens?
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Right now, my feelings are of Bush as follows:
Bush = @$$hole
Tim Burton on June 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Quintana Roo would be a damn good start. Considering it’s actually a felony to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico it would be rather fitting.
doriangrey on June 6, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I wonder how Bush will explain the comments by his minions that communicated the same message?
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 11:24 PM
How about adding “More Christian than Romney”
“More healthy than McCain”
“More masculine than Silky Pony”
pedestrian on June 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Tim Burton on June 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
At the moment I couldnt agree more……
doriangrey on June 6, 2007 at 11:33 PM
It just shows how isolated, out of touch, and arrogant he has become.
Valiant on June 6, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Too easy…
Bad Candy on June 6, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Off the top of my head, keeping in mind they’re just random, I can name a few:
New York
New Jersey
California
New Hampshire
Nevada
Parts of Arizona
Parts of Texas
Parts of Florida
Louisiana
We’ll go from there.
amerpundit on June 7, 2007 at 12:17 AM
OR, would do something insane, and deport them to Mexico.
amerpundit on June 7, 2007 at 12:18 AM
That’s a novel idea! Of course until we truly secure the border deportations are a moot point.
Altura Ct. on June 7, 2007 at 12:46 AM
We lived nest door to a house full of illegal immigrants for almost a year. I and others who are or have been in our position know more about these people than President Bush does. He is in no position to lecture anyone about this issue.
Rose on June 7, 2007 at 1:17 AM
When W is gone, we’ll better see what he in truth was - one of the all time great American presidents.
That said, there are aspects of him that are truly mystifying, and this blindness about amnesty has to be at the top of the list (at 2 I’d put his refusal to fight back against lethal Democrat attacks - as in Katrina - and at 3 his inability to see that expanding big government wasn’t a smart political tactic for the GOP).
But the question now has to be, as it has been for 6 years, how to win the war and crush the enemy for good. To the extent Bush-bashing now becomes a hobby of the Right, it has the real danger of further weakening our resolve in the war. We need to be prudent, until we are certain that the new commander in chief isn’t a Dhimmicrat.
Halley on June 7, 2007 at 1:29 AM
I’ve located Bush’s missing spine. This explains so much.
wordwarp on June 7, 2007 at 2:38 AM
AZ doesn’t want them. Why do you think the AZGoP is in meltdown and huge numbers are leaving the party?
Tim Burton on June 7, 2007 at 2:46 AM
Ahhh poor republicans don’t like being called names, poor babies.
PLEASE, the anti-war folks, liberals, democrats get called cowards, traitors, surrenderers, nazi appeasers, cut-N-runners, defeat-A-crat and so on, so you need to get over it. He called you all a bunch of short sighted racist, deal with it.
“scaremongering”? Please the GOP has used 9/11 and fear mongering to manipulate the people for power the last 6 years: mushroom cloud, kill your family, anthrax’s, they will come here. Get a life; you can get hit by a car tomorrow or slip in the shower and break your neck.
Like the pizza guys in NJ where going to shoot up a whole base and the JET FUEL line at JFK will be worse than 9/11? Please I know jet fuel. It is not gasoline. You need a blow torch to start it. Also the distribution lines have shutoffs. I am glad they got them. Great job but the HYPE and sensationalism is just insane. May be the “liberals” down play it, but so what. I love how the JFK deal was being spun into a justification to do wire taps. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT, just illegal ones and a President that thinks they can do anything he wants. The JFK clowns turn out to be occasionally homeless and general losers. Yea, we caught them; cut their balls off, but please the GOP does this all the time, HYPE, sensationalize. WHY? To spread FEAR? The republicans do more to spread fear in America than terrorist. A bunch of chicken little’s, the sky is falling. To hear our government Al-qaeda is the most powerful force on earth. Bush in particular scares people when he opens his mouth and can’t string two coherent sentences together, and he as the button for the nukes! Scary. So a few stupid words out of his mouth does not concern me, he has doing it for 6 years. Have you not noticed?
I just find it funny republicans HATE it when Bush uses Demagoguery on them, ha ha ha ha. The GOP specializes in fear mongering and name calling against any one that disagrees. They GO ON ATTACK. The Plamegate? All about political dirty tricks. Swift boat? Increased terror alerts and faults alarms when something else in the news needs to be distracted from. Sad and pathetic manipulation.
May be you will stop the BS and talk facts for a change and not rhetoric, propaganda, prejudice and bigotry in the future? Probably not. Your hate for Bush will never be as great as your HATE for liberals and Democrats, which you learned as kids for daddy.
You have no morals, don’t live life as Jesus wants you to when you continue to use ad-hominem propaganda and demagoguery to suit your needs. Hypocrites.
GROW UP BABIES, waaaa waaaa cry cry sniffle sniffle he called me a bad name mommy because I hate brown people and dirty dirty Mexicans. Babies.
He (Bush) is suppose to kiss your A$$ because you support him blindly like the lock stepping morons you are, no matter what he does. Shame on you. I remember some people that said “we where only following orders”, lock step party followers. Wake up and smell the coffee. Bush, the King has no clothes. It took you 6.5 yrs to realize Bush has been a terrible leader and incompetent? Shame on you.
gmcjetpilot on June 7, 2007 at 4:30 AM
You are not better than they are…Bush is a great leader the fact that you are both pissed proves that.
And but does attack democrats…You guys just don’t pay attention. Do a search, I did.
tomas on June 7, 2007 at 7:30 AM
This President does not know us very well. He thinks that our racism blinds us into not wanting to do what’s right for the country, then he thinks that we will abandon the troops because of politics. George Bush is a Democrat.
Zetterson on June 7, 2007 at 9:22 AM
gmcjetpilot, how do you feel about Mormons again? I forget.
Zetterson on June 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM
I can’t help but think Snow would be against this bill if he weren’t in that position. But then, I suppose he wasn’t hired as Press Secretary to give his thoughts on the idea …
eforhan on June 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM
gmcjetpilot on June 7, 2007 at 4:30 AM
Very true…very true…
sdd on June 7, 2007 at 11:06 AM
gmcjetpilot
Er, shame on you, meltdowns should be done in private.
moonsbreath on June 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Actually Sister, I do get to pick and choose as I went through the trouble to distinguish between the base at large and the fringe. I mentioned people like Michelle (who published an entire book on this subject 5 years ago), Rush, Laura Ingraham, the writers and contributors over at National Review, etc. You mention Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan and their ilk. Do you think the latter group is more representative of the base than the former?
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Two questions:
One, isn’t charging his opponents with not “wanting what’s right for America” effectively questioning our patriotism?
And two, where is Cheney on this? I know Bush has trotted out Chertoff and Linda Chavez to smear his base, but I don’t recall Cheney stepping out to insist that only terrorist-apologist liberals and criminal-hiring companies have America’s best interests at heart.
Lancer on June 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM
You wanna see where the conservative movement has been on this issue, not just recently but for the last several years, Sister Toldjah?
Go check out today’s Vent.
Then come back and make your case that Savage and Buchanan are not fringe actors but are representative of the base at large.
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Me:
You:
Me:
You:
No, you don’t get to pick and choose because part of my point in this discussion is to point out the less than thoughtful conservative critics of this bill and mentioning Savage, Buchanan, and the likes of what I’m reading these days at Freeper goes toward proving that point. I didn’t “graft” any of those people on to the more thoughtful critics you mentioned, just pointing out that part of the criticism has been more vitriolic than the rest, and it’s been far more than just a few ‘fringe actors’ as you’ve repeatedly and wrongly asserted.
I think on this issue, many in “the base” (I’ll guesstimate about 50-60%) are willing to latch on to just about anyone who marches in lockstep against the current immigration bill, including Savage and Buchanan. And you don’t exactly have to call for impeachment to engage in some of the same overheated rhetoric.
There’s a lot of pot calling the kettle black over this issue. A significant part of the base has been all but screaming about the issue of illegal immigration for years and have been openly and vocally critical towards the administration’s handling of it, with some of that criticism being way over the top in my opinion, especially the criticism that he’s willing to sell out this country’s security for big business and for ‘friendship’ with Mexico. The man was the governor of the border state of Texas and was known for his support of naturalization then, so why are we acting shocked now that he’s still a supporter of it now? Also, why are we shocked when, after years of being slammed on those grounds, he fights back? And why are we acting like Bush never listens to the base, never does anything for conservatives, when the opposite is true, as the Anchoress points out here (scroll about midway down)? It’s like because people are so upset over this issue, they forget everything else.
We love it when the President slams back people on the left who level outrageous criticisms towards him and the administration, but we apparently don’t like it when he in turn slams certain critics on the right who are acting like members of the Nutroots left who have treated him similarly on this issue for years. I personally think his criticism was directed at those type of critics of the bill, not every single critic who has voiced opposition. I could be wrong, but that’s how I took his comments. But no matter who they were directed at, he should be above the fray and refrain from responding like that. I don’t want to sound like I’m making excuses for the comments, just trying to explain why I think he said them. I’ve heard him say before on others that “reasonable people can disagree” and that’s the tone he - and every other member of his administration - should have taken from the get go. That they didn’t has only worsened the public discourse.
SisterToldjah on June 7, 2007 at 12:36 PM
See my last post. I addressed your points. And it’s a strawman for you to imply that I’ve asserted conservatives have only recently been critical of Bush’s position of the immigration issue, as I haven’t asserted that anywhere.
It’s also silly for you to act like I’m ignorant on how long conservatives have been ranting about immigration, as though the fact that I’m not strongly opposed to this bill means I’m ‘out of the loop’ on the history of conservatives and immigration.
SisterToldjah on June 7, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Run away from Dub Huh. Its the only hope for retaining the White House in 2008.
Labamigo on June 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I remember Miers’ opponents being tainted with charges of elit*sm and sex*sm.
From the WaPo:
From the Washington Times:
And Lindsay Graham certainly seems to be fond of telling people to shut up (this is the NYT calling him a conservative):
INC on June 7, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I remember Miers’ opponents being tainted with charges of elitism and s*xism.
From the WaPo:
From the Washington Times:
And Lindsay Graham certainly seems to be fond of telling people to shut up (this is the NYT calling him a conservative):
INC on June 7, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I put in the * for letters because my comment didn’t go through the first time and I didn’t know if the filter was stopping the words.
INC on June 7, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Well, I guess my point got emphasized.
:-)
INC on June 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Bush can suck the BCoS on this one.
Purple Avenger on June 7, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Then let’s just settle the question right here – who do you think is more representative of the base on this issue:
1) Savage, Buchanan, et al? or
2) Rush, Laura, Michelle, National Review et al?
One of those two is more representative of the base than the other, so which do you think it is?
But a significant amount of criticism, and I would say the majority thereof, has offered dozens of rational arguments supported by countless examples. This issue wouldn’t nearly be the hotbutton that it is if all it had was emotional rhetoric behind it. The fact that it has become such a huge issue is indicative that there is a bedrock of solid argument for the pro-enforcement/anti-amnesty crowd. The emotion on this side of the debate is being driven by two factors:
1) Repeated failure over the years to listen or even consider our arguments in good faith; and
2) Related to #1, the pro-amnesty types repeatedly characterizing us as nothing but a bunch of mouth-breathing xenophobic troglodytes that hate brown people.
When you spend years repeating the same arguments about national security, citizenship, rule of law, tax burden resulting from illegal immigration, national sovereignty, etc., and are responded to with “you are a racist that doesn’t want to do right for America”, you’re bound to blow your top once in a while.
Why? Because on 9/11/2001, 19 people who were in this country illegally hijacked 4 airplanes, crashing three of them into their intended targets and killing 3000 people. That one incident was enough to cause Bush to do a complete 180 on the idea of nation building, so it’s hardly to much to ask that he reconsider his position on border security, particularly when you know that there are others like those 19 hijackers that are trying to exploit our southern border to gain entry into our country. Who knows how many have, although we know now that 3 of the Fort Dix Six were brought in illegally across our southern border.
That ALONE should be enough to reverse his position – this is a national security issue, and the federal governments first and primary duty is to ensure that security to the best of their ability. To neglect it for any other agenda is a dereliction of duty.
1) see above
2) it would be nice if he actually fought back on something where he was clearly in the right, e.g., his right to fire attorneys for any reason at any time. Ignoring that battle and choosing this one is a curious choice indeed (and less than prudent one, I might add).
Strawman. Few are saying he never listens to the base. But what many of us are saying is that he has went against the base on too many issues, and fundamental issues at that:
1) The issue we are dealing with here, immigration, obviously;
2) He signed the hideous McVain-Feingold CFR bill after campaigning against it;
3) He sold out to Ted Kennedy and the teachers unions in signing the No Child Left Behind act into law;
4) Steel tariffs in his first term;
5) Prescription drug benefit – never mind the fact that it adds a huge new entitlement, never mind the fact that it endangers his tax cuts, never mind that Medicare is careening towards insolvency – he signed it anyway;
6) Nominating Harriet Miers … and then he has the gall to call his base sexist for opposing her? The base probably would have done backflips had he nominated someone like Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown, both women who are more than qualified. Instead of considering the base’s motives, he went straight for the gender card. Indefensible.
7) A complete refusal to use his veto pen to rein in excessive spending, after campaigning against excessive spending. Another area where he endangered his own tax cuts.
What we really don’t like is when he slams people in his base (i.e. the people that got him his job in the first place) that have spent years making good arguments against amnesty and against unenforced borders, as most of his immigration critics have – especially considering the national security implications that are painfully obvious in a post 9/11 world.
It’s your perogative to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’m less inclined to do so after seeing his responses to his conservative critics on issues like Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports, and now this … especially when many of his critics on this issue have offered numerous sound arguments against his position.
We can agree on that point.
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Fax your congress-critter and tell them just say no…….
http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM
you guys should take some cues from Lucienne.
tomas on June 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I don’t know and I’m not sure why it matters. What I’ve said all along that a signficant number of conservatives are more interested are engaging in the type of rhetoric you typically hear from Savage and others like him. I can’t pinpoint a specific set number of people, I’m just going by what I see and hear when I log online, listen to the radio, and watch the news. My dispute with you is over your comment that such talk is only done by a few on the ‘outside fringe.’ Whether it’s being done by a ‘majority’ or not is immaterial. It’s simply happening alot more than you think it is and I’ve provided examples of it.
But a significant amount of criticism, and I would say the majority thereof, has offered dozens of rational arguments supported by countless examples. This issue wouldn’t nearly be the hotbutton that it is if all it had was emotional rhetoric behind it. The fact that it has become such a huge issue is indicative that there is a bedrock of solid argument for the pro-enforcement/anti-amnesty crowd. The emotion on this side of the debate is being driven by two factors:
1) Repeated failure over the years to listen or even consider our arguments in good faith; and
2) Related to #1, the pro-amnesty types repeatedly characterizing us as nothing but a bunch of mouth-breathing xenophobic troglodytes that hate brown people.
When you spend years repeating the same arguments about national security, citizenship, rule of law, tax burden resulting from illegal immigration, national sovereignty, etc., and are responded to with “you are a racist that doesn’t want to do right for America”, you’re bound to blow your top once in a while.
I’d say both sides have been ‘blowing their top’ for quite a while now on this issue, wouldn’t you?
The 9-11 hijackers weren’t illegal immigrants from Mexico. They were here on tourist visas. I think some of them were overstayed, but then that becomes an enforcement issue.
“Other agenda”? Do you not think that the man is deeply concerned about our national security after presiding over the US during 9-11? He’s taken all kinds of crap from the left over Gitmo, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, Jose Padilla, and other post 9-11 policies that he’s put in place in order to protect this country - policies that they think he’s using for far sinister purposes, so it doesn’t make sense that he would be angling for another ‘agenda’ as it relates to the border because you know as well as I do he no more wants another terror attack on our soil than any of us. Should he be doing more? Hell yeah, but pushing this bill doesn’t mean he’s “derelict in his duty.” He’s jus supports a bill you don’t think goes far enough.
I thought we’d already addressed the point that he had fought back on some issues, and agreed that he should have fought back more on others.
Me:
Nah, it’s not really a strawman. You may not be saying that he never’listens to the base, but some of the arguments I’ve read/heard essentially say otherwise. And while I agree with you on alot of the issues above, he has not sold the base down the river on many more issues - again, as the Anchoress noted in that post I linked to. Issues that get forgotten in times like these, obviously.
I think I’ve already covered that in my criticism of his - and the rest of the admin’s - responses.
I should also note for the record - and said this at my blog, too - that I don’t fault anyone who would want to leave the party over this issue. Everyone has their ‘no compromise’ issue and clearly illegal immigration is one for some people. I’d feel the same if our party leaders did a reversal on the abortion issue, which is why I won’t vote for Rudy Giuliani, should he become our nominee (the primary here in NC is not really even worth mentioning as by the time it gets here our nominee will have already have the votes he needs). I’ve read in different places criticism for that viewpoint, essentially telling people who feel that way to ‘get over it’ because there are ‘bigger issues’ at stake. But I would no more vote for someone who supported abortion than others who wouldn’t vote for anyone who supported this immigration bill.
I just wish that - no matter the issue - that when conservatives strongly disagreed with each other on hot button issues, that they did it a little better, a little more civil - and that includes the administration.
SisterToldjah on June 7, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Well, I’ll certainly answer, and I certainly don’t think the daily, on-air aneurysms of Michael Savage or the thinly-veiled racism of Buchanan represent the conservative movement at large, and the reason I think it matters is because it was the conservative movement at large that was stung by W’s lashing out. And whether the fringe I’m talking about is 1%, 5%, or even 20% of the conservative movement, as far as I’m concerned, it’s still the fringe.
I’d say it started with the attempted ramming of amnesty down our throats last year with little more than a bad faith wink and a nod to the enforcement side of the equation. It was overwhelmingly unpopular then, and the senate’s coming back with essentially the same bill this year only raised blood pressure even more.
Before that time, many on the enforcement-first side had been making rational arguments for several years on the issue, while the other side showed no indication that they’d ever heard any of them.
Yes – an enforcement issue – and this is an example of what can happen when there is a failure to enforce those laws, as there has been for many, many years now.
Couple that with the fact that every terrorist and wannabe terrorist in the world knows that we have a completely unsecured border with Mexico (and Canada for that matter). It’s far too tempting for terrorists to ignore, and the fact that the borders are still not secured nearly six years after 9/11 is unconscionable.
It’s not inconceivable that people wanting to commit terrorism against the U.S. have already exploited that hole in our security apparatus.
Obviously, there must be some other agenda when it comes to border security. Bush has done nothing having any lasting impact on border security, despite a painfully obvious need. So while he may have done a good job on the other security mechanisms you’ve mentioned, he’s left a huge hole that could easily be exploited by those who want to do harm to this country, even in the wake of 9/11. Why?
I’ve tended to give him the benefit of the doubt, arguing with others here who believe in more sinister motives, that he simply feels sorry for the illegals and naively believes that Hispanics will reward Republicans en masse at the voting booths if we would just grant amnesty to those who came here illegally from south of the border. But even assuming that’s the case, it’s still no excuse – national security trumps all, yet he has made no effort to truly enforce our borders for whatever reason/agenda he might have. When it comes to the borders, he has subordinated national security to something else, whatever it may be.
The irony of is that if he would have issued a directive on 9/12/2001 that open borders were no longer acceptable and that immigration laws would be enforced and our borders secured to deny another avenue for terrorists to gain entry into our country, he would have gained a lot of clout with the base and thus avoided all the criticism that has mounted to the fever pitch it’s at now. He would have received an excess of gratitude and with it, an awful lot of political capital.
He’d also have a better case to sell the reform he wants now. Instead, his own inaction has completely (and perhaps fatally) undermined his own cause.
I basically agree with you on the rest of your post, so there’s no need to address that further.
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 4:47 PM
“Mass deportations? People don’t want that.
Says who? Time for Operation Wetback II
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 5:16 PM
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Hmm, the Dems say the illegals are here doing jobs Americans won’t do. The Dems (nominal Americans) don’t want to do the job in Iraq. So we round up all the illegals and send ‘em to Iraq to do the job the Dems won’t do. Win-win.
Iblis on June 7, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I give no excuse for wanting the borders tightly secured and illegals given no option but to return home or be deported.
This country is being overrun … I don’t want to learn spanish just to be able to travel through certain parts of the country. I don’t want the country overrun by people who couldn’t care less about being American, or understanding what that stands for … all they want is the freebies that we pay for. I want illegals gone, and immigration halted. This country must rebuild from within, not from without. If we have to sacrifice for years I don’t care. We’re losing our sovereignty, identity and forgetting the reason why we’re who we are.
I want employers punished harshly. I want ALL services that illegals receive stopped immediately with the singular exception of medical care in life or death situations. If there’s no reason to stay they’ll leave. If they don’t they will be deported. Let Mexico fix Mexico. In fact, George Bush can retire in Mexico … he cares more for south of the border than he does for the citizens of this country.
Only after we’ve taken inventory of ourselves and begun to rebuild this nation from within, and remember who we are and why we are can we consider strict immigration again.
Illegals and their families and prodigy have already changed the face of this country and it’s not pretty. Grant them amnesty and the damage will be irreversible. This country will become two nations … one run by Mexico, the other by spineless career politicians.
The middle class is already feeling the pinch and will be virtually erased by the legalization of millions, not to mention having their backs broke under the weight of more and more taxes.
Now is the time to take our land back. Now … or never.
darwin on June 7, 2007 at 6:53 PM
It’s certainly your right to feel that way, but I firmly believe it’s alot more than the ‘fringe’ but there’s really no way for either one of us to concretely prove it so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Instead of making this long, I wanted to zero in on something you asserted that piqued my curiosity:
Such as?
SisterToldjah on June 7, 2007 at 8:47 PM
What is it with the “wetback” comments? Sheesh.
SisterToldjah on June 7, 2007 at 8:48 PM
My theory was in my post:
I’ve tended to give him the benefit of the doubt, arguing with others here who believe in more sinister motives, that he simply feels sorry for the illegals and naively believes that Hispanics will reward Republicans en masse at the voting booths if we would just grant amnesty to those who came here illegally from south of the border. But even assuming that’s the case, it’s still no excuse – national security trumps all, yet he has made no effort to truly enforce our borders for whatever reason/agenda he might have. When it comes to the borders, he has subordinated national security to something else, whatever it may be.
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Well, I can explain Dorian’s “wetback” comment…
Heck, read for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
gekkobear on June 8, 2007 at 2:27 AM
I’m of the opinion that this shoddy piece of legislation was a