(Chertoff can wipe off the errant sunscreen.)

Might wanna take a step back and a deep breath, there, Dubya.
just sayin’…

And two, where is Cheney on this?

Lancer on June 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Where is Cheney at all? The only thing I’ve seen about him in months has been when he and Lynn were holding their new grandchild. When Rummy got the ax, I think there was some additional blood letting that didn’t make headlines.

“i think it’s time for a trail of tears 2″

Take a minute to peruse the annotated links in the continuation, and click on any of interest to you….

Not with a bang but a whimper

Heck, read for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

This is amazing. It would seem to mean that President Bush’s staff is either clueless about how many people really hate this bill or so stupid they thought we would just take the beating like a whipped dog. Either way our President and/or his staff a…

Such as?

SisterToldjah on June 7, 2007 at 8:47 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.

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.

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:

Obviously, there must be some other agenda when it comes to border security.

Such as?

Bush, Rove, and many other elected Republicans just aren’t getting it.
“He was surprised by the reaction,” Mr. Snow said of Mr. Bush’s speech in Glynco, Ga., last week.

Only 26% of Americans favor the “Co…

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.

If you want to lay down with the beaner/wetbacks nice and cozy go ahead

sonnyspats1 on June 5, 2007 at 7:02 AM (who then links to a page about wwii internment camps suggestively)

doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 2:35 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.

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 both sides have been ‘blowing their top’ for quite a while now on this issue, wouldn’t you?

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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).

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter

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.

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?

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 …

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.

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?

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.

Also, why are we shocked when, after years of being slammed on those grounds, he fights back?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We can agree on that point.