Bush urges Senate: Have the “political courage” to pass this travesty
posted at 12:38 pm on June 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We’ve heard this before, haven’t we? In two guises, in fact. Anyone can pass awful, ruinous legislation, but to pass it when overwhelming numbers of your constituents begging you to stop? That’s where we separate the men from the mice, my friends.
Incidentally, they’re experimenting with the “virtual fence” now in Arizona and confident that it’ll help. Not so confident that they’re willing to postpone the amnesty provisions of this bill until we have proof that it works and it’s been virtually extended from 28 miles to something closer to 2,000, but as an empty gesture to buy a bit of political cover for the undecideds to vote yes on this bill, it’s golden. Notably missing from the article: any cost comparison between the very low-tech actual fence favored by most enforcement proponents and this seemingly fabulously expensive, quite possibly (deliberately) less effective alternative.
Meanwhile, Kaus speculates about the bill as a ploy by the GOP to compete for Hispanic votes:
[R]emember, if it’s all about the symbolism, then it’s not enough for Lott and fellow Republicans like Lindsey Graham to push the semi-amnesty bill through. They have to push the bill through loudly, histrionically, while denouncing the opposition as anti-Latino–to make sure Hispanics know that the GOPs were their champions in 2007. It would be a shame to suck up to Latinos and then have the Democrats get all the credit (as Dems got all the credit with blacks after the Civil Rights Act of 1964–even though, Morris notes, “Republicans backed the bill in far greater numbers than Democrats did”). I think this helps explain Lott and Graham’s recent obnoxious put-downs of their opponents. [How did comparing Mexicans to electrified goats help Lott win over generations of Latinos?--ed That was off-message.]
Exit question: How does dismissing your own base as racist make Hispanics more eager to align with that base?
Update: I already linked this in Headlines but Bryan wrote a post about it yesterday so it bears mentioning on the blog too. You know that video on immigration law that’s drawn so much heat? Relax — it’s just a case of insufficient nuance.
The segment of the video drawing all the attention is one in which lawyers from Cohen & Grigsby’s highly regarded immigration practice advocate methods to comply with a law requiring employers prove that they have tried to find qualified American workers before applying for a green card for a foreign worker. The lawyers urge the audience, in so many words, to do exactly the opposite…
By the end of the weekend, political blogs of all stripes — from DailyKos to National Review’s The Corner — had linked to the video, which just so happened to play nicely into issues raised in the immigration bill that the U.S. Senate is debating this week.
Thursday Cohen & Grigsby put out a statement that while the firm stands by the substance of the seminar, “we regret the choice of words that was used during a small segment of the seminar. It is unfortunate that these statements have been commandeered and misused, which runs contrary to our intent.”
Update: The Times chronicles Bush’s Deep Human Sympathy for Hispanics in yet another hamfisted attempt to moralize a matter of policy. Not reported: Bush’s apparent Deep Human Loathing for unskilled American workers who’ll have their wages suppressed or lose their jobs entirely thanks to the influx of illegals.
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
There you go again being rational and logical AP! When will you ever learn?
He gives them far too much credit. They aren’t that bright. Besides, there’s no way they can replace the people and money they are losing over this with new supporters. In addition, people, especially poor people, vote their pocketbooks.
There may be some hidden reason something like keeping Mexico in the terror game by funneling OTMs trying to cross the boarder to the FBI. That I might believe…
TheBigOldDog on June 23, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Gaul.
In conjunction with a real deterrent maybe.
If you happen to be wandering in the desert in search of a border and you say see a sign that says virtual fence stay out, so what, you will try anyway but the sight of a very real barrier is going to do at least two things, 1 the very sight of it is a deterrent and 2 people who will try anyway (we know in this case that will happen) will try to do so in an area of the barrier that others will try to cross at.
It’s kind of like mixing aphrodisiac with fly spray, it doesn’t kill anymore flies but at least you can swat two at a time.
The virtual fence only works if it’s working and if enough personnel are handy to shoo offenders back over the line.
I still say we should replace the Panama canal with one along our southern border and forget the super highway.
With the massive bureaucratic pain Mexico is giving China in Vera Cruz I’ll bet the Chinese would pay for it.
Speakup on June 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Courage.
Jaibones on June 23, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I have often wondered how Blacks made the wholesale shift to the Democrats in the 60’s. The above is not the answer. The answer lies in the fallout of the Civil Rights Act. The Dixiecrats bailed on the Democratic party and moved to the Republican party in large numbers. You combine that with Blacks defining their culture as the antithesis (per John Ogbu’s research) to white culture and the Democratic party culturally becomes the party for Black people. Because I have yet to see anyone defend their support of the Democrats with ideology or the efficacy of their legislation matching their promises.
I have also wondered why the Black community took a nose dive after 1965. The answer I believe lies again in John Ogbu’s research. Prior to 1965 Blacks and whites lived parallel separate lives. Only after integration could Blacks judges themselves or compare themselves to white. The same values both cultures held in high regard were prevalent. Once we started the integration process “white” took on a new meaning. The worst thing you could be in the Black community was “white.” Values eroded continually because they were associated with being “white.” When you have a school that is majority Black the “white” stigma associated with academic achievement does not exist. But integrate that school and Black children that do well are acting “white.”
Conservatives are missing the boat when it comes to the Black vote. The left is able to play up culture bereft of ideology for 90% of our vote. The right seems completely disinterested in understanding cultural differences. Knowing those cultural differences will conservatives the opportunity to be heard.
Theworldisnotenough on June 23, 2007 at 1:19 PM
This has gone on for years in corporations - much real experience on case after case, especially on higher paying and technical jobs - just not as blatantly expressed in the article from the HA Headlines.
I don’t believe there is much idealism in the shamnesty bill. It’s simply stuffing the pockets of the politicians with corporate donations, to the left and the right. They stuff them fairly commensurate with who is in power, right now the ratio being 51/40% left/right. The politicians know the country is pretty evenly devided on philosophy - they don’t even care any more who’s in the minority, so long as they all stay in and weild some power. Prostitutes all.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM
The Civil Rights comparison is apt because it’s the same wrong-headed assumption: blacks don’t make their voting decision year-to-year, they’re just blindly voting for the party they think had their back forty years ago. Wrong–they vote year-to-year, based on their perception that the Democrats are more likely to help them, or at least relative to the Republicans.
In other words, it doesn’t matter who seems to be on the hispanics’ side at this moment, what matters is who the leaders of the hispanic political machines will tell their constituents to vote for year in and year out in the decades ahead. Who do you think that will be?
And of course all this assumes
a) hispanics are overwhelmingly in favor of amnesty and open immigration, and
b) an hispanic vote is worth more than the vote of a traditional Republican constituent who is strongly against the amnesty and open immigration.
a) is false; hispanics are split, and mostly against illegal immigration;
b) may be true in the moral calculus of political journalists, but it’s not true in the strict constitutional sense of one man, one vote; if anything hispanics are worth less at the moment in the elecotral college because they are mostly clumped in two non-battlegrounds, CA and Texas. The hispanic vote is mostly valuable like the black vote, in gerrymandered districts. Again, which party is going to win the urban ethnic machine battle in those districts every election cycle?
Alex K on June 23, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Wake up Entelechy - s/b “as in the article from the HA Headlines”.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Still not awake I am - s/b “ratio being 51/49% left/right”
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Well, they have to pass it now - the President double-dog dared them. They’re chickens if they don’t.
I love that he is using the same arguement that was used on Schwartz to lick the flagpole in A Christmas Story.
Coyote D. on June 23, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Bush is a stooge, bought and paid for.
WisCon on June 23, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Hard to imagine a political party that does not believe in voting for the peoples largess as having too many fans in the poor immigrant population.
The GOP loses the money pander for votes competition every time.
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4772549
Speakup on June 23, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday man
You’ve been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus
Goo goo ga joob
I just needed to get my mind off the harikari of the GOP…
Halley on June 23, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Bush has apparently decided his legacy is to be the LAST Republican President of the USA. He’s sure trying awful hard.
Buzzy on June 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Isn’t that a south of the border mustache?
Speakup on June 23, 2007 at 1:49 PM
YOU GUYS MISUNDESTOOD!
He said “to piss this travesty”
Ropera on June 23, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Impeach?
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 23, 2007 at 1:58 PM
+ my 2 cents.
infidel4life on June 23, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Like Peggy Noonan said, we just don’t know this guy anymore!
Joshua P. Allem on June 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Incredible.
amnistitio delenda est
apostle26 on June 23, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Speaking of bulging pockets, and the significance of talk radio in barring the shamnesty bill (or whom to scapegoat if it fails)…
Virtual fence in Arizona not doing so good.
If the NYT supports Mr. Bush, or writes remotely favorably about him, on any topic, all indicators are that something is untoward.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 4:29 PM
The virtual President.
Doing more harm than a real one.
Vaya con diablos.
profitsbeard on June 23, 2007 at 5:21 PM
The next GOP presidential candidate will articulate traditional values and wont need the votes of one issue Hispanics to get elected.
csdeven on June 23, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I don’t hate anybody, but Bush is sure convinced me to have utter contempt for him. It’s sad, really, I know he’s a committed Christian as I am, but the difference is I believe this country, the USA, is a special and blessed country. Bush evidently doesn’t, because he’s opening the gates to everyone in the world, willy nilly. Our uniqueness and importance in the world is at stake I believe.
The Dems are so hypocritical, they cry for a higher minimum wage constantly, and “a decent living wage for every American” then they de-facto drive wages down (in some cases way down), by keeping our southern border wide open.
God save the Republic.
gmoonster on June 23, 2007 at 11:12 PM
There is no more defending Bush on anything….illegal immigration, the Iraq war, maybe the economy…don’t know. All I know is that had we known in the very beginning that this SOB would pull an amnesty for millions of illegals in this country, he probably never would have been the GOP pick. What a sham!
lynnv on June 24, 2007 at 8:39 AM
This is true true. Don’t I feel like a fool after defending this jerk in the past. No more. The sooner he goes the better. Benedict Boosh.
Wade on June 24, 2007 at 10:33 AM
rmgraha on June 24, 2007 at 11:56 AM
No, Mr. President. Simply No.
My son does not go to Iraq to protect this nation, and you leave the border open.
No.
bloviator on June 24, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I sure can’t wait till the ‘08 election. We need to flush this toilet because it is starting to stink. The House and Senate need to be clensed with bleach at the same time. They (all politicians) do not fear the electorate anymore so they think they can pass any BS bill that benefits them. Lets put the fear back into their hearts with a complete sweep of new faces.
cochransintexas on June 25, 2007 at 11:19 AM