A number of readers have noticed that I haven’t blogged all this week. I apologize for my silence, but this has been a kind of introspective week for me where I have not really been motivated to write. Perhaps, it’s that I need to complete the first draft of a “concept paper” for my dissertation. And I’ve been thinking about that, though delayed in the execution.
Given that that dissertation focuses on the role the goddess Athena plays in men’s lives, it is remarkably serendipitous that my Athena, the columnist Peggy Noonan, has a great piece on the president today. Not only does she get at some of the failings of this President Bush, but she also shows some insight into his father’s mistakes. That generally decent man “won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had,” but, as Peggy so wisely notes, “did not understand he’d been elected to Reagan’s third term.”
Like his father, the current President Bush seems to place greater stock in personal loyalty than principle. Peggy understands that “personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don’t need hacks.”
As Peggy embodies many of the qualities of Athena, including wisdom, she recognizes that “the great shortcoming of this White House” is its absence of that noble quality. It’s too bad the incumbent Republican president doesn’t have this voice of wisdom to guide him during these difficult times.
If President is to make something of his last 19 months in his office, he needs to follow the lead of the Greek heroes — and pay heed to the wisdom of Athena. For when those heroes took her advice, they defeated their adversaries and accomplished their goals. My Athena has today offered some words of wisdom for the president — and an honest critique of his Administration.
The president has, in the past, from time to time, shown a capacity to respond to well-meaning criticism. Let us hope he can do so yet again. For once again, an Athena helps show the way, offering guidance to a man, capable of accomplishment, but who has lost sight of the path and who needs some direction.
For a sampling of this Athena’s wisdom, just read the whole thing!
Iowahawk also has a take on the GOP’s trouble. And there are some what ain’t gonna like it.
Noonan is a conservative, so I’m not surprised she refers to the coalition that Bush has rent asunder as ‘The Conservative Coalition’. She is certainly entitled to her perspective and makes some good points such as the familial attitude of squander. Nonetheless, I disagree with her implication that conservatives were and are against the war in Iraq:
“For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome…You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.”
Conservatives are among the war’s most ardent supporters. That foreign intervention, particulary on such a massive scale, is opposed to what is traditionally considered the conservative position of relative isolation is no excuse to re-write history for textual effect.
Moreover, I think her preaching about the transformation from ‘too bad’ to ‘you’re bad’ loses a bit of steam when peppered with phrases such as:
“If they’d really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness…”
and
“Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness…”
Among those who lean right, I’m as big a Bush critic as they come. But I find Noonan and other conservatives once again suffering from the mentality that insists they aren’t really part of any coalition. This gives them the ability to claim victory in the good times (such as their dishonest co-opting of Reagan’s historical triumph) and their refusal to participate during the bad. It’s a neurotic position because it only satisfies the need to never be satisfied. Noonan reveals this fissure thusly:
“Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party.”
Oh really? Since when does the Republican Party not belong to Republicans? Conservatives are not Republicans and often take (foolish) pride in maintaining their distance, so the Republican Party is not ‘their party’.
Right on HH. I love this little nugget from Noonan:
.
More revisionist history from Peggy. This is from none other than Bruce Bartlett:
Peggy’s critique of Bush is devastating. I disagree with her mis-characterizations of certain things, like Katrina – but the thrust of her criticism is unanswerable.
Bush’s betrayal of the Republican base on issues of border security and illegal immigration could well be the thing that finally pushes his approval rating below 30%. We’ll see.
The comments she mentions – wherein leading Administration figures characterize good people who are concerned about border security and illegal immigrants as “bigots” – are truly hateful and destructive, on the Administration’s part. Much as we’ve seen from some people on this blog, in other threads.
That’s unanswerably true. And something that one or two regulars on GayPatriot would do well to consider, as they take a long look in the mirror at themselves and their recent ugly comments.
If Peggy is right – that Bush II is once again tearing apart the broader conservative coalition, as Bush I did – Then history may be repeating itself. And we could see another Clinton elected to the White House in 2008 – with under 50% of the vote, of course. (As Clinton I was, both times.)
#2 – HardHobbit, perhaps you read a different article than me. I didn’t see an implication on Noonan’s part that conservatives generally were against the Iraq war. I saw an implication on her part that *some* conservatives were against the Iraq war. Which is true – take, for example, Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.
I say the above as a non-conservative (actually, as a small-L libertarian, somewhat socially liberal) supporter of the Iraq war, who has rather disliked the Buchananite / Paulite conservative critics of the war.
You also said, “Since when does the Republican Party not belong to Republicans?” Most people, I think, would be able to figure out that Peggy is referring to the fact that rank-and-file Republicans have now been betrayed by their supposed leadership, on issues of border security and illegal immigration.
So, it isn’t bad faith on her part that she said what she said – and, not rocket science to understand her point more fairly.
#3 – John, I’m sorry, but what you’re citing could be a bit silly – if (note IF) you’re going with it, where I think you might be going.
Let’s put it this way – Yes, Reagan signed some tax increases. Those increases were rather smaller than his original cuts.
View the net result of the Reagan Administration tax policies. Top income tax bracket at 70% when he came in… half that when he left. Same for other brackets. With beneficent (that means “good”, folks) economic consequences that are still with us.
Having said that – I am with Milton Friedman on this one… Namely, that the true measure of taxes is not the rates, the collections, etc. but the actual share of government spending in the real economy. (Because all government spending, by its nature, draws productive resources from private uses.)
John, IOW: If it’s true that government **spending** ended up with a larger share of GDP at the end of the Reagan Administration – then OK, I will bow to your wisdom and agree that yes, Reagan raised net taxes 🙂 But then I’ll note that at least he did so somewhat less than his predecessors and his successors.
#5:
What a crock! If you’re “socially liberal” and support the occupation of Iraq, you’re no libertarian, you’re a neocon. Paul is the libertarian and always has been.
#5
View the net result of the Reagan Administration tax policies. Top income tax bracket at 70% when he came in… half that when he left. Same for other brackets.
You are confusing the marginal tax rate with the effective tax rate.
No I’m not. I understand the difference. And you didn’t address the substance of what I said.
Reagan lowered most people’s income tax burdens. It’s a fact. On the other hand, he ran deficits and, nodding to Friedman, the most effective overall appraisal of his legacy is to look at whatever he did – or failed to do – with spending in general.
Or, if you’re not buying the Friedman suggestion… then appraise Reagan’s legacy by comparing actual (effective) tax collections as a percentage of GDP in the years 1980 and 1988.
The Bartlett article does neither. It provides no effective / overall assessment. “Congress never cut spending by even one penny,” Bartlett does quote Reagan as saying. But again – no numbers. As I said John, you could be right, after I see some numbers. It’s too late for me to look them up. Maybe tomorrow.
#6 – Oh, hi little Ian! You seem to want my attention, so here is some.
John, great Bartlett quote. I didn’t know there were only two of the Reagan years in which taxes weren’t raised — thanks and bully for you for pointing it out.
Noonan needs to learn to proofread. Her “…He thought he’d been elected because they liked him…” is aimed at which segment of her reading audience? Sally Field? And it certainly wasn’t moderates and liberals who supported the idea of invasion, yet isn’t it interesting that it’s now conservatives who count themselves as always having been against it now that the predictions they were warned about have come true? (Remember Limbaugh et al. crowing about Freedom Fries and the Axis of Weasels?)
And now Noonan blithely babbles about The Conservative Coalition (Is this the kinder, gentler Christian Coalition?), but tries awfully hard not to be a Republican, not to be a member of the party she claims we (not Republicans, but conservatives and Republicans — better yet, conservatives as opposed to Republicans, but alongside them because if we join them we can’t criticize them and then I, Peggy Noonan, would be the party hack I’m decrying in my article and then I’d be out of a job) need to take back.
I agree with Peggy that the president has lost touch with the base. But one issue that really bothers me, is this idea of holding everyone up to the standards of Ronald Reagan. He was a wonderful man and president – but there won’t be another Reagan. Just like there won’t be another Washington or Lincoln.
I”m tired of all the candidates invoking Reagan’s name. Although I agree, most people voted for Bush l as a third term Reagan – they were being foolish. Of course he was going to forge his own way – maybe to his own detriment.
I also don’t like this linking of father and son so closely – they are different people. Most of us would be quite upset if every achievement or failure in our lives were immediately compared to our parent. Bush ll is very good at making his own judgments, successes and mistakes on his own, with no reflection on his father.
Someone said on another blog that the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats want to give the country away, and Republicans want to sell it.
Extreme, exaggerated, and caricatured… yes. But there is a nugget of truth in it.
I think there is a country club strain of Republicanism that doesn’t mind returning to the 1970s, when the moderates were in charge and the GOP had 38 Senate seats and a permanent House minority… so long as they get to be in charge of the party and rid it of those embarrassing Bible-Thumpers they despise.
“Paul is the libertarian and always has been.”
Wrong again, Wonder Woman. As I expressly pointed out in my well-documented riposte to your earlier claims, Ron Paul has had his pick of labels with “Libertarian” being just one of them.
You are 0-3 in “facts,” Wonder Woman. Better spin on out of here before you go 0-4.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter 🙂
You probably know full well that “Libertarian” is one of the labels that the Daily Kos, left-liberal types have discussed in their journals in the last year or two, and decided to try and appropriate for themselves. Because, after all, liberty really is good. It’s nice to be after something good – or, in their case, to persuade themselves that they are.
So, “libertarian” is starting to become a more positive word among them. “We’re the real libertarians”, some of them will say.
Meanwhile: evidence has emerged that Ron Paul is an ex-David Duke follower. I.e., racist. And perhaps not-so-ex?
I do not know the final verdict of that debate. But let’s link the two up. What little Ian has done in this thread, knowingly or unknowingly, is praise a suspected racist.
He has taken a term that is somewhat positive for left-liberals – a term they are trying to expropriate, if they can – and bestowed it upon Ron Paul, a man whom even they suspect of racism.
Hmm… Are Ian’s true colors (so to speak) emerging? Do you think he praised a suspected racist here unknowingly, or knowingly?
yet isn’t it interesting that it’s now conservatives who count themselves as always having been against it now that the predictions they were warned about have come true? (Remember Limbaugh et al. crowing about Freedom Fries and the Axis of Weasels?)
What the hell are you talking about? Rush still supports the invasion and no, the predictions have not come true. Further, what would you call two of our “allies” who stabbed us in the back to protect their Oil For Fools kickbacks?
But one issue that really bothers me, is this idea of holding everyone up to the standards of Ronald Reagan. He was a wonderful man and president – but there won’t be another Reagan.
That goes without saying. It’s just a measure of how everyone craves that kind of leadership especially now. I don’t think anybody believes there’s an exact replica out there. What you should be more worried about is candidates and supporters who say that their candidate is “Reagan-like” or Conservative when they aren’t.
Well, I should say that a candidate can be “Reagan-like” in some respects, but don’t try to pass them off as “another Reagan”. None of them out there fit that bill, to my knowledge. I was too young to remember the Reagan years and I haven’t spent too much time studying it, but I do know that, based on what I have learned, none of these guys are it.
If Reagan were running today, I think he’d be dismissed as fringe, reactionary, racist and all the other the Rockefellerites are heaping on the right these days.
Dan: Interesting post. This immigration deal was the final straw for me and I’ve had enough of Bush and his presidency. I wrote more about that on my own blog here and here. I do not trust the man or any of the politicos on this.
Ian: What a crock! If you’re “socially liberal” and support the occupation of Iraq, you’re no libertarian, you’re a neocon. Paul is the libertarian and always has been.
No, what you wrote is a “crock”. Libertarians are not united in their thinking anymore than conservatives or liberals are. He is not alone, see Instapundit and QandO for examples. Among conservatives you have those who the Religious Right, Rudy-style fiscal conservative/social liberals, the Buchananite paeleo-conservative, the neocons, etc.
HardHobbit: [I]sn’t it interesting that it’s now conservatives who count themselves as always having been against it now that the predictions they were warned about have come true?
No, the break with Bush is over immigration not necessarily the GWOT. Think of it as the final straw after a number of things he has done to piss off his base. There have been conservatives since the beginning who’ve opposed the War in Iraq and some even in Afghanistan from the isolationist Buchananite wing. When it comes to Iraq, there is criticism of Bush’s handling of it (like the Surge being 2 yrs overdue IMO) but not necessarily the entire mission from all conservatives. That’s a big difference.
John, read Noonan’s article again. No, not all conservatives are in favor of the war, but my criticism of Noonan is that she is now claiming they are/were against it. The opinion you cite from my comment is my paraphrase of Noonan, not mine — sorry if I was unclear, but if you still disagree with this, then your disagreement is with Noonan, not with me. Most of all stripes agree that the war has been handled badly, but it’s unprincipled and dishonest to have supported it in all the theoretical ‘shock and awe’ and now withdraw support once the going has gotten tough. I agree with your ‘big difference’, but according to Noonan, it’s not quite big enough.
My comments do not/did not mention anything about the immigration debate. There’s been quite enough of that ‘debate’ (if one can call it that) going on here without my adding to it.
John, I think you get it. The Amnesty First – Maybe Enforcement Later bill is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Bush has betrayed basic principles, especially limited government and fiscal responsibility, time and time again, and we cut him slack because we thought he got the ‘Big Things’ right. Now, he expects the base to *trust him* that he’s finally going to enforce immigration law after 6 years of near total neglect. The trust he thinks he is entitled too has long since been squandered.
And to all the conservative-bashers out there, let me ask you a simple question: Would you have rather had Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court than Sam Alito? Because if it weren’t for us conservative knuckle-draggers, that’s what you’d have.
Keep in mind that Bush’s support has always been weak. He won in 2000 only because of the Electoral College (which I support); he lost the popular vote. Al Gore would have won easily had he not been such a jerk and people weren’t a little tired of the Clinton circus.
In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by less than one percent against John Kerry – even more obnoxious than Gore.
Neither of these wins was a mandate to change this nation into a Latin American country.
I can’t remember who wrote the phrase “Bush acts with messianic certainty”. I think this explains the immigration fiasco and his reluctance to change tactics in Iraq a long time ago.
W seems to be working build Bill Clinton’s legacy as his own.
Again, she isn’t. You’ve read way, way too much into less than a half-sentence of her article.
Precisely.
Noonan’s article is about the Adminsitration’s contemptuous attitude toward its own base – manifested most recently in the immigration debate. As you avoid addressing that debate, you avoid the entire “meat” and context of her article – addressing your comments instead to out-of-context minutiae.
For example: an out-of-context half-sentence in which Noonan might have mis-implied (but didn’t really) that a lot of conservatives were against the Iraq war; or a sentence where you feign to not understand how any reasonable person could suggest that the Republican Party no longer belongs to its own rank-and-file, who must now fight to reclaim it.
Actually, Robert, Bush won the popular vote in 2004 by about 2.5%.
#20 – Robert, minor correction – in 2004, Bush won about 51-48% over Kerry, or about 3% of the popular vote, or some 3-4 million popular votes. It was closer on an electoral basis, I agree.
HardHobbit: No, not all conservatives are in favor of the war, but my criticism of Noonan is that she is now claiming they are/were against it.
I think you are reading more into what she actually said. I didn’t interpret it that way at all, but instead that she was referring to the Buchananites and those who may have opposed it because they thought Afghanistan was more important or because WMDs were not found, etc.
Also John, the Scowcroft-ian so-called “realists” were at least partly against it. (Not that I care.)
John, here’s what she wrote:
“For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome…You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.”
She’s literally saying that conservative Bush supporters “…think the war was wrong or is wrong…” and that the Bush administration is saying to these supporters “Too bad.” My contention in both my comments in this thread is that it’s the conservatives who overwhelmingly support the war, but now Noonan is claiming that conservatives were/are against it. You claim I’m reading too much into it, but that’s what she wrote. You state the following:
“…but instead that she was referring to the Buchananites and those who may have opposed it because they thought Afghanistan was more important or because WMDs were not found, etc.”
So you know in those few sentences that she was referring to the Buchananites and that those who thought Afghanistan was more important or because WMDs were not found, etc. even though none of that is mentioned in the article? That’s simply not what she wrote. I think you are the one who is reading far too much into what she wrote by assuming you know what she means. Good criticism cannot take into account all the possibilities of what a writer might be referring to and good writing doesn’t allow for the temptation to do so. I’m not certain what you claim she meant is really what she meant and neither are you. If you’re correct and she meant the Buchananites but didn’t mention them, then that only strengthens the point of my criticism of her writing.
Off-topic, but here’s some quick good news/bad news. It’s good the plot was thwarted, but bad the plot existed.
GPW, ILC: I stand corrected.
I did a poor job of making my point.
W got 50.7% with the remainder split between Kerry(48.3), Nader(0.4), and some folks I’d never heard of. Not exactly Reagan’s ’84 landslide.
Interestingly, Reagan only got 50.7% of the popular vote in ’80 (although his margin over Carter(41%) was somewhat larger).
Off-topic, but here’s some quick good news/bad news.
Time to “redeploy” from NY. We’re just pi$$ing off the ragheads, so we should pull our troops out now.
Not exactly Reagan’s ‘84 landslide.
I would add that it’s still more than BJ ever got.
I think the point in 2004 was simply that Bush got a higher percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat had gotten in 40 years.
Yup. You read that right. In 40 years now, no Democrat has even reached 50% of the vote – except Jimmuh Carter alone, who managed to get to 50.1% in the post-Watergate election of 1976.
So if Reagan got 50.7% or Bush got 50.7%… well, they’re already ahead of any Democrat since I learned to speak.
Further, Robert, you said:
That appears to be a type of slam where you want to suggest that policies proposed by Bush in 2004 – such as defending the United States from terrorist attack, appropriately de-socialized “Social Security”, and completing the job in Iraq – turn the United States into a Latin American country.
Since nothing of the kind is true even slightly – then Robert, I may as well tell you honestly that you made an idiotic comment. If you didn’t mean how it sounded and only said it badly again: that makes it idiotic in a different way.
If you want to know where many Latin American countries are headed, look at Castro’s Cuba, or Chavez’s Venezuela, or (going back in history a bit) Ortega’s Nicaragua, or Allende’s Chile. In these typical Latin American countries, the following happen:
(1) The economy is socialized, ruining the country and destroying the hopes and dreams of the people.
(2) Free press is shut down.
(3) Political opposition is jailed, or (as in Castro’s and Allende’s cases) tortured and murdered en masse.
(4) In some cases, gays are jailed en masse. (See Castro’s Cuba again.)
Bush has never wanted nor moved toward any of those things. But today’s Democrats – for example, Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton – have explicitly proposed bills or programs that take big steps toward the first two. So Robert, your comment would have had at least the half-virtue of being a half-truth, if you had stated instead that the Democrats want to turn the United States into a Latin American country.
Just FYI. And before you try to bring up the (valid) point that Pinochet in Chile also jailed, killed and tortured his opponents as the Chilean socialist Allende had begun to do: let me point out that Pinochet, at the very least, did ultimately give up power and return his country to democracy. Ortega did too… but Castro clearly has not, and since Chavez models himself on Castro, I’d take a $500 bet that Chavez will not.
If you really meant your idiotic comment (i.e., it didn’t just come out wrong again), then you had probably said it to fish for attention. I’ve given you a bunch of attention for it, now. OK?
At NRO, a good point is made. In summary, Conservatives made a Faustian bargain with Bush. Bush made it abundantly clear in 2000 that on domestic issues, he was not a conservative. In fact, Bush like most all Democrats, views Big Government as The Solution to (and not the cause of) all of life’s problems.
In this light, Bush did not so much betray Conservatives as exceed the limits of the tolerance Conservatives extended to him.
This also explains why Conservatives have not overwhelmingly warmed to the choices the party has given them for 2008. The front-runners seem to be saying, “We bring a lot of liberal baggage, but we won’t exceed your tolerance.” And Conservatives have heard that tune before.
You’ve quoted her accurately, yet still not understood nor represented her fairly.
She didn’t say all conservatives were against the war. She didn’t say most conservatives were against the war. She didn’t say a slight majority of conservatives were against the war. She didn’t even say a large minority of conservatives were against the war.
She said, in effect and rightly, that some unspecified, but Bush-supporting conservatives were against the war. Which is a fact on the public record. (Note: I will grant you that she ought to have worded it better, or been more specific about whom she meant.)
You combine a truism (that conservatives overwhelmingly supported the war) with a false representation of Noonan. The false representation is a bit tricky, because you word it in such a way that you could mean one of two things.
(1) You could be suggesting that Noonan, in bad faith, now claims that Bush-supporting conservatives in general were always against the war. Problem: Noonan’s quote just doesn’t claim that. Or,
(2) Your could be suggesting that Noonan is wrong to claim that some (or any) Bush-supporting conservatives were always against the war. Problem: She’s right. It is indeed true that some Bush-supporting conservatives were always against the war.
Whichever one you are trying to suggest, Noonan is in the green zone (if a bit sloppy).
Final point: All of this is, again, trivia. Your point addresses a minute aspect of Noonan’s article. Her article was about the immigration debate and specifically, the Bush Administration’s gross mis-handling of it.
Robert – Reading something else on John’s blog just now, I just “got” your Latin America comment in a totally different light.
When you said:
, you might have meant “Bush’s and Reagan’s wins were not a mandate to give this country open borders and a flood of Latin American immigrants.” I never thought of that. If that is what you meant, and I got you wrong, I apologize. Here’s my excuse:
1) The fact that so many illegal immigrants are from Latin America isn’t really on my radar. It isn’t really something I care about, one way or the other. My concern is terrorist penetration.
2) Meanwhile, the outlandish claims we get in here from far leftists – that Bush would secretly want to be a Latin American dictator is only one example – have long been on my radar.
At this point, I have no idea which way you were going with the comment. If I did get you wrong, then please take my response as addressed to the GP site’s crazy Bush-haters – Not you.
HardHobbit: My contention in both my comments in this thread is that it’s the conservatives who overwhelmingly support the war, but now Noonan is claiming that conservatives were/are against it. You claim I’m reading too much into it, but that’s what she wrote.
I’ve read it more than once. Again I believe you are reading more into it than what she actually wrote. The war wasn’t all she listed, Noonan wrote about conservatives opposing “endless gushing spending”, without specifying what she meant, along with “expanding governmental authority and power”. In general conservatives would say they oppose such spending, but not regarding specific programs, e.g. defense. Does the second include the Patriot Act? Some would say it goes too far, others would strongly disagree. Noonan herself supported it I believe. No, there isn’t enough there for you to leap to the conclusion that she is attempting to ignore recent history and say that all conservatives opposed the war. Such flies in the face of reason.
HH: no matter how you explain it, the anti-immigration reform conservatives on this thread will not accept that conservatives are now doing a re-write of history… “Oh, we were AGAINST the WOT-Iraq… always were, always will be… that’s us, oh yes.” Move over CindySheehan, Peggy Noonan is bringing a whole other wing to the party (small “p” there).
And they’ll continue to tell you that and argue with you on that point that Noonan makes abundantly and completely clear.
But they’ll argue more because Noonan gives credibility to a growing anti-immigration Nativist voice in our country that had been silent for most of the 20thC. She’s one of them, now. She’s legit. Pure enuff, true enuff! Should we wonder how long before we hear a F’ingTHompson and DamePeggy for an independent TrueConservativeParty ticket?
Of course she’s dead wrong in claiming that conservatives have been counseling the Prez against the WOT-Iraq… and he’s told them to go jump… except it’s hard to find his exact words on that point (because it discredits her argument roundly) and she’s forced to using Graham’s and other’s. Afterall, Bush supporters all speak with a single voice at the charge of the Dark Lord… oh, wait, they mean Bush… the vassal of the evil elites.
What did you expect?
Heck, she reduces the Bush Administration’s embrace of meaningful immigration reform and increased border security to a simple, predictable absurdity: Bush isn’t one of us and his fellow “elites” aren’t true enuff, pure enuff conservatives for us. He stepped out of line first… not us. He’s broken the compact; not us. Crap. We used to have a BlameAmericaFirst crowd in the US… now we have a BlameBushFirst crowd in the conservative ranks… and it’s all crap.
In fact, as some here often like to raise the “elites are agin’ us” complaint up the flagpole with their Nativist pleas for cultural purity and integrity (and Peggy Noonan DOES exactly that in her latest opinion piece)… the truth is, Peggy Noonan has often been a bit of disloyal, disaffected snob –like the time she left the Bush 41 WH and went on natl TV to tell people that Bush is living in a fantasy land… out of touch with reality… never had to get dirt under his manicured fingernails… even tho she knows that #41 never did the manicure thing… that was her “worshipful god” RReagan’s favorite past time. Hey, DamePeggy doesn’t let the truth get in the way of scoring debate points from the cheap seats.
Hearing her in the affectacious Connecticut “lock jaw” voice her Fairleigh Dickinson private schooling elitist education granted her, seems strange to hear her complaining about famous Yale elites these days. Not surprising, just disingenuous of her.
PeggyN is still smarting over not being invited to participate in the W-Cheney Inaugural Planning Committee… she’s still smarting that W didn’t have her write his post 9-11 speech to Congress… in fact, horrors of horrors, W didn’t meet even with her personally when she offered and instead sent one of his junior speech writers to meet with the GrandDameNoonan.
What a load of self-serving nonsense on her part. These latest spins on the conservatives being against the WOT-Iraq will next move on to “we weren’t grossly corrupt, bloated and malfeasant in Congress… that was the moderates”. Oh wait, some here have already tried that ploy and were dismissed from class for being ill-prepared.
PeggyNoonan might speak for conservatives; but she’s lost touch with her soul in the process. Small price in her case.
VK: In this light, Bush did not so much betray Conservatives as exceed the limits of the tolerance Conservatives extended to him.
Probably true. I didn’t agree with him entirely in 2000 and less in 2004, but both times I thought he was far better than the alternative. I still believe that, though grudgingly know. The thing of it is that I agree in general with his ideas of reform for immigration but have some problems with the details on the legalization side and am adamant that security and enforcement be tackled first. I have no trust in the man on those which is why a promise to do it just doesn’t cut it with me anymore.
MM: I suppose I shouldn’t even bother, but other than pure rhetorical bullshit on your part what exactly did you find Nativist in this thread? More specifically since you paint with such a wide brush, in my comments? HH is overreaching himself in commenting on Noonan’s article but you’ve gone so far off the deep end it’s ridiculous. Look, Noonan is final arbiter of what she meant so if either of you truly believe she meant what you both claim, feel free to ask her. Otherwise, you both are grasping at straws.
#8
Reagan lowered most people’s income tax burdens.
True, but you must also include the tax increase in other areas. For a history of effective federal tax rates, see this(table 1A; xls file) from the CBO. The overall effective federal tax rate fell, but the decrease was less than 1%.
John, I’m wasting my time with you, but one more try.
Here’s what you wrote:
“…but instead that she was referring to the Buchananites and those who may have opposed it because they thought Afghanistan was more important or because WMDs were not found, etc.”
Noonan doesn’t mention Buchanan, doesn’t mention Afghanistan, doesn’t mention WMDs anywhere in her article. You are assuming you know what she means and that’s bad logic and bad criticism of bad writing. I’m analyzing exactly what’s on the printed page — Noonan can only be held responsible for that, not for what you might infer.
Good luck on that blog of yours. It appears you’re going to need it.
MM, once again you’ve nailed several points.
Have you ever noticed groups of tattooed and pierced kids dressed in fatigues and dog collars, combat boots and punked-out hair — they’re mostly found on college campuses as non-matriculated 8th-year Bachelor’s degree students. Their look, the slogans they repeat, their ‘outrage is so ’90s — bored is hip’ attitude is all so carefully studied. Of course, they’re trying so desperately to be non-conformists, while conforming to their image of what they think a rebel should be and to the nth degree. Basically, those non-conformists are all alike.
Well, now we see the same from conservatives. Apparently it’s hip to be a victim, to feel perpetually slighted and to assume a studied disassociation. They refuse to take part, but complain they’re not included. They’re not Republicans, but are obsessed with the failings of the GOP. Professional scolds, they prattle on about how non-conservatives lack morals, ethics, principles, yet cannot bear to be reminded when they’re own fall way, way short. Victims are boring and conservative victims are especially so — their perpetrators (country club moderates, supposedly) are boogeymen weilding not hammers and tongs, but tennis rackets.
Per Noonan, you’re absolutely right. She was once capable of impressive turns of phrase and was a great speech writer. But since there is no moral disagreement that terrorism is evil (even from Democrats — they are simply inept on all security issues), she has no real purpose. The bad old days of the Carter/Mondale Democrats are gone and she’s lost her mojo, her shtick; or perhaps the world has simply grown up around her, beyond her. She’s reduced to invoking the advice of grandmothers and meaningless phrases such as “…the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom–a sense that they did not invent history blah, blah, blah…“. She is, in a word, a hack. And not a very good one for the reasons we agree on and that I’ve recounted earlier.
You’ve handled your end of the immigration ‘debate’ (I’m using the term loosely because it’s hard to debate Narcissus and Echo, isn’t it?) and truthfully, I’ve not followed all of it. Whether there really can be shown a xenophobic conservative streak in the demand to “round ’em up and deport ’em…yeehah!”, I’m not sure. I know much of the immigration debate is economically and logistically bereft, it being controlled by those who are obsessed with illegality uber alles. I am, however, a firm believer in the rule of law and that the rights many illegals (through their attorneys) are demanding simply do not exist. I also think that there are those who would cry ‘Amnesty!’ no matter what the price a granting of citizenship might incur, from financial penalties, to having to show proficiency in English within 3 years, to applying for the necessary non-citizen documents such as a simple Green Card. To call all of these prerequisites (and more) Amnesty is to change the definition of the word. A definition of a word makes its meaning definite; one cannot engage in a substantive debate when definitions aren’t definite. Truth is not fluid.
But whatever our disagreements (including all of us here at GayPatriot and elsewhere), the reality of our political process cannot be denied. The President does not enjoy a line item veto and we cannot lay the blame at his feet for a bill that I agree is too large and too messy. But Noonan’s suggestion that it should have been handled as a series of small bills is ridiculous to one who knows even the slightest about how such contentious issues are dealt with by the Congress. Were we to heed her advice, the Senate would still be debating whether to use the terms ‘illegal immigrant’ or ‘illegal alien’ or ‘non-documented resident’ or… (In order to head off a call of hypocrisy at the pass, I should mention that I’ve often suggested that the litany of gay marriage issues such as inheritance and taxes would be better solved via ad hoc bills such as Noonan is suggesting. But these are largely issues of property rights, not marriage rights and make for a poor analogy.)
MM, I appreciate your comments and your agreement with the general thrust of mine. You’re right that no matter how simplified you might reduce your argument, no matter how carefully you might explain your logic, agreement is the ultimate anathema. In most debates, I’ve found that for many opponents there is only one thing they hate more than losing: being beaten.
I have yet to see V the K, or any others, exhibit any type of prejudice against legal immigrants.
But for those who cross the border illegally, live and work in the United States illegally, and so forth, let’s be clear; they have broken the law, and hence should be ineligible for ANY consideration of citizenship on the part of the United States. To give them any requires ignoring their previous crime and allowing them to keep cash that they obtained illegally and without paying taxes — and that is amnesty.
And the lesson of the amnesty bill is simple; all you need to do to achieve US citizenship is to illegally cross the border and manage to stay ahead of law enforcement for a couple of years, and you’re free.
I have zero problem with granting vast numbers of “Z visas” — as long as you are required to apply for them from your home country. If you cross the United States border without a visa, you have acted illegally, and you are subject to the full force of our law and penalties.
Aye. Truth is not fluid. To declare that a person(s), who has committed an illegal act, will not be prosecuted from doing so is amnesty by definition. You can’t wave a magic, political wand and pretend that it isn’t. And no, there aren’t any “prerequisites” for the amnesty. Once the bill is signed into law, it’s a done deal.
You can huff, puff and bloviate with another long-winded post and you can even throw in a bunch of big impressive words, but it still doesn’t change the definition of amnesty. As far as who wants to change the definition of the word, it’s those who claim that it isn’t.
Further, what the hell do you care about the rule of law if you’re willing to ignore it in a half-assed attempt to get votes or money for Socialist Stupidity?
With this immigration bill, one wonders why the hell we should have any immigration laws at all. They’re racist, sexist, bigot homophobe laws to pacify the yahoo xenophobes anyway. We can toss out laws supposed to prevent folks from coming into this country, but we can’t have ragheads running the ports. But, by God, we can have convicted felons working on the docks and we call it “national security”.
John writes: “MM: I suppose I shouldn’t even bother, but other than pure rhetorical bullshit on your part what exactly did you find Nativist in this thread? More specifically since you paint with such a wide brush, in my comments?”
John, I think there’s a problem more with your comprehension skills than in my comments, which you label as bs.
I didn’t write that YOUR comments were or are Nativist in origin. I frankly don’t automatically doubt immigration reform opponents’ motivations and interests brought to the debate… I also don’t think that the Prez has called those opponents “unAmerican” as some here contend. But then, I guess this debate is more about their feelings and thin skins than it is the merits of the reform.
Nope, the “broad bushstroke” –which nailed our Nation’s ill-advised growing Nativism Movement (should we consider Pat or Bay Buchanan or DamePeggy as the new populist leader of the Navitists– was putting the debate for some in context.
HH, you said it a lot better on this thread than I. Thanks for bringing some light to balance all the heat and smoke from the FarRight.
#43: NDT, thanks for that. It disappoints me whenever accusations of racism replace honest discourse.
I don’t like the amnesty program, but I would be willing to swallow it if it came with meaningful border security. But the bill as it is written gives a guarantee of at least probationary amnesty in exchange for promises of slightly better border security … half a fence, a handful of UAV’s, funding for more border agents.
And no amnesty supporter has yet answered some basic questions like why is it unreasonable to have border security first and then figure out what to do with the illegals already here? Since there is already a vast market in fraudulent documentation for illegal immigrants, how can the DHS possibly verify the credentials of all 12-20 million amnesty seekers? What happens to those who cross the border after 1 January 2007? Will they be deported? (We’re already told it’s either heartless or impractical to deport illegals.) Will we have to have another amnesty in 20 years? And if proponents are serious about enforcement provisions, why was an amendment to permit (not require) local law enforcement with probably cause to inquire into a suspect’s immigration status defeated?
HH: You are assuming you know what she means and that’s bad logic and bad criticism of bad writing. I’m analyzing exactly what’s on the printed page — Noonan can only be held responsible for that, not for what you might infer.
Noonan could have meant exactly what you say or something even worse, but such is not supported by the text of her article. You can post the same words all you wish yet it simply isn’t there. Instead the only one assuming anything here is you, not I. You are reading more into what she wrote than is actually there. Beyond that there really isn’t more to say on this unless Noonan writes something else that clarifies the issue in this piece.
John, you win an award today for uncompromising, inflexible, blinders-on, full-power-2-the-shields myoptic vision.
Noonan, like HH has tried repeatedly to point out to you and others here, wrote what she wrote. The words are her’s; not anyone else’s. She wrote that conservatives opposed the WOT-Iraq and were told by Bush: “Go to Hell and take the base with ya’ when you go, too”.
No, he didn’t. Yes, she did. And for you to ignore her own words and cover those eyes, ears while chanting “No, she didn’t; No, she didn’t” is about as bullheaded as they sometimes come on this site.
Honest, I doubt that Dan or Bruce will seize your GPBloggingCard if you admit DamePeggy was wrong on this one.
But suit yourself. Sometimes I think “The Wall” that those on the FarRightFringe are clamoring for is a metaphor for their own insular insecurities –fear of change, fear of diversity, fear of other cultures and an unfounded cynicism about America’s ability to assilimate waves upon waves of immigrants yearning for economic prosperity and freedom.
Toss in a little touch of “The elites are the problem” as DamePeggy and other conservatives are doing for that good dose of faux-populism which always appeals to the FarRightFringe –darn it doesn’t get much better.
It’s a shame because when those same FarRightFringe types sing the praises of America’s virtues to the world, they almost always note America’s heritage and the vital role of immigration… as did RReagan, TeddyRoosevelt, ALincoln and lots of other great GOPers in the past and present.
If Noonan wrote “The sky is blue”, HH would try to say he understands her real meaning – and we do not – because we are assuming too much if we assume she merely intended the basic implications of “sky”, “is”, and “blue” – which HH does not assume, because it would be rhetorically inconvenient for him if he did (and isn’t he ever so clever?).
Then there’s Michigan-Matt, who started by saying:
So many things wrong with that, I don’t know where to begin! LOL 🙂
1) The conservative who opposes meaningful immigration reform on GP, is Michigan-Matt. Other people on GP, who may or may not be conservatives, want meaningful immigration reform. Which freaks out Matt and triggers his name-calling fits.
2) I haven’t seen conservatives re-writing history. I haven’t seen conservatives aren’t disavowing the Iraq war, who shouldn’t. Democrats (who voted for the war) do that. Conservatives aren’t saying “We were always against the Iraq war” – without it being true just of them (or their friends), to begin with.
It is true that some, as in a very few, Bush-supporting conservatives such as Noonan and Buchanan were skeptical (at best) of Iraq all along and will take an occasional potshot that Bush should have listened to them more. Big freakin’ deal. Let’s all cowboy up, OK?
Matt, I’m with John: You are so far off the deep end, the rest of your cynical, hateful spew isn’t even worth reading anymore, much less replying to. That makes me sad. You have sunk low.
HH, that you would find Matt appealing in his “downhill phase”, rather than in his former glory, does not sadden me; it’s more what I expected. But HH, I hereby give you praise and credit for having the courage to say this to Matt:
Careful now, HH. Those words will suffice to make you – in Michigan-Matt’s parlance – a “racist”, “nativist” “bigot”.
HH writes: “I’ve found that for many opponents there is only one thing they hate more than losing: being beaten.”
You may be right but what I think they hate more is POLITICAL COMPROMISE and there in, part, lies their animus toward Bush on “No Child’s Behind Left Intact”, the spending bills passed by the conservative corruption that was Congress and now Border Security and Immigration Reform.
I think it’s the responsibility of the governing to govern. If a large segment of the conservative community hadn’t been sitting on their collective whiney butts in the last election, no one would have to contend with HarrygReid or NancyP now… but what is, is. The landscape changed in 06.
I remember reading right here the comments of some conservatives who were praising the Prez’s resolve NOT to be swayed by polls like Clinton was, or flipflop on important issues like Kerry did… and now those very conservatives want the Prez to adopt a tougher “kick the aliens to the curb” approach and reverse what he’s been talking about since his ride in the ICE/BP atv in the New Mexican desert in ’06.
And for the conservatives to now demand that Prez suddenly become “loyal” to their special interests and base values is ridiculous. What chutzpah! He hasn’t, but I wish he would tell them to take a hike.
ILC writes: “The conservative who opposes meaningful immigration reform on GP, is Michigan-Matt.”
You know, ILC, for someone to claim that is simple proof you’re off the reservation when it comes to reasoned discussion.
It reminds me of that moment in the Row v Wade culture war when the ProLife community demanded to be called ProLife and for everyone else who didn’t pass the Purity Test to be labeled “Pro-Abortion” or BabyButchers” or worse… they knew, just like the FoundingFathers, that labels of movements matter. Sorry, reform is in the hands of those pressing for reform RIGHT now… we haven’t made “perfect” the enemy of the pragmatic, probable, politically feasible reforms now under consideration.
For you to hold out the claim that your opposition to the BorderSecurity & ImmigrationReform bill is anything but obstructionism flies in the face of reality.
Sorry, words matter. Policy has a consequence. Reform and constructive progress on both border security and immigration is needed and to obstruct the current effort with cries of “Amnesty No” just doesn’t cut it in meeting the responsibility for governing.
You can toss in the cards when it comes to working with political factions in our great Country that might not pass those all-important and tribe-defining purity tests, but it isn’t an option for those who want progress.
Sigh….my kingdom for a stun grenade.
The first problem in immigration on which we all can agree, I think, is porous borders.
The immigration bill, in my opinion, pays only lip service to that, and focuses more on the amnesty provisions allowing people who have already broken the law and are in the United States illegally to stay here, ahead of people who have applied legally.
The way to approach this tactically, with the long-term strategic goal in mind, is to immediately — no ifs, ands, or buts — ramp up the enforcement scheme. We need tight borders NOW, and we need strong, continued enforcement against those who break immigration laws to come here and those who employ/shelter them.
That, Matt, is what I think you’re not hearing. Giving people who have come here, kept their noses clean, and added to the community a chance to come out of the shadows and do things legally is an admirable goal, but we have to stop having the shadows filled from a firehose first.
Once we have in place a strong and meaningful enforcement scheme that is working, THEN we can decide what we want to do with the remainder of people. Bluntly put, most Americans don’t like the idea of mass deportations, but if it would mean the border would finally be closed down, they’d be all for it. The smart thing to do is to push for the border closing and stronger enforcement first, THEN talk about what to do with those who are already here.
In my opinion, V the K and ILC, as well as most conservative types, are recognizing that the focus on this bill is the visa-granting, and that the enforcement is at best lip service. That should be exactly reversed.
If a large segment of the conservative community hadn’t been sitting on their collective whiney butts in the last election, no one would have to contend with HarrygReid or NancyP now
No, we’d have the same “conservative corruption that was Congress” running the show that Matt M himself laments in his preceding paragraph.
So, the congress was bad, and voting them out was also bad, but returning a bad and corrupt congress to power would have been good. Do I have that right?
NDXXX writes: “To give them any requires ignoring their previous crime and allowing them to keep cash that they obtained illegally and without paying taxes”.
One of the biggest problems, NDXXX, with the immigration reform debate is that we aren’t being accurate with our language. For instance, you claim that illegal aliens haven’t paid taxes –actually, it is the responsibility of the majority of wage payers to withhold federal, state and local taxes and remit them… the wage payers are the probable guilty parties here even in cases like small-time domestic help employees (nannies, personal cooks, home cleaners, etc) to report and withhold those payroll taxes. Granted, there are instances where the workers are paid in cash but that’s so the wage payers can avoid taxation and accountability… it isn’t at the behest of the worker.
There’s a difference in my mind between the multiple offending drug pusher moving back and forth across the border for illicit purposes and an illegal alien looking for work who commits a misdemeanor by crossing the border without permission.
There’s a big difference between both of those and the formerly legit alien whose papers expired and remains incountry… working and in bureacratic hell with ICE… we have seven such students in the PoliSci Dept at UofM right now… we’ll have 4 more on July1st.
And there’s a big, big difference between those head of households who are employed incountry and bring their family to the States versus those who are not employed and do the same to gain access to American taxpayer-funded services.
I don’t accept the harshness of the predicate of some that if you’re in the US illegally then you’ve voided your chance at working or citizenship. I would if we had been enforcing the laws since the last round of reforms… but we haven’t. The simple truth is to hold out on reform until a “perfect solution” toward all illegals is attained would be to deny any progress on reform. To be absolute is to ignore the political reality and seek compromise and progress.
Touchback, admission of guilt, stiff fines, restraint on serial familial immigration, no preference in the queue for citizenship and assimilation, etc make the bill a non-amnesty bill. I’m also sure that by the time the bill(s) actually come before the Prez for signature, there’ll be additional sanctions and conditions on illegals in order to appease the FarRight.
The opponents of reform and progress would have the world believe that the bill makes illegal aliens “US citizens” overnight with a blink of the eye, a nod of the head and a wave of the magic wand.
It doesn’t. Frankly, if any of the anti-reform people had to negotiate that gauntlet for a revalidation of their OWN US citizenship, the program would be tossed in a flash.
There’s a difference in my mind between the multiple offending drug pusher moving back and forth across the border for illicit purposes and an illegal alien looking for work who commits a misdemeanor by crossing the border without permission.
Yeah, the illegal immigrant gets free education, health care, police protection, and legal residency at taxpayer expense. The drug offender gets immunity from the Bush administration so it can throw two border guards in prison for 12 years. Then, the drug dealer gets to sue the US for $5 million.
Because the Bush Admin is SO committed to Border Security… (sarc)
NDXXX… I love the stun grenade line. No need to pull the pin. Sorry, I was writing while you were posting.
I agree we have a flawed, border. I agree more ought to be done on border security and immigration reform.
I don’t think “The Wall” is the answer –or even part of the answer.
I think stronger enforcement in terms of the laws and allocation of assets is critical to our natl security… it’s why I think a natl ID law is needed, greater control over gun registrations and explosives, better tracking of illegal aliens incountry, more targeted surveillance of likely terror groups, ending sanctuary in any case, etc.
I also think stronger sanctions against employers, speedier federal courts, detention by locals, etc is needed.
And the list goes on… but at the end of the day, it’s the responsibility of the governing to work together on a practical compromise for progress.
To maintain that closing the borders first must occur before we begin addressing the issue of illegal aliens and immigration is not practical. That is where we and others here disagree. You can opine whatever you want –just as I can– but at the end of the day, the politics of today’s landscape won’t accept your position.
I think border security and immigration reform are needed and, in today’s political climate, compromise on both points is needed in order to secure progress.
#50 – NDT, exactly. Thank you for trying.
#51 – V the K – Notice that what you quoted (not your own words) is itself a whine. “Those nasty conservatives! If only they’d kept on being good little soldiers for us neo-mods like they’re supposed to, we’d still have power!”
You pointed out last week,
That’s not the only projection going on with him.
VdaK writes: “So, the congress was bad, and voting them out was also bad, but returning a bad and corrupt congress to power would have been good. Do I have that right?”
No, you don’t have it correct, but you knew that already before the rhetorical query.
The majority leadership in the Congress was changing, V. DeLay was toast. There were new GOP candidates running for office that were pushed out by the backlash to the conservatives’ corruption.
All throughout the spring and summer of 06, I was hearing inside the Capitol that Hastert would be gone and there might be a challenge to the leadership of other conservatives by moderates when and if the majority held after the 06 elections. RollCall and others were awash with the rumored “backroom” lobbying for a return to the clarion days of the Contract w/ America, etc.
I don’t know if the moderates would have been able to exercise the demons. I had hoped the majority leadership would change… but it didn’t in the direction I had hoped for… it did in the direction that social conservatives (repeatedly burned by Bush on long list of issues) wanted… they gave us the Democrats and liberals.
So the rhetorical querry was cute, but like some of the others (Bush says we’re “unAmerican”, GOP is suffering, base if fed up, moderates are bad, etc) in the end, wrong.
I’m going to avoid the utter snark in #53.
I also think stronger sanctions against employers, speedier federal courts, detention by locals, etc is needed.
“Streamlined courts” was what John Cornyn was asking for when John McCain used the F-word on him. Giving locals permission to inquire into the immigration status of suspects was offered as an amendment to the McCain-Kennedy bill and was voted down. George Bush cut workplace enforcement of immigration law by 90% in his first term.
So much for Amnesty bill supporters’ commitment to tough enforcement.
VdaK, you’ll never hear me defend McCain on anything.
Sen Cornyn was right to press for a special set of ICE courts to handle these matters but that presented a killer add-on to the bill that would have resulted in the liberalest of Dems balking. Then we’d be back to square -0-… which is where the anti-immigration people would like it to be… I wonder if that was Cornyn’s game plan from the beginning? Nawh.
As you know, as floor mgr on the immigration package, it was McCain’s call.
If Congressional leaders hadn’t had to deal with the Dems in control, it would have been different.
But in politicis you play the cards you have or toss ’em in and fold.
#58: ILC … I just thought the one paragraph transition from “the congress was rotten and corrupt” to “damn you conservatives for letting the rotten and corrupt congress to be voted out” was almost Ian-like in its twisted logic, and nigh-on Sullivanesque in its mood swingery.
I’m also not impressed when Amnesty supporters say “this is the best bill we could get.” Does that mean if the Democrats want to raise taxes 90% we should support the bill because otherwise they’ll raise taxes 100%?
Well, I missed you EchoILC at #58.
Let’s try to make it as simple as possible for you, ok? Here’s the kernel that you’re missing from your popcorn bucket:
The conservatives in Congress who allowed DeLay and Cunningham and others to continue on the merry way of corruption and pork –legal and illegal– may NOT have been the majority leadership in the 110th Congress. May NOT is the important point here, Calarato. To assume, like VdaK does for scoring rhetorical debate points, that I meant the former corrupted conservative Congress would have been swept back into power is to miss the entire point… trees, forest, and everything else on the landscape.
But then, you weren’t really trying to comprehend were you? You were just aiming for some more deabte points without leaving the cheap seats. Let’s continue, shall we?
There were backroom efforts to ditch Hastert and other conservative corruption enablers in the early summer of 06… I don’t know if the supposed future GOP majority in the 110th would have exercised those demons… but there was an effort abreast.
What the social conservative voters who stayed home in 06 did was ensure that the Dems gained power, liberals would be ascendant and they (social conservatives) then committed political incontinence to “send a message”… one which they now whine whenever it echoes back to them.
Like on compromising on the Immigration and Border Security bill.
Simple enough?
The GOP has shown absolutely zero interest in reform even after their defeat. The idea that they would have cleaned House if they had been returned to power borders on delusional.
VdaK asks: “Does that mean if the Democrats want to raise taxes 90% we should support the bill because otherwise they’ll raise taxes 100%?”
Of course it doesn’t V. Compromise along those lines would be abdication of responsibility, not constructive progress toward meaningful immigration reform and stronger borders without amnesty,
Still painting that “proverbial cow in the meadow” with the word “deer” I see. I don’t think the orange suited hunters are buying the ruse, tho.
I would agree with V the K.
The best way to deal with the leftist Democrats like Pelosi and Kennedy is to make it clear what happens to immigration enforcement when they are in charge.
The key here is stopping the lies. Pelosi, Kennedy, and the Democrat Party have no intention of enforcing immigration law. They need to be called out as such and they need to be held accountable. The leverage against the Democrat Party will become vastly greater when it is clearly shown to the American people that the Democrat Party is against immigration enforcement and border controls; the puppet rank-and-file Democrats who lied their way into office by pretending Missus Pelosi and Massa Kennedy don’t pull their strings will no longer be able to hide it.
VdaK writes: “The idea that they would have cleaned House if they had been returned to power borders on delusional.”
VdaK, for someone completely outside the Party sitting in their cynical armchair, you’re certainly entitled to that uninformed opinion and rewrite of history.
You know better tho because you and I exchanged views on that very point in this blog last summer… and even then, you were doing the “ta hell with them, toss em out to send a message” shtick.
Or do we have to go digging for those discussion points about the possible change in Congressional leadership if the GOP held?
The leverage against the Democrat Party will become vastly greater when it is clearly shown to the American people that the Democrat Party is against immigration enforcement and border controls
Exactly. The willingness of some in the GOP to go along with the bill is bad politics, pure and simple. They alienate voters who care about border security, and they win nothing from the amnesty-advocates who are going to vote Democrat anyway.
I don’t see how Bush and the rest of this bill’s supporters think they can insult and marginalize conservatives in the power and still expect them to turn out and vote. You would think at some level of awareness, they would be cognizant of this.
Maybe I’m right that some moderates simply want to drive conservatives out of the party, even if it means being a permanent minority.
Or do we have to go digging for those discussion points about the possible change in Congressional leadership if the GOP held?
We don’t have to. The minority leadership elected by the GOP is essentially the same crew that was in charge when they were the majority. (Boehner, Blunt). They have advanced little or nothing in the way of reform, nor have they articulated a vision of responsible governance should they ever be returned to power.
When they point at Democrat corruption, they come across more as “Those Democrats are stealing our graft” than “This kind of corruption must end.”
I’ll say this for the thread: It’s moved off of the nonsense / trivia criticisms of Noonan that some were defending to the bitter end, and onto the Noonan article’s real subject. (The immigration debate and Bush’s mis-handling of it.)
MM: John, you win an award today for uncompromising, inflexible, blinders-on, full-power-2-the-shields myoptic vision.
Well one must have a goal in life. 😉
Noonan, like HH has tried repeatedly to point out to you and others here, wrote what she wrote. The words are her’s; not anyone else’s.
Aboslutely. Unfortunately for you though a whitewash of conservatives supporting the Iraq War simply isn’t there no matter how many times you post the same words over and over from her column.
Honest, I doubt that Dan or Bruce will seize your GPBloggingCard if you admit DamePeggy was wrong on this one.
I do not know Noonan personally and have no idea what kind of woman she is. Noonan is a fine wordsmith but I do not always agree with her so if she wrote something I thought was wrong I have no problem whatsoever mentioning that fact. You make it sound as if because she calls herself a conservative and I do as well than anything and everything she says MUST be defended. Um…perhaps that is how it works on the Left but for myself nothing could be further from the truth. The problem I have here though is you and HH are attempting to force a meaning upon her words that just isn’t there. Tell you what, find something else by Noonan that clarifies this or write her and ask but until you do this is a pointless exercise. Oh and as for Bruce and Dan, well if you recall I haven’t been shy about expressing my disagreements with positions they’ve taken in the past and they have done likewise as well with me. Groupthink isn’t a virtue to me.
And to think I almost missed this lil’ pearl of wisdom from you Matt…
MM: Sometimes I think “The Wall” that those on the FarRightFringe are clamoring for is a metaphor for their own insular insecurities –fear of change, fear of diversity, fear of other cultures and an unfounded cynicism about America’s ability to assilimate waves upon waves of immigrants yearning for economic prosperity and freedom.
Perhaps this is your problem, Matt: you engage in fantasy far more than seeking to actually listen to people. If you had of listened you will have seen in this thread alone from myself security as my priority with amnesty okayed, while others objected not to the origin of these illegals but the manner in which they entered the country. Big difference but such details are difficult for you to comprehend when it’s far easier to slop BS instead.
NDT: The first problem in immigration on which we all can agree, I think, is porous borders.
Apparently not to Matt, because if you raise this as a concern than not only are you a “Nativist” but you oppose even the concept of “political compromise”. The level of BS coming from Matt is enough for one to wear hip-waders when commenting here.
The immigration bill, in my opinion, pays only lip service to that, and focuses more on the amnesty provisions allowing people who have already broken the law and are in the United States illegally to stay here, ahead of people who have applied legally.
Of course you say that because you obviously have a “fear of change, fear of diversity, fear of other cultures”. Typical Republican-minded bigot that you are you just cannot see the value of “political compromise” which is pure righteousness in and of itself irrespective of what is actually produced. Rest assured though that Madames Pelosi and Clinton will help correct this deficiency in proper thinking in short order. /sarcasm
MM: For instance, you claim that illegal aliens haven’t paid taxes –actually, it is the responsibility of the majority of wage payers to withhold federal, state and local taxes and remit them…
And when they claim deductions on their W4 far in excess of what they are entitled that employers have no power or duty to check on, what then Matt? Just how involved on the ground level are you to where such methods of scamming the system are unknown to you?
There’s a difference in my mind between the multiple offending drug pusher moving back and forth across the border for illicit purposes and an illegal alien looking for work who commits a misdemeanor by crossing the border without permission.
Yet you have indicated that concern for such security is an indication of Nativism and “fear of other cultures”, Matt. Having a wee bit of a nativist streak youself?
MM: All throughout the spring and summer of 06, I was hearing inside the Capitol that Hastert would be gone and there might be a challenge to the leadership of other conservatives by moderates when and if the majority held after the 06 elections. RollCall and others were awash with the rumored “backroom” lobbying for a return to the clarion days of the Contract w/ America, etc.
Election-engineered rumor mills were not enough for me vote for George Allen in Virginia. Another round of “bash the fag for votes” is difficult to overlook when one’s representatives cannot even deliver on other areas of concern, not to mention are arrogant pricks. They had many years under Clinton and Bush to deliver and became as bad as the Democrats in most areas. There comes a time when empty promises is not enough to trust the same guys again.
MM: To assume, like VdaK does for scoring rhetorical debate points, that I meant the former corrupted conservative Congress would have been swept back into power is to miss the entire point… trees, forest, and everything else on the landscape.
You just broke the irony meter considering what you have asserted about Noonan’s article. Curious that…
John, please take this in the kindest fashion possible; I much prefer that Matt tell me those things directly, rather than you tell me what Matt is thinking.
The problem we are getting into here is that we are all taking each others’ words much too personally. Yes, there have been unfortunate descriptions used. Yes, there have been unfortunate reactions. But, in this whole discussion, I am slowly working my way up from wanting to use a stun grenade to the bucket of icewater we used to keep by the barn door during animal amorous season.
Again, realize the issue; the Democrats are lying to all of us about enforcement. They block enforcement. They oppose enforcement. And that needs to be screamed from the housetops, because that is what the root of this entire argument is about — and the one area where we all agree.
What the Dems want — and on which they are united — is a situation in which the law isn’t enforced and citizenship is handed out like candy, because they know full well what they were able to do with that during the machine-politics era of the early 20th century. Nancy Pelosi wants to reproduce what she grew up with in Baltimore — a political machine that turns out votes on command and enriches her and her puppets at taxpayer expense.
Enforce the laws as they exist and her entire scheme collapses. Worse for her, if the law is enforced equally, it allows differentiation later between those who want only to take advantage of our social services and those who genuinely want to use their talents and skills and hard work in this country — which means they won’t be susceptible to her leftist promises of free cash and no work for votes to punish those who do work.
Again, realize the issue; the Democrats are lying to all of us about enforcement. They block enforcement. They oppose enforcement. And that needs to be screamed from the housetops, because that is what the root of this entire argument is about — and the one area where we all agree.
Give that man a pound of gummi bears.
Actually, make that half a pound. I think many Republicans oppose enforcement… especially the one with the initials GWB.
MM: John, I think there’s a problem more with your comprehension skills than in my comments, which you label as bs.
I make no claims to infallibility so such is possible, yet unlike the snippet from Noonan that you’ve been harping on you have provided what appears to be clarification of your remarks:
Sometimes I think “The Wall” that those on the FarRightFringe are clamoring for is a metaphor for their own insular insecurities –fear of change, fear of diversity, fear of other cultures and an unfounded cynicism about America’s ability to assilimate waves upon waves of immigrants yearning for economic prosperity and freedom…
It’s a shame because when those same FarRightFringe types sing the praises of America’s virtues to the world, they almost always note America’s heritage and the vital role of immigration… as did RReagan, TeddyRoosevelt, ALincoln and lots of other great GOPers in the past and present.
Now if you’d like to expand further upon your meaning here that would be fine. Yet unless the English language has a hidden meaning with such secret knowledge only known to a select few a la the ancient Gnostics, words do indeed mean something and what you have written seems to be pretty clear.
NDT: John, please take this in the kindest fashion possible; I much prefer that Matt tell me those things directly, rather than you tell me what Matt is thinking.
Oh it was directed to Matt more than you, NDT. Snark and sarcasm serve a useful purpose at times.
In #55, MM writes:
“I don’t accept the harshness of the predicate of some that if you’re in the US illegally then you’ve voided your chance at working or citizenship. I would if we had been enforcing the laws since the last round of reforms… but we haven’t. The simple truth is to hold out on reform until a “perfect solution” toward all illegals is attained would be to deny any progress on reform. To be absolute is to ignore the political reality and seek compromise and progress.”
Zactly. And if you don’t vote, don’t bitch.
VK: Actually, make that half a pound. I think many Republicans oppose enforcement… especially the one with the initials GWB.
I was just getting ready to say that, but I’m glad somebody else pointed that out as well. This is what is driving conservative anger over this bill: many believe that once again they are being lied to and the GOP along with this Adminstration has zero credibility on immigration with only the Democrats scoring slightly lower.
HH: And if you don’t vote, don’t bitch.
I’m willing to bet that most if not all of the people here did in fact vote last year.
John, I did. In fact I even voted Republican (though I am not one).
#83, John writes:
“I’m willing to bet that most if not all of the people here did in fact vote last year.”
That’s a far cry from being so utterly certain re. what Noonan meant as opposed to what she wrote. You’re learning.
A typical MM straw man. I don’t think anyone in this thread believes that.
Ironically, it might be appropriate if we did. Coming here against the law is a crime. Any other crime voids (or ought to) your chance at working or citizenship.
But, I daresay that many here (including myself) only believe that illegals should get in line for working and citizenship, behind the people who went to the trouble to do it legally. Not, repeat not, that illegals should lose their chance altogether. So once again, MM tries to argue with a straw man he pulled from his ass.
Also relative to the argument, we do not refuse to enforce the law and arrest people when they commit a crime because they may have had a good reason or because a judge may decide to be lenient with them; we enforce the law, make the arrest, and allow the criminal justice system to decide what their penalty should be.
That is being short-circuited in this law; instead of requiring people to make their case for why they should be allowed to remain AFTER illegally immigrating, we are simply handing out visas to those who show up for a nominal fee, and continuing to do nothing about those who won’t.
Again, key issue; the Democrat Party insists that they will go after people who don’t go get a “Z visa” or overstay it, but refuses to enforce laws against those who are already in the country illegally and blocks any attempt to do so.
Once enforcement is in place, illegal immigrants should, as does anyone who commits a criminal act, have the right to plead their case, putting forward all the relevant facts, and for a judge to make determination of their sentence — deportation or temporary visa.
HH: That’s a far cry from being so utterly certain re. what Noonan meant as opposed to what she wrote. You’re learning.
Now you just amuse me HH… 😉
ILC: John, I did. In fact I even voted Republican (though I am not one).
Not me. I voted Independent for the first time ever. Being in a Red State my Republican Congresswoman won re-election easily but our GOP Senator (George Allen) was able to be picked off. Not that his Dem opponent, James Webb, is any better but it was sweet to see Allen sent packing. Next time it’s Webb’s turn…
John, look HH has tried in three separate ways now to help lead you to the proper understanding and comprehension of DamePeggy’s words of surprise on what conservatives have been saying about the WOT-Iraq, Bush’s response and reality.
DamePeggy’s words are clear.
She wrote: “For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don’t like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don’t like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad. But on immigration it has changed from “Too bad” to “You’re bad.”
I think the syndrome she had in mind was BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
She then goes on to wrongheadedly state that Bush has called his critics and opponents of immigration reform “unAmerican” –wrong, wrong and more wrong.
She wrote what she wrote. The words are there; you can spin ’em all you want but at the end of the day she wrote that conservatives have thought the WOT-Iraq is or was wrong.
Utter crap.
For me the break with DamePeggy came with this little smearing slam against Bush 41 when she wrote, in that same uninformed opinion piece Dan referenced, “He (Bush 41) had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance (the one from RReagan).”
No DamePeggy, you’re still ticked off you didn’t get the red carpet rolled for the speechified royalty you persume yourself to be. No scorn like that of a woman excluded from power.
But I’ll take NDXXX’s advice and move from DamePeggy’s grand fluster and abandonment of reason, history or relevancy.
The real focus of conservatives ought to be on pointing out why the Dems won’t enforce immigration sanctions if they get the WH in 08 and I’ll add that is why it is incumbent on conservatives to halt the purity tests and coalesce into the effort to keep the WH in GOP hands.
Of course, the social conservatives won’t… not without getting each and every Litmus Test pre-approved, language in the Platform and signed in blood by the Purest Nominee of their special interest choice.
But for now, getting them off the “It’s Amnesty I tell Ya!” bs would be a big, big step in the right direction.
John in #89 writes:
“Not me. I voted Independent for the first time ever. Being in a Red State my Republican Congresswoman won re-election easily but our GOP Senator (George Allen) was able to be picked off. Not that his Dem opponent, James Webb, is any better but it was sweet to see Allen sent packing. Next time it’s Webb’s turn…”
There it is for all to see. Exhibit A. Metaphysical optometrists are no doubt delighted with the myopia, the shortness of vision. And now we can congratulate ourselves on having built the altar of purity, enacted the sacrifice, and can now proceed to collectively slouch towards Gomorrah.
Conservatives have made it abundantly clear they’re not Republicans. I now know what they are: Democrats. This is the best, most subtly effective covert strategy I’ve ever seen. This is almost as smart as Dame Peggy Noonan deliberately writing a bad article in order to get everyone talking about its contents. Brilliant!
#82 John: many believe that once again they are being lied to and the GOP along with this Adminstration has zero credibility on immigration with only the Democrats scoring slightly lower..
And the fact that the bill is riddled with loopholes adds to this perception. Which is why no one has confided that the enforcement “triggers” are meaningful because they only have to be certified by a president and SecDHS who have both demonstrated they have zero interest in securing the border.
MM: John, look HH has tried in three separate ways now to help lead you to the proper understanding and comprehension of DamePeggy’s words of surprise on what conservatives have been saying about the WOT-Iraq, Bush’s response and reality.
While that was ‘thoughtful’ of the both of you, I assure you it was unnecessary. I understand Noonan’s words clearly enough yet you both have decided to impose a different meaning. So be it.
I think the syndrome she had in mind was BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
If that is what you really think she had in mind that it is even more understandable why you are having trouble with the rest of what she wrote. There is a huge difference between “battered wife syndrome” and the partisan term “Bush Derangement Syndrome”. In the words of Rosie, Google it!
She then goes on to wrongheadedly state that Bush has called his critics and opponents of immigration reform “unAmerican” –wrong, wrong and more wrong.
Of course that wasn’t the exact word she used, now was it? Yet unlike what you wish to divine in the other comments she wrote, for this one can reasonably understand that this is how she interpreted the remarks she quoted from Bush, 2 of his cabinet secretaries, 1 GOP Senator and a former speechwriter:
The real focus of conservatives ought to be on pointing out why the Dems won’t enforce immigration sanctions if they get the WH in 08 and I’ll add that is why it is incumbent on conservatives to halt the purity tests and coalesce into the effort to keep the WH in GOP hands.
Now on this I will agree with you, which is why Rudy and perhaps Fred both have my interest.
HH: There it is for all to see. Exhibit A. Metaphysical optometrists are no doubt delighted with the myopia, the shortness of vision. And now we can congratulate ourselves on having built the altar of purity, enacted the sacrifice, and can now proceed to collectively slouch towards Gomorrah.
Spoken like a true party idealogue. Action on ideas I believe in is far more important to me than the glories of any political party. When Republicans forget they are Republicans but instead act like Democrats there is little reason to reward such behavior with my vote.
Conservatives have made it abundantly clear they’re not Republicans. I now know what they are: Democrats.
Not necessarily, though I should point out that I have never claimed to be a Republican. The GOP may get my vote most of the time, but not always. Conservativism just like liberalism may dominate one party over the other but both are independent of the partisan line. I vote for the candidate who is most capable of delivering which Allen and Webb were not last time around.
What is a little scary is the way anyone who is critical of Bush for any reason is now accused of BDS.
There’s a big difference between saying “Bush has had a very bad record on border security throughout his administration and now wants Congress to pass an Amnesty bill whose already meager enforcement provisions rely entirely on his willingness to enforce them” and saying “Bush is Hitler and he blew up the WTC so he could invade Iraq and steal its oil and he wants to exterminate all gay people.”
Isn’t there?
I’ve always said: It’s about rational vs. irrational criticism… or if you prefer, criticism that is constructive of America vs. destructive.
People who tell the truth about illegal immigration and border security – namely, that our government has failed miserably to secure the borders, to the point where our government has no credibility and we have no border security – are coming from a place of wanting to serve and protect America.
And, as we have seen so many times now on this blog: when they offer MM factual and reasoned arguments, he comes back with childish invective. In other words, they have facts and rationality on their side – as well as a constructive motive.
By contrast, the al Qaeda-loving, Saddam-loving, 9-11 Truther, “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)”, Surrender Now types are both (1) irrational and (2) ambivalent toward America at very best, or putting it politely.
VdaK, nice try but we’re sorry to tell you that the boat has sailed and you missed this one by yet another mile… like the one you peddled where Bush said opponents were “unAmerican”, the GOP is in dire trouble because the monied conservatives aren’t contributing (ha, ha and double ha… the conservatives are usually the last to pony-up and the first and most vocal to bitch… ask any GOP fundraiser) and all the other nonsense about immigration reform you dredge up in a day’s hobby.
To take DamePeggy’s “battered wife syndrome” silliness –I mean, even you deep in the midst of social conservatives’ cynical funk about everything govt today– even you, VdaK have to see some levity in DamePeggy’s appellation of “battered wife syndrome” being turned on her into BDS?
But you don’t, do you?
That’s because for you this discussion on immigration reform is about purity and betrayal, about doing the sanctimonious rather than the pragmatic, holding out for the perfect demonstration of principle in the muddy, messy compromise world of politics and policy. For the social conservatives angered at Bush it’s about “He’s not one of us” finally sinking in… after you turned on your very own conservative poster boys running the last Congress into the ground… like DamePeggy, it’s time for conservatives to take aim at Bush 43… “well, tut tut, he was never truly one of us. He’s an ELITE for God sakes… did anyone see my new Louis Vuitton btw?” Gosh, the irony is staggering, V. I guess that’s what BarryGoldwater and RReagan meant when they said some conservatives need a common enemy to push them together? Last round it was your own social conservatives in Congress ran to ruin… now, with them gone, it’s Bush. And let’s get the elder Bush when the opportunity allows –like DamePeggy does on a routine basis for spite.
V, you’re always going to see this opportunity at immigration reform as a sell out. You’re always going to see Bush as a traitor to true enuff, pure enuff conservatives. Mostly because he and the pragmatic Congressional coalition are securing a compromise on the issues and leaving the social conservatives on the slag heap –and let’s recall that social conservatives HAD almost a dozen years to do something constructive on reform but couldn’t because they made “perfect” the enemy of progress.
Like Giuliani might paraphase: there is probably 80+% of this issue that we agree on but you, true to the social conservative inclination, make the 20% THE ISSUE –every damn time. No wonder you guys ran Congress and the GOP into the ground.
Oh wait, that was the GOP running the good name of conservatives into the ground. I forgot’ lost inheritance and all. It’s tough to adopt an alternative version of reality as the truth; I’m trying to grasp your perspective tho.
There are days I wish RReagan was still around to kick the social conservatives in the ass and tell them what reality and responsibility requires of them… instead, nearly every issue is treated like a high school debate class for them.
Maybe it IS time to pull all your punches and go help Hillary win –afterall, you’ve said she was looking pretty good these days. She’ll give you all you’ve been asking for from the GOP… yeah, she’ll be a Queen compared to DamePeggy.
John, you’ve a bit farther to go under my tutelage. Indulge me.
Such comments of mine as those you’ve quoted are often somewhat exaggerated to make a point, but never (intentionally) stray from the point itself. My first paragraph is to illustrate just how self-defeating your example of self-congratulatory politics is, i.e. my statement re. the altar of purity, etc. is not meant to be taken literally, but is extempore — unlike, say, “Conservatives opposed the war in Iraq.” Frankly, I’m not sure what a metaphysical optometrist is, except I’m throwing it in there to point to what perhaps exists in you, what provokes you to make the statement I emphasized in my prior comment; I also intended to emphasize your apparent cultural myopia and political astigmatism. I’m no master of metaphor, but then I’m not an opinionist at the WSJ.
My second paragraph is sarcasm and I included the obvious parody of a nefarious Peggy Noonan to make it obvious. Apparently, not obvious enough and you’ve my apologies. I could have included the tired ‘/sarc’ affectation, but I’ve always found it superfluous and it is often used as a substitute for ‘*eyeroll*‘, like saying “Yeah, right.” But by now, your powers of divination have probably clued you in.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our latest exchange, recounted in your latest comment:
“HH: There it is for all to see. Exhibit A. Metaphysical optometrists are no doubt delighted with the myopia, the shortness of vision. And now we can congratulate ourselves on having built the altar of purity, enacted the sacrifice, and can now proceed to collectively slouch towards Gomorrah.
Spoken like a true party idealogue. Action on ideas I believe in is far more important to me than the glories of any political party.”
Not quite. The conservative disagreement with me is that I’m not an idealogue, but of course you cannot claim that partisanship is itself an ideal. Likewise, your disagreement with the GOP is that, as you state, “…Republicans forget they are Republicans…“. Now just who is the party idealogue? Who is telling the GOP to be more like what he thinks the GOP should be? (I’ll give you a hint: It ain’t me.) A political party’s idealogy is what its members decide it is. Thus, a platform ebbs and flows over time. Frankly, I’m not much of a party guy (in politics, that is), but I do understand that to move the country in the general rightist direction, I have to vote for the most viable right-leaning party. It’s that simple. As far as your acting on ideas, your helping to elect the opposition to the party in the best position to do just that (act on ideas, presumably yours) is, in my always humble opinion, brain dead. But that’s just me.
HH: John, you’ve a bit farther to go under my tutelage. Indulge me.
I would but in order to be a competent instructor one must actually have more than hyperbole and nonsensical rhetoric to convey to those under their “tutelage”. Since I’ve yet to see any indication that you have more to your reasoning than these, I must unfortunately decline your kind offer.
I also intended to emphasize your apparent cultural myopia and political astigmatism. I’m no master of metaphor, but then I’m not an opinionist at the WSJ.
We all have our faults. I do believe mine, real or laughably perceived on your part, are preferrable than the alternative you have presented. I’m just not that capable of suspending reason as much as you appear to be. I know, it’s a personal failing of mine but one I’ve grown accustomed to living with as you seem to done likewise with your own. Buck up though, perhaps these struggles of ours shall be counted as efficacious crosses in the final reckoning.
My second paragraph is sarcasm and I included the obvious parody of a nefarious Peggy Noonan to make it obvious.
Ah yes, ad hominem. During periods of anger it is quite expected, but in a discussion purporting to use reason as its guide it is the weapon of the feeble.
Likewise, your disagreement with the GOP is that, as you state, “…Republicans forget they are Republicans…“. Now just who is the party idealogue? Who is telling the GOP to be more like what he thinks the GOP should be? (I’ll give you a hint: It ain’t me.)
What a curious claim you make here, especially given your next stated desire to “move the country in the general rightist direction”. The irony here is that we apparently seek the same general goal but proceed from differing views on achieving it. I view the GOP as a useful tool, one to be used and shaped as required to achieve this goal. Yet it is only that: a tool, not a means unto itself. Should the major parties ever flip their principles, as they have in the past, I’d lean more to the Democrat Party. Conservatism, as I see it, is what is more important to me than partisan labels.
As far as your acting on ideas, your helping to elect the opposition to the party in the best position to do just that (act on ideas, presumably yours) is, in my always humble opinion, brain dead. But that’s just me.
Voting for the latest party apparatchik simply because the label they hold in seeking to achieve your goal has benefits, to a point. Allowing such an attitude to grow within the party that takes for granted such votes where the desires of their base are ignored, is a recipe for disaster. There are times when the party leadership is in need of being reminded of just whom they are relying upon to win power. When they fail to deliver on issues considered dear to a number of their base, they face the inevitable consequences as they did in 2006. Now responding to this with the amusing pleas we saw prior to the November debacle and the name-calling since then is not exactly the brightest way to woo back voters who are already in a surly mood. However, do continue for you still amuse me.
LOL 🙂
John, here’s an idea: Let’s compromise our way to victory. (pun intended)
Oh, and this:
Code white, emergency med adjustment needed in sector 2!
Matt, Reagan kicked your GOP neo-mod elites in the ass. 🙂 (1976, a moral victory which led directly to 1980. Remember?)
I’ll throw in.
John: “I’m willing to bet that most if not all of the people here did in fact vote last year.”
Yeppers. I’m one of the folks in Florida who can navigate a ballot. Not only that, but I did vote Republican. Say what you will, but I’d much rather have those Republicans than the angry, irrational liberal SOBs we have in there now. I’ll take corrupt Republicans over corrupt liberals anyday.
The “teach them a lesson” aspect is just asinine.
O.k. So here’s the compromise:
Legalise the immigrants and ship them all to Michigan to pick Matt’s cherries. Damn their economy, they can absorb it in New Fallujah and Dearborn-istan.
Or better yet, add them to the UAW and force GM & Ford to hire them and threaten to cut off subsidies if they don’t. Then they wouldn’t even have to work. They could make ass-loads doing nothing.
Question is, if Peggy’s right (and I believe she is, I left the party about two years ago), who, in your opinion, is out there to guide the party to its smaller government roots – including giving up on abortion intervention, weaker executive branch, and stupid constitutional amendments (FMA, flag burning)???
Oh, and I can’t forget the “Veggie Girl” debacle!
PS. I mean no disrespect to Terri Schaivo; the whole episode was nothing but stupid grandstanding. The congress could find the desire to get up in the middle of the night to try and keep the shell of a long dead woman on a feeding tube against her husbands, doctors, and courts wishes, but found it inconvenient in six years of dominance to do ANYTHING about the immigration mess, it’s beyond the pale. THAT, if they were serious about the possible security threat from the porous border should have been one of the first priorities after 9/11. It will be a long time before I that this party seriously again no matter who wins in 2008.
But you don’t shy away from saying the truth about them. You just called Republicans “corrupt”.
There it is. Yes, I will always vote for the lesser evil – assuming there is one. And in evaluating who is the lesser evil, I will look at principles and character – not party label. And if someone is evil – only a shade less than their opponent – I won’t sugar coat it.
In California in 2004 and 2006, it just happened that Republicans were the lesser evil. So that’s how I voted. It hasn’t always been so, and it won’t always be. But if some candidate or party ever wants my positive support – as in actual money, signs, volunteer time or encouragement – They will have to offer something one hell of a lot better than Matt’s and HardHobbit’s “Because You Have No Choice” platform.
(my comment was to TGC’s)
A couple of points: According to the Politico As recently as 2003, John McCain was referring to legalization of illegals as Amnesty.
And, according to the CBO the Kennedy-McCain bill only reduces illegal immigration by 25% and the “triggers” are unlikely to be in place before 2010.
There’s probably no point in trying to reason with people who are trying to recast Ronald Reagan as a Rockefeller Republican, but I get the impression there are some who are (to put it politely) naive about politics. If one’s goal is border security, one does not get that from politicians by asking, “Please, sirs, may we have some more (enforcement)?” Politicians only respond to two things, money and the threat of losing power.
Where’s the fence?
John, tu pense que je suis amusant. Alors, c’est vrais, et j’ecris a votre service, mais j’ai besoin travailler! I’ll be away from my computer, but here’s a tidbit pour t’amuse: Brush up on your logical fallacies, particularly the definition of ad hominem.
We agree? We’ll just see.
Echo Calarato writes: “Code white, emergency med adjustment needed in sector 2! Matt, Reagan kicked your GOP neo-mod elites in the ass.”
Nice try at rewriting history but even you can’t “thread that needle”, spin-boi. Neo-mods you’re fond of creating didn’t exist in 1976 or 1980… they WERE the GOP power brokers… they were the Party. No neo. No moderate label. Back then it was progressive Republicans.
RReagan ran as an outsider in 76. He got HIS clocked cleaned by the moderate GOP forces who practiced loyalty and stayed with Jerry Ford… but then, social conservatives don’t care too much for character or displays of loyalty –so I can see how you could do the fantasy rewrite.
RReagan’s disloyal, disruptive primary stunt in 75-76 gave Carter the platform and issues he needed to win in 76. Gee, thanks Ronnie for giving us JimmineyCricketCarter and his band of idiot Georgians like Bert Lance. Nice fantasy rewrite Echo… in the end, RReagan’s disloyal stunt in 76 violated his own 11th Commandment he employed while Governor of CA and staved off intraparty contests to his power base: Don’t speak ill of fellow GOPers.
But then, social conservatives are ALWAYS about self-interest first, loyalty second.
Fantasyland, Echo…. you’re knee deep in fantasyland. But stay there for a while, the cheap seats are… well, cheaper. Say Hello to DamePeggy —she’s out there with ya.
sonicfrog, I didn’t leave the Party… I stayed to fight the social conservatives inside the Party who are STILL Hell-bent on dividing this country into two unequal camps: 1) those on the FarRightFringe who have God in their backpocket (when corrupt lobbyists aren’t putting greenbacks in there) and 2) everyone else who isn’t Pure Enuff, True Enuff.
I know firsthand, unlike some here who have spent most of their lives complaining from afar and reading headlines, that the social conservatives who ran Congress like DeLay, Hastert and others were just like VdaK and EchoCalarato are still today: anti-moderate, anti-compromise, anti-progress and against anything and everything that challenges them to change.
DeLay used to have a sign outside his office suite in the Capitol: “No Moderates Need Apply”. Not “no Democrats” as you’d expect from a former whip. Not “no liberals”. No, it was no moderate GOPers.
He is and remains the posterboi of social conservative corruption and abuse run amock in Congress.
To hear the VdaKs and EchoCalarato types today speak, you’d think DeLay was a neo-mod (whatever the Hell that is).
I can understand how you could leave the Party in disgust. FMA and Schiavo and the Wall Stunt nearly drove me away in disgust, too. But each time I get ready to hurl and bolt, I remembered that it was the social conservatives who let down America and took the Party’s fortune with them.
TGC writes: “The “teach them a lesson” aspect is just asinine.”
EchoCalarato writes: “There it is. Yes, I will always vote for the lesser evil – assuming there is one. And in evaluating who is the lesser evil, I will look at principles and character – not party label.”
I agree with both statements; whole heartedly.
I’m glad to hear you guys weren’t some of the social conservatives who sat out the 06 elections.
VdaK at #109… glad to see you’re at least honestly represnting the links… finally. Cute spot.
VdaK at #108 writes: “There’s probably no point in trying to reason with people who are trying to recast Ronald Reagan as a Rockefeller Republican”
Gheesh, V, I see you’ve joined Echo in the cheap seats now. No one has recast RReagan as a Rockefeller GOPer… the point I have been making and you try ever so hard to ignore is that RReagan wouldn’t support your ASSinine position on hammering immigrants to this country and he wouldn’t support your effort to build a wall and turn America’s back on our 230+ yr heritage as a Nation of Immigrants, no matter what the Nativists think.
The whole “Rockefeller Republican” is so FarRightFringe I’m expecting you to invoke the Militia next or rail against US troops under UN commanders or bring up the “fact” that the govt is fluoridating our potable water supplies to help the commies. God, you guys don’t fall far from the turnip truck, do you?
Rockefeller Republican as a smear? What’s next? Limousine liberal? Ivory Tower? “It’s the elites, I tell ya! It’s the elites!!”
Yes, if it weren’t for those evil conservatives, the Supreme Court would be graced with the brilliant legal mind of Harriet Miers. Damn them! Damn them all to Hell!
And those bloated spending bills? Of course they were the conservatives fault, too. Why, I remember all throughout 2006, it seemed like every single editorial in National Review and The Weekly Standard were insisting on more earmarks and more pork. Damn conservatives!
Oh, and it’s obvious conservatives are out of touch when they demand better border enforcement, a radical view embraced by only about 80% of the American people. Stupid, out-of-touch knuckle-dragging conservatives!
Yes, if only conservatives would just commit mass-suicide and let the party be run by Olympia Snowe and Christie Todd Whitman, I am sure the Republicans would enjoy the same brilliant success the Michigan GOP had in defeating that hapless Canadian governor in the midst of a recession.
So, is there an actual Reagan speech where he tells religious conservatives to FOAD?
VdaK writes: “I am sure the Republicans would enjoy the same brilliant success the Michigan GOP had in defeating that hapless Canadian governor in the midst of a recession”
Ummm, note to fellow knuckle draggers… the GOP candidate for Gov in that Michigan election was a social Conservative named Dick DeVos… head of Amway… arch-conservative who might even make VdaK look like a limousine liberal on some issues. The head of the GOP in Michigan is a former Libertarian and social conservative who thought the premise of Free Willy should be applied to Teri Schiavo. The top two statewide GOPers holding elective office are both social conservatives…
Bad choice in trying to make your point… care to try again?
Oh, and it’s obvious conservatives are out of touch when they demand better border enforcement,
V, I love ya, but this is just one example that proves my point. They “demanded” better enforcement???? They were the majority. They had the power to not just “demand” it, but actually accomplish it. And in 2005 – 6, the issue only came to the fore because the Dems staged those phony protests to get it national attention.
Right now the republicans are like your alcoholic brother. Sure you love him – he’s your brother. And he says he’s quit the bottle, but it will be a long while before you trust him around the liquor cabinet.
And to answer your query, V… “Where’s the Fence”?
Congressman Hunter has some pics for you…
http://www.house.gov/hunter/fence.htm
Homeland Security has waived all enviro and legal impediments to building The Wall… here: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3091/1/315?TopicID=1
And BTW, the CNN polling done in late May shows that 83% of Americans prefer more Border Security patrols to building that fabled Fence or The Wall… which is tagged at a whooping $1.2b dollars by the CBO you love to site when it’s convenient. Go figure.
Where’s the Wall, indeed.
SF, when I am speaking of ‘conservatives,’ I am not speaking of elected representatives. I am skeptical and dubious of politicians generally, which I think is the only healthy and reasonable attitude to take.
Yes, Congress failed to put in place more border enforcement. And the president not only failed but obstinately insisted that he didn’t want to enforce the border. When I speak of conservatives, I am speaking of the grassroots, who have been demanding border security most of this time and been ignored by their elected representatives. Just as the elected representatives ignored calls from the grassroots for spending restraint.
I disagree with MM that the GOP lost the Congress in 2006 because of abortion and Terry Schaivo. I think the grassroots got fed up with not being listened to on first principle issues like spending restraint and border security. I think there was an effort among the party executives to use things like FMA to throw a bone to social conservatives, thinking that social conservatives (which I think is probably code for Christians and pro-lifers) were a bunch of dumb ignorant hicks who could be placated by meaningless symbolic gestures like the FMA. I think the party executives had it back-asswards. My view is that the grassroots were concerned about spending and immigration, and got fed up with the party’s indifference on those issues. Independent voters were put off by the corruption.
It gets back to first principles. Limited Government is a first principle. GWB flushed it and the Congress followed. National security, including border security, is a first principle. Bush flushed that as well.
But, the important thing, SF, is to have a debate that respects the bounds of civility and isn’t about name-calling or imputing ill-motives on your opponents. I think most of us learned sitting in the pew on Sunday that it was wrong to bear false witness against your neighbor. I’d say accusing people who disagree with you of being fanatical, knuckle-dragging racists falls under that.
For the last few days we’ve been debating –often times heated– the multilayered issues surrounding the proposed Border Security and Immigration Reform bill –or as some are fond of mis-identifying it here: Amnesty.
What’s important is that the debate has an undercurrent. The undercurrent is an attempt by reasonable forces within the GOP who seek to break the hold that social conservatives have had on the Party for far too long –even at times hazarding the Party to shame, humiliation and defeat in the quest to be more conservative to a point of caricature.
I’ve taken heat when I’ve noted some of the people pressing for harsher, more stringent sanctions are motivated by Nativist, bigoted and racist attitudes… given that most of the targeted aliens are Mexican.
Linda Chavez, a longtime RReagan defender of his legacy in the Shining City on the Hill has her own opinion about the base motives of Nativist social conservatives lurking on the fringe of the Party but somehow never lifting the water pail or advancing the Party.
She writes her best here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2007/05/25/latino_fear_and_loathing
I last worked with Linda Chavez when she came to Michigan and A2 to help us fight the UofM and liberals on unfair admissions policies and racial quota masked as affirmative action. She’s a conservative thru and thru and she’s calling out the Nativists and bigots in our Party on the Immigration Reform package just like I’ve done here. Pity, DamePeggy isn’t listening.
The money quote: “Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.”
And Linda nails it here: “Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about. Fear of “the other” — of those who look or sound different, who come from poor countries with unfamiliar customs — has been at the heart of every immigration debate this country has ever had, from the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the floor of the U.S. Senate this week.”
Nothing more needs to be said to improve on Linda’s take as to what the Nativists intend and are motivated by in this debate.
So, Linda Chavez says everyone who opposes open borders is a racist bigot. Gee, that sure settles the argument.
For me, I think I ascribe to the more nuanced view of someone like Andy McCarthy:
Vdak asks sonicfrog: “I’d say accusing people who disagree with you of being fanatical, knuckle-dragging racists falls under that.”
False witness? Lessons from the pew? Good God, man, you have no shame do you?? How about Love thy Neighbor, V? How about applying that to brown skinned lowlifes you’d toss under the bus if it would advance your self interests and lower your taxes. Lessons from the pew, indeed.
And V, buddy, when did I call you a fanatic? Professional cynics aren’t fans of anything… that’s why they can peddle bitter cynicism everywhere, to everyone, at all times.
I guess I misunderstood your use of the phrase “I’m tired of America being used as Mexico’s bitch”?
Nawh, didn’t think so.
Oh gawd, 120 posts on how many “neo-mods” can dance on the head of a pin. I love how conservatives are running away from Bush as fast as their little feet can scamper. Of course, when he was flying high in the polls, he was their BFF. LOL! Then there’s all those “battered wives” still enthralled with their boy-king after all these years of incompetent leadership and disastrous policies. One can only hope the bickering in evidence here is just a microcosm of the forces that will tear the GOP apart and flush the remnants down the political sewer where they belong.
Now time for more popcorn!
In #13, massive Constitutional scholar spews:
Which is just a fancy way of dancing around the fact that, contrary to this latter-day Ginger Rogers’ original claims, Ron Paul has run for office only as a Libertarian or Republican.
MM, it’s unworthy of you to continue to throw out attacks I’ve already refuted. (Bush’s insinuation that opponents of amnesty were Un-American, the explanation for the being Mexico’s bitch comment, and so on.)
And as I explained in the Thompson thread, it’s not a bus, it’s a steam-roller with iron spikes. Although David Duke came to the meeting last night an proposed a nuclear-powered monster-truck with tank treads, but he was voted down when Mel Gibson challenged him on a point of order and Robert Byrd shat his pants.
Then, we adjourned for pie.
Ian, I don’t think you’re helping your cause of proving the GayLeftBorg to be anything but insolent.
But while you’re up… can you get me some more popcorn? Thanks.
(Oh, I can imagine EchoCalarato taking those words and offering them as proof that MM’s making firends with the Devil)
VdaK, you didn’t refute anything of the like; I pointed out your short comings on those points –you ignore. No surprise there since Linda Chavez explained reality is a tough concept for Nativists and bigots to embrace.
More fantasyland rewrites from the cheap seats?
Linda Chavez’s only point was “people who oppose amnesty are bigots who hate brown people.” It’s just exactly what liberals say about people who oppose affirmative action. There’s nothing to refute in it.
As stated, I think Andy McCarthy much better captures the complexity of the issues involved. But as a selfish, racist, nativist, bigot, what do I know? Obviously, issues like border control and immigration need to be reduced to “Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a racist.” It makes things so much simpler.
I just have to say what every remaining person of genuine reason and goodwill has to be thinking: Matt, you’ve turned into Ian or worse.
In your comment to V that I’m highlighting (though many other of your comments are similar):
(1) You accuse V of being a racist who would gladly toss “brown skinned lowlifes” “under the bus if it would advance [his] self interests and lower [his] taxes”.
(2) You deny having called him a fanatic; which is false because we have all seen you constantly, and falsely, accusing him of wanting “pure enuff” party ideology tests. (I.e., of being a fanatic.)
(3) Ironically placing a snarl of hate where your apology should be, you take the opportunity to further call V “cynical” and “bitter”.
(4) And you embed all that unfairness in a lecture about Love Thy Neighbor.
Matt, right now, no lower-caser on the GP blog has less moral credibility than you. (Most lower-casers have as little as you; none have less. ) Do you think that just might have anything to do with no one (not V, nor anyone else) believing your lectures? Especially your lectures about others’ shortcomings?
Look into the mirror, Matt. Please. Sacrifice your ego and bitterness, for the good of this GP blog.
Not that it matters, but neo-moderate Bill Kristol, who has generally been on the Bush-McCain side of the Immigration Debate opposes McCain-Kennedy because the enforcement provisions are too weak and will result in more illegal immigration.
Another fanatical, fringe, racist, foaming-at-the-mouth bigot. I guess we should start measuring BK for his robe and hood.
(Small correction to what I said. I believe there could still be one person who buys Matt’s unfair, ugly lectures and attacks. If I’m correct, it could be HardHobbit.)
Matt, let me put it this way; Linda Chavez is not a model of compliance.
And that is exactly the problem; you are bringing forward people who claim that they will enforce the provisions in this bill, but who couldn’t even be bothered to keep and enforce existing law.
Tell me, Matt; why do you and Linda Chavez believe brown-skinned people should be allowed to break the law with impunity and avoid any consequences for it?
I never wanted this to be about attacking anyone other than the politicians responsible for this horrible bill and this horrible state of affairs with regard to immigration and border security. I only want to attack what is a very bad bill, and to attack that bill on the basis of what it will actually do and fail to do.
I can’t help but think if there were anything good in the bill, it’s proponents would argue that instead of attacking the motives and goodwill of its opponents.
Also, I wanted to extend and debate Ms. Noonan’s points about the alienation of the party leadership from the grassroots, but in an indirect way, this thread has illuminated that disconnect. The party leadership despises the base, but can not win without them. I see why their frustration boils over into name-calling and feverish accusations.
Actually, I’ve softened my stance on the issue.
I think the United States, to show its friendship towards Mexico, should adopt rules identical to Mexico’s immigration laws.
Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants. Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions. In cases of flagrant delicts, such as a person declaring they entered the country illegally, any citizen may make a citizen’s arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities. Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appartenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. Mexicans have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. Foreigners can serve in the military only during wartime.
And that, Matt, is why I’m not taking any guff whatsoever from you or from Linda Chavez about being “racist” or “prejudiced” towards Mexicans — not when we grant them infinitely more right and protection even when they do break our laws than their own government would ever offer us for doing the same.
Meanwhile, I love how clueless Ian comes in and thinks his Democrat Party position against enforcement of ANY immigration laws whatsoever is going to fly with the American public.
Aside: Considering I spent three months in 2006 negotiating a teaming arrangement between my company and a Mexican company and conducted most of the supporting research and analysis en espanol, it’s amazing how I was able to keep my knuckle-dragging, drooling, nativist hate for brown people in check that whole time.
Well, there is an actual Reagan speech where he tells them, “I know you can’t endorse me… but I endorse you.”
Let’s think now. If legitimate concerns about terrorist penetration of the borders can be code for KKK nativism, then “but I endorse you” could be code for “FOAD”. I mean, you have to picture RR saying it with his middle finger raised. People, we’re through the looking glass. 😉
EchoCalarato, glad to see you’re not calling anyone names or using cheap seat rhetorical tricks to score even more meaningless debate points. LOL (#129 makes my point).
Right, I’m the one without credibility. Go figure? You, serving as VdaK’s echo chamber and sidekick, have the standing to call anyone’s –even the lower case clan’s comments– into question?
You’ve been fairly dismissed and impuned by lots of commenters here; I hardly need to be concerned about your shallow attempts at psychological intimidation by threatening to remove me from the hallowed halls of your sense of the “tribe” here.
Again, another cheap shot. Either debate the issues fairly –as I’ve repeatedly asked you to in the past– or practice some self-restraint for a change. And resist putting words into someone’s mouth or reducing their argument to a point of fractional irrelevancy, ok?
As if to point up the level of corruption rampant in Bushco’s GOP, a conservative law and order judge sticks it to the odious “Scooter” Libby: 30 months and $250,000 fine. Of course, he’ll be pardoned but it’s nice to finally see Bushco get its comeuppance.
LOL…imagine, a Democrat who babbles that Democrat Presidents should be able to lie with impunity under oath trying to be self-righteous over proof that Republicans and conservatives police their own.
Maybe Scooter can share a cell with Cold Cash Jefferson.
NDXXX writes: “And that, Matt, is why I’m not taking any guff whatsoever from you or from Linda Chavez about being “racist” or “prejudiced” towards Mexicans — not when we grant them infinitely more right and protection even when they do break our laws than their own government would ever offer us for doing the same.”
Good for you, NDXXX. I hope you wouldn’t because putting Mexico’s corrupt, backward federal govt on the same level as the US’s would be wrong. Wrong for you. Wrong for me. But that’s what you’re doing in trying to build a parallel construct for comparison, isn’t it? And that’s fair?
America is a lot more than anything the Mexican govt or Russian govt or just about any MiddleEastern or African govt can claim… our culture has a rich tradition as an IMMIGRANT NATION, NDXXX. Immigrant nation that none of those countries save Israel can claim. Heck, even most Canadians won’t admit to being an immigrant nation.
NDXXX, our culture is rich with the strengths brought by our immigrant forebearers. Our federal govt ought to protect the heritage and values inherent in welcoming immigrants into our culture. We’ve made immigrants and illegal aliens the kicking can for too many issues in the current climate as well as the past. It’s why I am repulsed by those who say illegals are raping us, driving up crime, driving drunk and killing us, etc as a mechanism to portray the “real face” of illegals.
And why when the opponents of immigration contend that the illegals here are criminals for “having broken the law” because of illegal entry or a change in status and should be booted, I wonder if that kind of narrowness and absolute is innate or learned like racism and bigotry.
But right now, right here in these threads, are is a representation of a minority of Americans bitter about Mexicans, bitter about the economy, bitter about slights and disappointments in their political loss, angry at America’s image on the world stage… feeling all betrayed by Bush and the GOP.
Frankly, it’s a rage we’ve seen many times before in our culture. It once brought out blue collar workers to climb atop an imported car and smash the windows and destroy the auto to show their anger at “someone different, something they couldn’t understand” because rage and hate are far easier than understanding, compassion, change or reason.
America is better than harsh sanctions, kick the bums out, turn our backs on immigrants in the almighty effort to preserve, protect and defend some faded notion of cultural purity. I know you’ve made exceptions to that usual line… offering agreement that we can’t do mass deportations… but you’re rare.
I think there’s a whole lot more to be done to secure our borders, NDXXX. Building The Wall isn’t it –I think that will be indication to the world and future generations that our generation turned its back on our proud, noble heritage. We failed. And for what? For the 7-9% of Nativist bigots still painting “Amnesty” on that cow tethered in the meadow?
Don’t take any guff, NDXXX. I won’t either. But I won’t turn our public square over to another group of angry, raging bigots pounding on the little imported auto, either.
Many, not all, of today’s opponents to immigration reform are like those blue collar thugs I remember in UAW parking lots raging against the tide of change and progress. Pick up the bat, pick up the sledge hammer and wail against all the wrongs those powerful social conservatives that controlled the last Congress failed to correct.
Afterall, it’s a First Principle to be able to bitch, moan and not be responsible for governing constructively. At least it is to some; I hope it’s not for you.
#140 – Matt, remember: the mirror. Everything you say to me, you are actually saying to yourself. (It certainly all applies to you, and not me.) Sacrifice your ego and hate for the good of this GP blog, Matt. Please.
#144 – More straw men from Matt, this time directed to NDT. I wonder how far Matt will spin out?
To address one of them: No one disputes that we are an immigrant nation. I, for one, am proud of it.
There is simply a difference, especially after 9-11, between those who honor our laws and come here legally, and those who do not. The latter are, in fact, criminals. I don’t propose to jail them. I do propose to put them back into the line – behind those who take the trouble to come here legally. And I propose to secure our borders, so 150 terrorists can’t walk across it along with our next 15 million illegals.
To address another:
Matt, like John said earlier, I need hip waders to get through all that BS.
1) No one here is bitter about Mexicans. That’s not even on anyone’s radar.
2) No one here is bitter about the economy. It’s not even on anyone’s radar. (I love the economy.)
3) No one here is bitter about the GOP’s political loss. Except for Michigan-Matt, interestingly. The rest of the folks here seem to agree the GOP had it coming.
4) No one here is “angry at America’s image on the world stage”. Except the leftist / lower case trolls. Whose level, Matt, you again sink to.
I disagree with MM that the GOP lost the Congress in 2006 because of abortion and Terry Schaivo. I think the grassroots got fed up with not being listened to on first principle issues like spending restraint and border security.
Actually, you ultimately agree with MM. This is a clasic “opportunity cost” situation. The congress has only so much time to get stuff done. They squandered that time and opportunity by focusing their attention on abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, Terry Schaivo, and pillaging the government couphers through gastly earmarks. And Bush let it happen. NOT ONE VETO IN FIVE YEARS. It seems as if congress were running things and Bush wouldn’t veto anything as not to upset the applecart. Tom Delay was the defacto President, sharing duty with Cheney of coarse. Bush was not the “Decider”. He, as it turns out, was the “Approver” or the “Enabler” of a Republican party drunk on power. We were too, since we went along for the ride.
In some ways Ian is right (oh shit… that hurt). The “base” did appove of, and voted for a second term despite seeing where the priorities lay within the party. The “base” was of the notion that their elective dominance was a devine right. The monolythic belief in God (not the mormon one either) and moral dictates, and the GWOT bins and blinds the base now, not the concept of smaller, sensible government. Note how “the base” is trying to get rid of Ron Paul, the one guy in the running who seems to act as the party’s conscience. Sure he’s not electable. But he’s advocating many policy views that Republicans used to not only believe, but work toward. He may be the Goldwater of our era.
“people who oppose amnesty are bigots who hate brown people.”
Isn’t this analogous to the scorn we reap on those who oppose the war in Iraq? “They Hate The Millitary!!!”
PS. I wouldn’t gloat too much Ian. Your guys have already broken most of their vows to be the model of ethics and reform, unless reform is short for reformulate new secret ways to get all the earmarks we want. More Here. And the approval ratings of the Dem congress is back down to Bush-league levels.
There is a key point to make here, Matt.
People who are opposed to any immigration whatsoever are correctly characterized as racist, intolerant bigots. And you are right that lumping illegal immigrants together as all being indolent, violent criminals is wrong.
However, I have yet to see V the K, ILC, or anyone else say that they completely oppose immigration. What I have seen them say is that they oppose illegal immigration.
None of us here is going to be so exclusionary as to say that those born outside the United States have no right to come to or stay in our happy little republic; after all, if it weren’t for immigration, very few of us would be here in the first place. But what we do say is that, in order to come here and stay here, you need to request, receive, and provide permission first.
As I told ILC when I lunched with him last week, my solution is very simple; allow those who wish it to present themselves for a “Z visa” which will allow them to stay in the country and work for an additional three years, at the end of which they may reapply for renewal from their home country, provided they are up to date on their tax payments to the United States, and in line behind those who have never entered the United States illegally. Then ramp up enforcement to the nth power, with anyone who does not have a “Z visa” and is thus here illegally subject to immediate deportation, with fingerprinting required (which will be used in your application to verify if you have ever entered the United States illegally).
SF: For the record, there are people who oppose the war in Iraq who love the military. And as well, people who hate the military. I, for one, don’t leap to a conclusion that someone hates the military, merely because they oppose the war in Iraq. I wait for other evidence. I wait for elements of scorn and contempt in their comments that show… well… that they hate the military.
As I told you, NDT: I think go-home-after-3-years-to-make-your-next-visa-application is an terrific idea… except I despair that we will ever find the political will to follow through. (Barring another terrorist attack, which I DON’T want.)
In a way, this whole problem is about government credibility. Our government, Democrats and Republicans alike, have never (effectively) enforced our existing immigration law. Why should we believe the same people’s promises to enforce any new law?
The “base” did appove of, and voted for a second term despite seeing where the priorities lay within the party.
I think that was one of Noonan’s points, and mine. It’s not that Bush has betrayed the base so much as exceeded the base’s patience. The base knew Bush was a flawed vessel in 2000, but went along for the sake of winning, for the hope of incremental change. It turns out the 30% of Bush the base agreed with was not worth setbacks on the other 70% they didn’t. Since the base is being asked to strike the same bargain with Giuliani and McCain, it’s a relevant question whether they want to be used again, or otherwise hold out for four years in hopes of getting to someone who really is 60 or 80% aligned with first principles and conservative values.
As for Ron Paul, I think he is a little kooky, but from what I have read from his supporters, they are scary kooky. But I don’t hate him with the vitriol party operatives do. He’s kind of a Republican Kucinich. Comic relief. Gotta love that.
Bush was a lesser evil. The alternative was Kerry.
As if to point up the level of corruption rampant in Bushco’s GOP, a conservative law and order judge sticks it to the odious “Scooter” Libby: 30 months and $250,000 fine. Of course, he’ll be pardoned but it’s nice to finally see Bushco get its comeuppance.
Corruption – Pot calling Kettle black! Uh Oh! Is that racist???
#147 NDT: And my position would be, have the border secured first, and have all of the enforcement mechanisms in place first and then implement some kind of z-visa like program. The illegals made a bargain when they came to this country that they were going to live here illegally. I see no reason why they shouldn’t have to live with the consequences of that bargain a little while longer while we secure our border and develop effective tracking and verification systems.
I don’t see why — if proponents of the bill really support border security and enforcement of immigration law as they claim they do — we can’t do that first unless they really don’t want border security and immigration law enforcement.
Bush was, with the exception of immigration, in lockstep with most of the things the base wanted.
No stem cell research? Check.
Anti-abortion? Check.
No gay marriage? Check.
But looking at Bush is only half the problem. With the exception of TGWOT, Bush has been a very weak-kneed president. He followed congress’s lead on most things, including earmarks and spending. Transportation Bill of 2005. No vetos. And the congress contained the types of politicians that were much closer to what the base wanted – Delay, Nay, Hastert, Santorum, Cunningham, etc, etc,. Delay, the devout base prototype, was the one who was pulling the strings. Notice how things fell apart after his departure. I’m not taking sides on his guilt just yet, need to see more evidence. But what I see I don’t like at all.
#154 – SF, but Bush was out of step on (1) judges, and (2) growth of government – of which there are many examples. (No Child Left Behind)
#140 – A couple more thoughts. Because I read Matt’s trash there, this time, I may as well flush down the toilet in a more point-by-point way.
Folks, just pause to notice Matt is trying to call me a (pretty lame) name there. Irony? Or projection? LOL 🙂
Folks, I have heavily criticized Matt’s behavior, incredibly poor methods of argument, and (now) his total lack of moral standing or stature to lecture others on their alleged shortcomings. I have applied harsh labels to Matt’s inappropriate comments. But I have not ever engaged Matt, the person, with his trademark name-calling.
Because Matt behaves awfully to some, and I have the discourtesy to acknowledge it, I am to be called another name by Matt. I’ll let that speak for itself.
By you, Matt. And by lower-casers. And maybe HardHobbit. Considering the nature of those three sources, I have three tremendous badges of honor.
Matt, you really need to understand this: When you name-call me, attack me personally, or whatever… I ‘consider the source’, always. I.e., that it’s you.
SF, there’s more to the base than abortion, stem cells, and gay marriage.
The base didn’t want a massive new entitlement (Rx drugs), the base didn’t want McCain-Feingold, the base didn’t want massive pork in the highway and agriculture bills, the base didn’t want steel tariffs, the base didn’t (and still doesn’t) want open borders, the base didn’t want an education bill written by Ted Kennedy (just like the amnesty bill) that cost billions of dollars and did not fix the problem (just like the amnesty bill). The base also really, really didn’t want the 2006 Amnesty bill that did not even pay lip service to border security.
But I think therein lies the miscalculation of the party leadership: Trying to buy off the base with symbolic but ultimately meaningless gestures on abortion and gay marriage. I’ll grant there are some who think of abortion as an absolute, but not enough to swing an election. My perception is that that the expansion of government under Bush, and his neglect of border security, hurt his party much worse than their stance on stem cells or gay marriage.
NDXXX, you write: “What I have seen them say is that they oppose illegal immigration.”
I take your point at it’s face value, NDXXX. As far as I know, nearly no one endorses illegal immigration as a natl policy for the US. But the truth is, the current system is broken and enforcement is so lax as to be non-existant. Gonzales purged at least 7 Asst USAGs in part because they wouldn’t work with DHS and ICE on immigration violations.
Hell, NDXXX, I don’t aprove of illegal immigration either. That’s a silly distinction without purpose or utility, guy.
The REAL point to make is that there are those who oppose fixing the joint problems of illegal aliens incountry and border security. Some want one fixed before any progress is made on the other… and I think Bush’s compromise rightly stresses border security first, deal with the illegal aliens second.
The REAL difference is between those who want to exact harsh sanctions against “the Mexicans” and protect some vague notion of American cultural purity versus those who want a lasting, pragmatic solution. And that’s why the debate is partly about racism and bigotry and Nativist resurgence in our country.
Of course, fixing the problem requires political compromise with powerbrokers like Kennedy… and compromise to the opponents of immigration reform is tantamount to surrender. Guess what, your perspective had it’s BEST chance when social conservatives held the reigns of power in the House and Senate in the LAST Congress.
That opportunity is gone. Poof. The new game is town is compromise for progress.
I agree, no one wants illegal immigration even tho’ it is the conventional reality in our land. When I see folks here use xenophobic terms like “Open Borders” to describe our current system at the border it says volumes about their willingness to compromise, acknowledge reality or work toward a political concensus, NDXXX.
Because for them, compromise is surrender. It’s why so many here continue to use amnesty to describe a bill that is as far from immigration amnesty as one can get in the current political enviroment. But like Chavez offers: that doesn’t matter to them.
Like the angry UAW workers on top of the imported auto in the 1970’s swinging away with a sledge hammer, anger vented is more important to social conservatives right now than finding a political solution.
ILC, your continued petulance has moved to the point of distraction for me. Will you please take your bloody sense of victimhood outside for a hike, please! At least on this thread.
#156, V – Right. Prescription entitlement, McCain-Feingold, signing every single pork bill, tariffs, Dubai ports (whether the base was right or wrong there)… on top of (no) border security, Kennedy education bill, and judges. My, how quickly I/we forget.
I fault Bush for all those things… plus the FMA. And the Congress, for Terry Schiavo. All these things are terrible examples of over-reaching federalism, however much some felt they were defending a principle in some cases.
Stem cells are way overblown, as an issue. The Bush Adminstration hasn’t even slowed (much less blocked) stem cell research. Nor have they wanted to. All they’ve done is say that FEDERAL money can’t be spent on NEW stem cell lines IF the new line involved aborting a human life (that was otherwise going to make it).
#158 – Once more, Matt projects and addresses the mirror.
Matt: Please, please, sacrfice your hate and ego. For the good of the GP blog!
On border issues, here is my stance.
1. I think we should build the fence and make it harder to immigrate illegally across the border. No, it won’t stop all immigration… it doesn’t have to. It will however slow it to more manageable levels. This should be done first. Period! Everything else follows.
2. Create a more humane, less lengthy proccess for legalizing ALL immigrants.
3. Mass deportation is not workable, not if you don’t want a massive economic crash.
4. Stop acting as if illegally crossing the border is the most heinous crime ever! It is NOT comparable to robbing a bank. It’s more like j-walking. Most of these people only want a better life for themselves and their family. Many of them work harder to achieve this that many native born Americans do.
5. If you got here illegally you will have to pay (probably in installments) a hefty fine. If you are here illegally, or in the process of becoming legal, and DO commit a more serious crime, like robbing a bank, then you’re gone… deported… bye bye.
I have a Mexican neighbor who may or may not be legal. I don’t ask and wouldn’t tell if he was illegal. He is a very nice man with a fine family, works hard to provide for his family, and has been a great neighbor.
Look, there was no good side to be on in the Schaivo case. You either supported starving a woman to death, or you supported the heavy hand of government intruding somewhere it had not ought to have been. There was no right side to that. But I think its electoral significance is vastly overblown. Most Democrats voted to interfere as well.
I agree with some of your points, SF. A man I go to church with is of Mexican descent, and despite my ideological commitment to genocide against all brown people, he’s one of my best friends and a very cool guy. A firefighter, actually. And he resents it when people assume he supports illegal immigration, or is illegal himself. He was born in Texas of immigrant parents, and he thinks people who want to come to this country should follow the law.
He may be influenced by the 12th article of faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law,” but I think it’s basically his character.
SF:
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Partly agree. I don’t think there will be an economic crash; I do think that mass deportation is infeasible for other reasons.
4. Partly agree. Breaking our laws to come here isn’t just like jaywalking. But yeah, neither is it as bad as robbing a bank. Somewhere in between.
5. Agree.
Hmm, that puts us about 90% in agreement on this 😉
#161
Sound like a good plan, to me… sonic frog. I believe from my reading of the Immigration Reform and Border Security draft —coupled with what I think will be added later this week to the draft to appease some of the social conservatives– is what the bill does.
As for Schaivo, V, DeLay and the social conservatives were convinced they had God on their side… or did you forget that little point? No right side? That’s a lot to say for someone so poised to jump on variances from the black-white fringes of cultural debates.
That opportunity is gone. Poof. The new game is town is compromise for progress.
I respectfully disagree.
There is no reason whatsoever to compromise with Ted Kennedy.
As I have already shown, we know very well what Ted Kennedy and the rest of the Democrat Party want and support — and they are now on record in the Senate as having voted in favor of it.
Hence, the debate needs to become this; “Ted Kennedy and the Democrat Party claim in this bill that they will enforce immigration laws — but just voted to allow Democrat-controlled cities, counties, and states and their law enforcement agencies to refuse to enforce any immigration laws whatsoever at their whim.”
How many American voters do you think support zero immigration law enforcement? Better yet, how many do you think would buy Ted Kennedy’s spin that local police should not be allowed to report that criminals are illegal immigrants and have them deported?
And Matt, the reason we call the immigration bill “amnesty” is simple; there are twelve million illegal immigrants living in the United States now who have little to no chance of being arrested, despite having no visas at all.
Simply put, we doubt those immigrants will even bother getting a “Z visa” — and they won’t need to do so, because you don’t enforce the law now; what on earth is to make us (and them) think that you will in the future, especially when your “spokespersons” like Linda Chavez have themselves sheltered and employed illegal immigrants?
#165 – For the record: Matt, you’ve called myself and others “racist”, “Nativist”, “bigot” and worse for suggesting nothing more than SF’s program. Particularly for his point 1 – The fence. And to a lesser extent, for his point 5 – Making illegals pay fines to get citizenship.
If (note IF) you’re changing you’re tune, for real and not as a ploy, thus sacrificing your hate and ego for the good of the blog, then I commend you.
The base didn’t want a massive new entitlement (Rx drugs), the base didn’t want McCain-Feingold, the base didn’t want massive pork in the highway and agriculture bills, the base didn’t want steel tariffs, the base didn’t (and still doesn’t) want open borders, the base didn’t want an education bill written by Ted Kennedy (just like the amnesty bill) that cost billions of dollars and did not fix the problem (just like the amnesty bill). The base also really, really didn’t want the 2006 Amnesty bill that did not even pay lip service to border security.
But those things didn’t matter enough to keep these guys from getting re-elected, until 2006. Plus Delay was instrumental in getting the medicare entitlement done, with opposition comming from the Dems.
PS. I do agree that the stem cell thing was overblown. But they sure did spend / waste an awfull lot of time on the issue.
Echo, “Matt: Please, please, sacrfice your hate and ego. For the good of the GP blog!”
Your mind is like a trap, guy… a sprung trap. Closed, ineffective and rusting in the rain.
Where exactly is the “hate and ego” nonsense you keep feltching? A bigot is a bigot; a racist is a bigot; a Nativist is a bigot.
I never called VdaK a fantatic… he made that one up. Take the petulance outside for hike, will ya? For the love of Mike you are a dramaboi when you don’t get attention.
I’ve spent way too much time on this. I am avoiding finishing my sales tax papers for the Nazi – Stae Board of EQ here in CA.
Have fun beating each other up without me.
#168 SF: Eventually, there comes a straw that breaks the camel’s back. Or in the case of the amnesty bill, a ton of bricks.
There is no reason whatsoever to compromise with Ted Kennedy..
Or, in this case, completely knuckle under.
Simply put, we doubt those immigrants will even bother getting a “Z visa” — and they won’t need to do so, because you don’t enforce the law
And why should they bother? Since we have already determined that deporting them is inhumane and impractical, why should they bother complying with any new law?
I never called VdaK a fantatic
Rosie O’Donnell never technically called American troops terrorists either.
There’s another instance of that Matt name-calling thing (though admittedly, very weak / lame).
#169 – As for where you called V a fanatic: OK Matt, let me make sure I get this straight. In your mind, the fact that you haven’t LITERALLY called V a fanatic – *in this thread* – is supposed to excuse:
(1) the fact that you constantly, and falsely, accuse V of wanting “pure enuff” tests of ideological purity – in other words, of his being just like a fanatic; and
(2) the fact that, with a casual unfairness that is nothing less than horrific, you call him “racist”, “nativist”, “bigot” and worse.
Now, as for where your hate and ego is, Matt? Just look at practically every comment you’ve posted in this thread. Particularly the ugly or unfair ones (which is the majority). Particularly the ones where you have tried to lecture V, and now myself, on our (but actually, your) shortcomings.
ILC, I appreciate you having my back. The name-calling doesn’t get to me so much. I’ve got two teenagers, remember? 😉 Also, it’s the same kind of invective leftists have been throwing at me, or in my general direction since college. The only time on-line invective really got to me was, in fact, during the Schaivo controversy when someone on the other side threatened to beat up my kids.
But, that aside, I think most people are coming from a place where we really want to find a solution to this problem (at least, those of us who see it as a problem do), and we really want to solve it because we want what’s best for America. And some of us have looked at Kennedy-McCain and said, ‘this is not what’s best for America,’ and we can articulate why and hopefully push our politicians toward something better, or at least, acceptable.
And if not, we just keep fighting for something better. Like the last episode of ‘Angel.’ Just keep fighting.
What else can we do?
Meanwhile, ILC and V the K, a gentle point; since the namecalling doesn’t particularly bother either of you, what say we move away from posts worrying about it and what someone said or didn’t say and more towards a dialogue on the issues in question?
And Matt, how about you do the same?
After all, it is the one thing that separates us from the Democrats.
V the K, you hit it exactly.
And why should they bother? Since we have already determined that deporting them is inhumane and impractical, why should they bother complying with any new law?
That would be my statement to Matt and others; right now, what you have designed is a system that stops us from deporting people at all. What we want is a system that identifies people who don’t need to be deported — because they will a) play by our existing rules and b) genuinely believe in what we’re doing.
#175 – NDT, no problem. I’ve done that (discuss issues) in many threads, and, in many posts this morning, straight above. And I trust my point about Matt’s behavior has been well taken.
Heck Matt, I’ll even give you the last word. Write a long, name-calling post about me. Allege I’m this, that and the other – Call me a liar, a false accuser, a sidekick, a bigot or whatever – I won’t respond now. I’ll let you keep it.
#146:
Don’t worry, unlike the GOP base defending their Delays, Neys, and Cunninghams, we progressives are not going to tolerate crooks among the Dems and we’re already shouting for Rep. Jefferson to be kicked out of Congress. He should have gone long ago but now that he’s been indicted, there’ll be hell to pay if he remains in Congress.
As for the lower approval ratings of Congress, I think that simply has to do with Congress capitulating to Bush on blank check funding for an unpopular war.
Don’t worry, unlike the GOP base defending their Delays, Neys, and Cunninghams, we progressives are not going to tolerate crooks among the Dems and we’re already shouting for Rep. Jefferson to be kicked out of Congress.
Funny, the people you mentioned resigned from Congress; they didn’t have to be “kicked out”.
Just as Nancy Pelosi, in line with her insistence that anyone who commits campaign finance fraud should resign from Congress, should do.
But then she wouldn’t be able to protect the criminals she does, including Jefferson– who she rewarded with a seat on the Homeland Security Committee — and Mollohan of West Virginia, whose magic in real estate transactions is only matched by Harry Reid.
VdaK writes: “I think most people are coming from a place where we really want to find a solution to this problem (at least, those of us who see it as a problem do), and we really want to solve it because we want what’s best for America.”
If you mean the “It’s Amnesty I tell ya” crowd, I disagree they (you) are coming from a perspective of wanting to find a solution. You don’t want solutions or the social conservatives would have acted in the last Congress when they had the power to do so.
No, now you just want to obstruct, delay, deny and impeach viable pragmatic political compromises which stress border security first, immigration reform second. And even that ISN’T good enuff for the pure enuff, true enuff crowd. For you guys, compromise equals surrender.
Meanwhile, the Party is moving to the center. It’s trying hard to moderate the social conservative excesses of the recent past. It’s doing what a majority of Americans and a clear majority of GOP voters want… secure borders, address the illegal alien issues, move on.
It’s happening without amnesty and –most importantly for me and our American future– without the usual anomousity that was attached to many former social conservative proposals.
You can rail against the Prez because you feel betrayed. But you really need to remember that social conservatives put him in the position of having to work and compromise with Kennedy and others on these issues –if social conservatives had been loyal and acted like part of the GOP base they “claim” to be– more could be done now.
I know, the latest spin is: well, just take the message to the people that Kennedy is wrong and we can win. Sorry, the last Congress proved that “just doing no” isn’t good enough.
No responsible member of the GOP wants to practice the Dem playbook and take cheap shots from the cheap seats from now until 08.
There will be some minor tweaks in the package and the bill will make it through the Congress despite the rantings of the FarRightFringe. And then it’ll be back to Iraq funding 24×7… something I’d rather not contemplate at this juncture.
Ian writes at 178 “As for the lower approval ratings of Congress, I think that simply has to do with Congress capitulating to Bush on blank check funding for an unpopular war.”
Ummm, Ian… the Democrats in Congress were scoring lower than the outgoing corrupt-riden last Congress weeks before the Iraq funding vote.
Nice try, but stick with facts.
When you have one side attacking the bill, and the other side attacking the people who are attacking the bill, it’s a pretty good indication that the bill itself is indefensible.
You don’t want solutions or the social conservatives would have acted in the last Congress when they had the power to do so.
As they did.
But who shot it down? Oh, that’s right, the Senate, whose companion bill did exactly the same as the current one and the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2005; make promises of “enforcement” while granting amnesty and protection through every possible loophole, as well as giving illegal immigrants numerous benefits, like Social Security, without having to prove that they’d ever actually paid into the system.
No, now you just want to obstruct, delay, deny and impeach viable pragmatic political compromises which stress border security first, immigration reform second.
How is refusing to enforce immigration law AT ALL, as your bill (and every other Senate bill before it) allows cities, counties, and states to do, “securing the border”?
And why should we believe that Linda Chavez and her fellow “moderates” will enforce immigration law, when they themselves shelter, aid, and employ illegal immigrants?
Whoa. I leave for the day and look what’s become of the place. I see we’ve made no progress on the immigration debate. I see it’s still Rockefeller vs. Racist (and no, I don’t like these names — these are the ones being thrown around this thread).
Perhaps each of us should author a contribution stating exactly where we stand on this issue, all to be submitted by a specified due date, then moderated and posted on a following date. No referring to other commenters or past comments or any passive/aggressive implicated crap such as “Certain commenters who called me a bigot (but I won’t mention any names)…” — just a clear, objective statement of the reforms one supports limited to a specific word count. I suspect we’d all be surprised at just how much we all agree with one another and in our surprise at the lack of falderal, we can get back to discussing gay sex.
John, where are you hiding?
Don’t worry, unlike the GOP base defending their Delays, Neys, and Cunninghams, we progressives are not going to tolerate crooks among the Dems and we’re already shouting for Rep. Jefferson to be kicked out of Congress.
The only people who are demanding Jefferson’s removal from Congress is the GOP.
Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio was pushing for a vote late Tuesday on a resolution to bar Jefferson from serving on any House committee and to direct the ethics committee to decide by July 11 whether the allegations in the indictment merit his expulsion, according to a partial draft of the document obtained by The Associated Press.
Meanwhile, what was Queen Nan doing? (emphasis mine)
Pelosi, D-Calif., later Tuesday was expected to name 10 House Democrats to a pool from which the House ethics committee can pick if it decides to appoint a special subcommittee to investigate the charges against Jefferson.
In other words, Pelosi and her progressive puppets like Ian are stalling.
#179:
You are so patently dishonest, you probably sell used cars for a living! Cunningham and Ney refused to resign until they copped guilty pleas. Even then Ney tried to stay in Congress months after his guilty plea but faced an expulsion vote and resigned shortly before it was to proceed. As for Delay, he only resigned long after his indictment and only because it looked like he would lose his seat in the election. We progressives are calling for Jefferson to go now and not to wait until after he cops a plea like the typical Republick crook would.
#184:
Oh, now they get religion! Where were they when Ney, Cunningham and Delay were indicted? Jefferson will be gone from Congress much faster than your GOP crooks, you can count on it.
Question: Is there anyone on the stage who supports allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military?
Answer from the Republican Presidential candidates: SILENCE
What an embarrassment. I can’t even stand to watch the rest of the debate. I’m going to the gym instead.
You people have A LOT of work to do in efforts to change the Republican Party.
Oh, now they get religion! Where were they when Ney, Cunningham and Delay were indicted?
Spin away, Ian.
WHERE IS NANCY PELOSI’S DEMAND THAT JEFFERSON RESIGN?
Since you are blasting Republicans for supposedly waiting, WHY AREN’T YOU SCREAMING ABOUT PELOSI’S STALLING?
You people have A LOT of work to do in efforts to change the Republican Party.
LOL…..silly Chase.
What Republicans have figured out is that it’s not DADT that bothers gays like you; after all, you screamed and cheered about how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” the man who signed it and put it in place was, even though his doing so broke a campaign promise to you. They know that the reason you’re upset has nothing to do with DADT and everything to do with their party affiliation.
Furthermore, since you automatically hate Republicans anyway, they’re not required to ignore your schizophrenia — or, as I like to phrase it, the fact that Democrat gays ban JROTC from schools, ban military ships from being moored in a harbor, back groups like International ANSWER that call our troops murderers, war criminals, and baby-killers, and support politicians like John Kerry who call them stupid and lie about them before Congress……but are horribly damaged by the fact that they can’t serve in the military they so loathe openly.
#187:
Not only that, they were so ignorant on the issue, they thought DADT just applies to homosexual activity. And Rudy, the darling of so many here, thinks now that we’re in a war with Islamists, it’s the perfect time to be kicking arabic speakers out of our military. And Romney, the flip-flopper, proves again what a panderer he truly is.
Heh heh, no wonder there hasn’t been a new post in four days: even the GP’s are embarrassed to be GOP apologists!
#188:
Well, Mary, you do the screaming far better than I ever could.
NDT, right. Lets spin it back to something that happened 14 YEARS AGO, that to me, is ancient history and predates my political memory. I had just graduated elementary school when that happened. So, Bill Clinton broke no campaign promise to me, OK? I wasn’t voting (obviously) or active in politics back then.
However, I do care about what TODAY’S candidates are saying. Even though I am a Democrat, I thought it was great that a new type of Republican was possibly emerging, like Rudy Guiliani, that would be supportive of gay rights. I had a conversation about that not too long ago with one of my Republican friends who (shocker!) works in the Bush Administration. But now he says he doesn’t support gays in the military and doesn’t support civil unions. That’s very disappointing.
Obviously, to end DADT we will need some Republican support in Congress and to have absolutely no Republican support on that stage tonight is a set back for us. It certainly would give Republicans in Congress a bit of cover if at least a few Republican presidential candidates would support allowing gays to openly serve in the military.
Ending DADT is a very important issue to me. It is a national security issue. How we get to the finish line isn’t as important as simply getting there.
Of course, I suspect in response you’ll say I am lying, am really anti-American, anti-military and hate all Republicans. That’s sort of what you always do (and just did in your last response).
Ah yes, the “it’s a matter of national security” argument.
One, given that gays are a miniscule fraction of the population, that argument makes no sense in terms of numbers of potential soldiers.
Two, given that most gays are stridently antimilitary and wouldn’t serve anyway, that makes even less sense than zero in terms of numbers of potential soldiers or skills.
Three, if you’re trying the “Arabic linguist” route, according to sources, the military discharged a total of 20 Arabic and 6 Farsi translators between 1998 and 2004. Meanwhile, the military graduated 543 Arabic linguists and 166 Farsi linguists in just fiscal year 2004 alone, meaning that the total of linguists discharged, meaning that the sum total of linguists discharged over six years was replaced with less than 4% of one class.
Furthermore, if you’re a gay linguist and wish to serve your country, there are several other places you could do it and be as openly gay as you want — the FBI, the CIA, the Department of State, and the Department of Commerce, just to name four.
Finally, the thing most people are whining over — the dismissal of Arabic translators — seems rather silly when you consider that gay Democrats like yourself, Chase, consider intercepting, gathering, and translating terrorist communications to be a violation of terrorists’ privacy rights.
What jeopardizes our military and national security more, in my opinion, is those hatemongering antimilitary gay folk who namecall and bash our troops, ban JROTC in schools, and block any attempts to honor or otherwise recognize our military — and then have the hilarious gall to demand the repeal of DADT.
Six years later and you are finally getting it. Congrats.
#190. Awww, the poor Dallas Lady has to deal with ALL GOP candidates supporting DADT while all Democratic candidates are for scrapping it. The comments always come fast and furious from you when you have to deflect and transfer and deny…
#190. Wow, I just counted: 20 raging comments displaying all sorts of mental gymnastics. I’m calling you Mary Lou for now on. Soldier on!
the military discharged a total of 20 Arabic and 6 Farsi translators between 1998 and 2004.
Dammit, this is the SECOND Democrat I’ve agreed with today, though Chase is more palatable than Ian. That’s twenty-six translators (that we know of) that should be on the front line of the GWOT. Twenty-six may sound like a small number, but not having those people involve in the GWOT is a waste of talent for no good reason. And this isn’t just about translators. What is the tally of all those given the boot since the last numbers were release in 2004? If we don’t have the will to use all the resources available to win the war, then we really have lost.
And, as I pointed out, they certainly can be, Sonic; there’s the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, and the Department of Commerce, just to name four places, in which these folks can put their talents to use serving their country.
Awww, the poor Dallas Lady has to deal with ALL GOP candidates supporting DADT while all Democratic candidates are for scrapping it.
Mhm; you were saying the same thing in 1992.
One year later, we had DADT, and you were frantically shrieking how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” that was because Clinton signed it.
Just like you supported bans on gay marriage when John Kerry pushed it.
So color us unimpressed; the Dem candidates will flip-flop, as they always have, and you’ll be frantically explaining why it’s a good thing.
200: it was the homophobia of people in government (among other things) that compromised the security of this nation both prior to and after 9/11.
194: You should look back at the history of this blog. I only started reading it about a years and a half ago, yet the number of timrs folks here blame Clinton for Bush’s problems and all problesm since January of 2001 is pretty astounding.
For those who want to debate what is actually in McCain-Kennedy, Jeff Sessions has identified 20 Amnesty Loopholes in the bill. Basically, it lays bare all the
liesclaims the pro-amnesty side has made about the bill and confirms that there is no enforcement, the fines are a joke, the learning English requirement is a joke, and… among other things … if an illegal sues an employer, the federal government (meaning we the taxpayers) have to pay for his attorney.I can’t help thinking that just the words “McCain-Kennedy” should almost tell us about the bill. (Given their respective track records. McCain is a much better person and American than Kennedy, but still an awful legislator who has written or sponsored some horrendous stuff, over the years.)
(i.e., tell us all we need to know)
One would think that, ILC. Would anyone vote for a tax bill Ted Kennedy wrote? Or a defense bill?
On a lighter not, I’ve been trying to find a good picture from the debate to caption from last night’s debate… but Republicans just aren’t as funny as Democrats.
#199 – SF, I can see both your and NDT’s points on this question.
Excluding honorable gays from the military is unnecessary and wrong and self-defeating – as an increasing body of experience shows. Honorable gays should be allowed to serve openly.
On the other hand, I must concede, some (note SOME) of the people clamoring for gays in the military are anti-military. The issue of “gays in the military”, to them, is just another club for bashing and tearing down the military, saying how [insert Kos pejorative of the week] the military is, etc. Finally, let’s never forget it was Democrats who gave us DADT.
All of those things work out to be great reasons for ending DADT. The military-bashing types would be confounded – momentarily – if gays were allowed officially in the military. But NDT has some fine points.
I love it; the progressives and bipartisan backers of improving border security and dealing with illegal aliens are now “pro-amnesty”. Nawh, the opponents to reform don’t play rhetorical games.
Meanwhile, this morning, a distinguished group of sane conservatives came forward to support reform in an OpEd piece to the DallasNews. None other than Kemp, Mankiw, Jeb Bush (who knows a little something about illegal aliens and pragmatism), Weinstein, Kudlow, Gilder, Rosen, Bottum, Phil Levy and lots of others.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/060507dnopibandingtogether.196cc1c4.html
Money quote: “The Senate framework will allow us to go on attracting immigrants and maintain the rule of law, too. The benefits of the bill far outweigh its shortcomings. We believe it offers the only realistic way forward, and urge conservatives — and all Americans — to embrace the promise it holds out.”
For those conservatives here who have forgotten what RReagan REALLY stood for… this quote: “Border security, the rule of law, national interest, economic competitiveness — these are the conservative concerns at the heart of the agreement. Yet conservatism is also, as Ronald Reagan reminded us, about optimism and self-confidence — about an America sure enough of itself to be a big tent and a beacon.”
During the GOP Prez debate last night, the nativist’s Know Nothing Party of the 1860’s came back to haunt the debate. Tancredo made it clear: he’s also against legal immigration. Ron Paul loon isn’t the problem for the GOP, now it’s the Know Nothing biogots like Tancredo.
Any wonder why the American Nazi Party’s candidate for President says his campaign is getting new blood because of illegal aliens and immigration issues?
http://www.columbiacitypaper.com/2007/2/15/s-c-nazi-for-president
Gosh, Nazi, Nativists and Know Nothings… who said history doesn’t repeat itself?
Frankly, VdaK, I’ll take a limousine full of your “Rockefeller” Republicans any day to the hateful message from the Nazi, Nativists and Know Nothing corner of the debate.
Calling people names and comparing them to Nazis is a great way to win an argument !
I can’t believe the moral midgets running for the GOP pres nom. Giullani and Romney, both previous supporters of gay rights, couldn’t bring themselves to oppose DADT. Real profiles in courage there.
Any do all these guys (except Paul) beleive Americans are goning to elect someone whose supports and open-ended war in Iraq ?
Matt, why are you so afraid to discuss the actual bill?
#184 HardHobbit:
That characterization is silly and indeed wrong, on several levels.
First, only one non-lower-caser on GP calls others “racist”, “bigot”, “Know Nothing” and other variants. Your comment would be more honest, HardHobbit, if it were phrased more directly as a reprimand to that person.
Second, for the record, no one has been called “Rockefeller” here. Scan the thread for it, HardHobbit; it only comes up in connection with the question of whether Ronald Reagan was more of a Rockefeller Republican or, well, more of a Reagan Republican.
I’m advising you that the difference is qualitative between telling a fellow GP commentor “Reagan was no Rockefeller Republican” on the one hand, and “You are a racist” on the other. Your comment seems to draw an inappropriate moral equivalence.
I’ve done so many times.
That depends. Some may be surprised. I wouldn’t be. I’ve made my position on immigration clear in many comments; at #161-#164, I find that mine agrees 90% with sonicfrog’s. Part of what we’ve sketched out includes: Build the fence if it will physically help. With regard to Matt, that position seems to be OK with him in one discussion context, then “racist” in the next; so I honestly can’t predict if Matt would then disagree or agree with my position, or how much.
While I like and admire Sen Jeff Sessions, the staffer who put together the 20 “loopholes” ought to be dismissed for lying and gross intellectual dishonesty.
Like several of the intellectually dishonest “loopholes” claim that child molesters are encouraged to grab amnesty, gang members are encouraged to grab amnesty, fugitives are encouraged to grab amnesty, terrorists are encouraged to grab amnesty and (who knows) move to the front of the line… good God, could it be any more obscenely dishonest?
Other loopholes claim the amnestisized aliens don’t even have to learn English for 10 yrs! Where’s the assimilation? Pretty soon, Hispanic Street Talk with be competing with English as America’s primary language! English First! You must assimilate… prove your language proficiency –skip the reality that the marketplace and workplace will impress English skills onto immigrants –as it has for generations.
20 loopholes? Really? The others include the typical Nativist whine about misuse of taxpayer monies, societal benefits extended to those who didn’t earn them, et cetera.
Loopholes?
The Kennedy-McCain bill has a lot of shortcomings… but maybe Prez Bush was right when he said “If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens. If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. You can use it to frighten people.”
Here’s 20 loopholes via some FarRightFringe staffer in Sen Sessions Office.
What a shame.
EchoCalarato writes: “With regard to Matt, that position seems to be OK with him in one discussion context, then “racist” in the next; so I honestly can’t predict if Matt would then disagree or agree with my position, or how much.”
Move out of the cheap seat, guy. Rhetorical tricks to score meaningless debate points use to be the province of the GayLeftBorg… you can do better Cal. A lot better.
More useless name-calling from Matt.
ILC, I have also made my position on illegal immigration clear many times, and instead of answering it, or instead of defending the actual McCain-Kennedy bill, its proponents offer nothing but accusations of racism.
The Kennedy-McCain bill has been reviewed by many experts, and this is some of what is in it:
1. Immediate probationary status for all illegals currently in the US… including violent felons, gang members, affiliates of terrorist groups, and illegals already scheduled for deportation.
2. Obligates employers to check employees against the EEVS, but does not allow them to refuse employment to illegals whose credentials can’t be verified.
3. Does not require enforcement or border security triggers to be in place before probationary legal status is granted
4. Does not require illegal aliens to pay back taxes or learn English (only to show they intend to learn English)
5. Allows forged or unverified documentation to be used as “evidence” to support z-visa applications
Now, seriously, is this the kind of Immigration Reform McCain-Kennedy Supporters really want?
Just to keep the record clean, I am going to re-iterate that I made a completely honest statement at the end of #208.
(1) Fact: I have personally seen Matt call a border fence “racist” in one discussion context, and indicate it might be OK with him in a different discussion. (Recently. For an example of the latter, see #165 above.)
(2) Fact: Because of that, and because I am not psychic, I am personally unable to predict what Matt’s immigration position will be in any given discussion. Nor should I want to (because, among other reasons, I don’t speak for Matt).
Matt, disprove any of that. (Unless your lingo has now devolved to the point, perhaps, where “rhetorical tricks” is code for “accurate and irrefutable”?)
#211 – V, good information. Thanks.
Sidebar – I posted another comment about Godwin’s Law, that is caught in moderation. All I can say is: look up Godwin’s Law on wiki, then consider the use of “Nazi” in #206.
VdaK writes: “Matt, why are you so afraid to discuss the actual bill?”
Nice try at the faux-paint job of me as “scared” and failing to discuss the bill –kind of like your attempt to haul that cow painted as a deer into the meadow to fraud the hunter.
Let me apply that same principle to you: V, why are you so afraid of admiting you’re a racist? You sound like one… even when you shared the “Hey, I got brown friends too” story… which sounded like a Klanner in 1961 Georgia saying “I ain’t no racist, I got nigger friends”.
Hmm? Not too fair, eh? I agree.
We’ve discussed many elements of the bill… the powers behind the bill… the public purpose served by the bill… general and specific. You know I’m not a Wall fan… you know I think the bill doesn’t go far enough on outlawing sanctuary… you know I take issue with wild-assed claims from the obstructionists seeking to derail the bill.
So why ask the unfair, disingeniuous question VdaK?
You don’t want to debate the merits of the bill… you can’t when you maintain “It’s Amnesty I tell ya” meme.
I’m not scared to discuss the bill –why the pot shots from the cheap seats, V?
In the past, MM has never had any difficulty arguing facts, or coming up with facts to support his arguments. But when it comes to refuting the analysis of McCain-Kennedy… zilch.
In the same comment: why the pot shots from the cheap seats, V?
And. V, why are you so afraid of admiting you’re a racist?
Nuff said.
Wow.
And VdaK, while we’re on the broader questions… one reason many here don’t like to debate you — me excluded– is you usually avoid discussion, you have a bad habit of tossing out misleading cynical taunts, like EchoCalarato you reduce others’ comments to absurdities authors can’t recognize and then it’s fold, mutilate, spindle repeat.
Often, like using “pro-amnesty” label, you stand reason on its head while spinning more social conservative neo-populism crap. Like the “It’s the Elites” bs, claiming Hastert isn’t a conservative, Bush called you unAmerican…
I’m not afraid or scared of discussing the bill or debating you, VdaK. Nor, agreeing with you.
I’ll skip for now the pyschological intimdation tricks of your sidekick, EchoCalarato… whose feelings I’ve hurt and I both regret and apolgize for that failing on my part.
Like I said in another thread on immigration –we probably agree on a lot that’s needed on these issues.
But I’m never afraid of debating the merits of a bill, VdaK.
VdaK writes: “In the past, MM has never had any difficulty arguing facts, or coming up with facts to support his arguments. But when it comes to refuting the analysis of McCain-Kennedy… zilch.”
Crap, VdaK. See why people don’t care to debate you and other narrow-minded social conservatives?
The point about asking you to admit you’re a racist was to PROVE THE POINT that your “sincere” question of my fear in debating the bill wasn’t a concern. “When did you stop beating your wife, candidate X?”
And EchoCalarato plays his part on cue.
So debate them.
Repeating for you, VdaK: So why ask the unfair, disingeniuous question VdaK?
VdaK, at 209 I wrote: “Like several of the intellectually dishonest “loopholes” claim that child molesters are encouraged to grab amnesty, gang members are encouraged to grab amnesty, fugitives are encouraged to grab amnesty, terrorists are encouraged to grab amnesty and (who knows) move to the front of the line… good God, could it be any more obscenely dishonest?”
At #212 you write: “Immediate probationary status for all illegals currently in the US… including violent felons, gang members, affiliates of terrorist groups, and illegals already scheduled for deportation.”
Right, you are really interested in discussion, thoughtful dialgoue and debate?
Ummmm, you’re not doing too good at demonstrating that new found interest in debating the merits of the bill.
It was not disingenuous. I have laid out the flaws in the bill repeatedly. Most recently in #211 and via a link in #201, and the only response I get is (paraphrasing), “Linda Chavez says you’re a racist.” Along with rants about nativism and slams on social conservatives. Instead of defending the bill, you’re attacking me and in a very personal way. And then attacking others for defending me.
And it is an Amnesty bill. John McCain admitted it in 2003. It’s an amnesty bill to me because it rewards criminal behavior in a way that lets the criminal keep that which his criminal behavior allowed him to acquire. And I think it is grossly unfair to those who have followed the law.
But, I have also said, I’d be willing to live with the Amnesty if it came with meaningful border security and enforcement first. And I have pointed out that neither of those things are in the bill.
I have treated this debate with the same honesty and integrity I’ve brought to every other debate in this forum. I have defended my positions with facts and analysis, but not without sarcasm when it was warranted. And I stand by what I’ve said: McCain-Kennedy is a terrible piece of legislation. Even Rudy Giuliani says so.
OT: Hey Bruce, where’s the commentary on the second republican debate?
When people here talk about “It’s Amnesty I tell ya” as the main reason to balk at the 2007 Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act, they fail to note that last week CNN ran a poll and the survey instrument included mis-defining the bill as an amnesty bill.
Guess what? In the paid subscriber section of Gallup Poll, Frank Newport at Gallup points out that even in the CNN Poll which used the dreaded word “amnesty” to describe the program, near 54% of voters supported the program… 71% of GOP voters.
A clear majority of Americans favor moving forward on the bill even if we use the ginned-up word “amnesty”.
Now, I don’t think just because a majority of voters support something, it should be made law. But I offer that, even if one uses the exact word “amnesty”, a majority still want progress. Why the obstructionism?
Right now, there are over 147 major amendments to the bill filed with the Senate’s Floor office. Some try to gut the bill. Some offered by Dems try to weaken the Wall, reduce enforcement, lengthen time frames to afford permanent worker-alien status and so forth.
For those who want to debate the bill based on its many shortcomings, I’d remind them there’s still a lot of work to do on the bill… nothing is certain in the bill except that it will never please the FarRightFringe because until Capital Punishment is mandatory for all illegal aliens and their spawn… and the fence is electrified and guard towers built… snipers armed… nothing will satisfy.
Just kidding on that last part… I heard it on the ride over in my Liberal Rockefeller limousine. The one with “Jerry Ford in ‘08” bumper sticker.
VdaK writes: “And it is an Amnesty bill. John McCain admitted it in 2003.”
Ummm, VdaK? The 2007 bill isn’t anything like the proposed 2003 bill. He’s made it clear the 2007 bill isn’t amnesty and you know it.
What was all that about you trying to be honest in your debate? Or did that apply to everything you write after your pledge?
I doubt the majority of Americans have been informed on what’s actually in the bill. That’s where I’m debating from: What’s actually in the bill.
Another concern. Once this thing passes, the attitude in Washington is likely to be, “We’ve solved the problem, on to Impeachment!” But the problem will not be solved. The borders will still be open, and the flood will continue. But no one will do anything about it because they will claim this bill solved the problem (just like the 1986 bill “solved” the problem.)
I made a mistake. I wrote 54% of voters support reform even it is described inaccurately as “amnesty”… the correct polling number is 59%.
83% of Californians support it. (Gallup)
57% of Iowans support it. (FRC Poll)
I’ve explained to the point of exhaustion why it’s an Amnesty bill. And why the Amnesty part isn’t especially my problem with it. And in some ways, this bill is actually worse than the previous bill. The previous bill gave DHS 90 days to run a background check on illegals. This one gives them 24 hours.
I’ve had background checks done on myself repeatedly. None took less than two weeks.
So, MM, are you going to be against the Iraq war now since polls show most people oppose it?
#224 – Because the bill doesn’t achieve border security. And for that matter, it won’t stop the tide of illegal immigrants, and will reward people who began their stay with us by breaking our laws.
#222 – V, it’s funny how I come out damned, no matter what I do.
If I offer a new thought or analysis (which is often), then it’s “rhetorical tricks” – Especially when my points are so telling, they essentially can’t be answered. But if I express my view more indirectly. just by underlining someone else’s, it’s being an echo – Especially if Matt and/or HardHobbitt don’t like the other person. Finally, when they do it (which is often), then of course it’s fine. 🙂
No problem – I’m only noticing. I think the real issue is that I’ve dared to confront (or help in confronting) Matt’s abusiveness. That’s unforgivable.
(Cueing Matt’s next round of derision and name-calling… in 3, 2, 1…)
VdaK writes: “The borders will still be open, and the flood will continue.”
Let’s leave aside the cynicism dripping there… do you know that one of the amendments adopted last week requires the DHS to “establish and demonstrate operational control” over 100% –100%– of the international land between the US and Mexico?
Was it the fear of that flood that kept all those social conservative majorities in Congress in the last three sessions from moving on immigration reform? Just curious.
ILC, I’m not sure what you mean by “Let’s never forget it was Democrats who gave us DADT.” Although I am by no means thrilled about Clinton’s lack of leadership regarding DADT, at least he was the only President to ever support equality in the military. At least now gay persons (who choose not to disclose their sexual orientation) can legally serve in the military. Without Clinton, gays would still not be able to serve in the military legally. And now, some of the Democratic candidates support equality in the military while none of the Republican candidates do. On DADT, the Democrats aren’t perfect in ending discrimination in the military, but the Republicans are perfect in keeping discrimination. The fact that some anti-military people have ulterior motives in support of ending discrimination is irrelevant.
As for the numbers of linguists that were dismissed, sure, the percentage seems low. But to say to any qualified person that he could use his talents in another agency, but he can’t be used here because of something irrelevant is, well, typical of government, unfortunately. So I shouldn’t be surprised. Further, the numbers don’t give the full story. If these 26 translators were good at there job, and really did have a grasp of Arabic and Farsi, then the loss of them is more unfortunate than the numbers say. I wonder how many of the Arabic and Farsi linguist grads are really qualified in these languages. Further, if all of them had to be closeted regarding their sexual orientation, gay or straight, then the military would really have a shortage of linguists.
Regarding the illegal immigration issue, I agree with HardHobbit that there is probably more agreement regarding the issue, but it’s the differences that are being emphasized, and of course, all the other crap that is going on.
I have always been in favor of immigration, and think that the number of legal immigrants should increase. I suspect the reason why we have the limits that we have is because of the number of illegal immigrants that we have now. Yes, in the past, many people came here illegally, and eventually they and/or their children became productive citizens. But there are serious security and fairness issues here. With the growing terrorist threats, we need to be able to track all people that are here illegally with at least the same efficiency that a cow with mad cow disease can be tracked. (In case I need to state the obvious, I am not making an comparison to illegal immigrants to sick cows, but rather a point of priorities regarding security.)
As for fairness, some anecdotal examples that trouble me. I had a colleague who is a resident alien. After 9/11 he has to go to an immigration services offices annually and produce certain paperwork and documentation. If something is missing, he and his family can be deported. Yesterday, a student who just graduated, was apparently allowed to stay in the country at least temporarily. But because of some mishap of getting the paperwork, she may end up being deported. And further, here in NJ, and other states to my understanding, as a citizen, I had to bring several pieces of documentation proving that I am a U.S. citizen and a resident of NJ, even though it was just a renewal. But now, the state is considering granting licenses to illegal residents. How does this possibly make sense?
So my position is as follows.
1) Have tighter security at all borders and ports. I don’t necessarily advocate a wall, but would consider it for any portion of a border in which people cross illegally despite heightened security.
2) Within, say one year, require all persons here illegally, to register as an illegal immigrant. After that point, any person here illegally and not registered is to be deported immediately. Sorry, no excuse for ignorance here. As for the people that are already here, I’m not sure what to do. It seems that either deporting all or providing full amnesty are extreme. But convicted felons should be on the list of those to be deported immediately.
3) After one year, any person that is here illegally and not registered are to be deported immediately.
4) After one year, any government/taxpayer services provided to a registered illegal resident to be eliminated, unless they and their employer are paying taxes. Any employer who hires an unregistered illegal resident will pay heavy fines and/or serve jail time.
5) After five years, any registered illegal resident must either have legal residence status, by applying for it in the same way that those who immigrate legally do, or return to their former nation of residence. At this point, NO ONE who is here illegally and caught should expect to remain 24 more hours in the U.S.
6) I believe it is unfair to label those who favor legal immigration and eliminating illegal immigration as racist or xenophobes. In fact, even many people who want to severely restrict all immigration are not racist, but it would be fair to say that some are.
More rubbish.
First, Matt, an apology isn’t an apology unless you mean it. It can’t be combined with further name-calling on the person. DEFINITELY not in the same sentence, even Clinton knows that, LOL! 🙂 So no, I’m not going to credit your faux apology-combined-with-more-names-and-attacks.
Second, you know perfectly well what you’ve done… and you haven’t acknowledged it. It isn’t “hurting my feelings”. You can call me personally names until kingdom come, LOL 🙂 But if you’re going to abuse good people in general, by calling them vicious names and using Ian’s Tactics of Argument, I’ll point it out. OK? Deal.
VdaK asks at #230: “So, MM, are you going to be against the Iraq war now since polls show most people oppose it?”
Do you read for comprehension, bud? I wrote that I don’t think majorities ought to translate into policy enacted… or are you back to your bag of debate tricks and games?
No, I support the WOT-Iraq. I support the surge. I even supported nation building before Bush converted.
Echo, only a snob turns aside an apology, Cal. I’m sorry you’re not big enough to accept it.
do you know that one of the amendments adopted last week requires the DHS to “establish and demonstrate operational control” over 100% –100%– of the international land between the US and Mexico?
The senate was in recess last week, Matt. There was no floor action on any bill between 5-25 and 6-4. There is no such Amendment listed at senate.gov, and a search on Thomas shows no results for the phrase “establish and demonstrate operational control” Do you have the number of the amendment?
VdaK, this will probably get you onboard with the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, there’s an amendment filed to direct the Prez to pardon Messrs Compean and Ramos before DHS can approve a single design plan for the Wall.
That’s coming from Tancredo’s office… via CRAVE (you know, Christians Reviving American Values… Don Swarthout’s group of unique conspiratorialists who still think the Warren Commission got it all wrong and there’s something hidden in Area 51 in Roswell.
As predicted: More useless name-calling.
Also, purely for personal curiosity: Matt, did you accept Clinton’s apology for Monicagate? Why or why not?
I’d rather see Ramos and Campean pardoned than Scooter Libby. I don’t care if Osama bin Laden proposed it. A pardon is still the right thing to do.
As i searched fruitlessly for the amendment MM cited, I have had the opportunity to read the latest text of the bill. It’s quite depressing. The Border Security section is heavy with “The Secretary Shall Submit a plan,” but light on actual requirements for border enforcement. For example, after constructing the 370 miles of fence (from which, they get to subtract fence where it’s already been built), the SecDHS has to perform a “Border Study” (Section 129) about where additional fence might be built, but the way that it’s written, the SecDHS could use the study to justify not building any more fencing at all.
And for all those people who see “no difference” between Dems and GOPers on the border security bill there are some differences peeking out from under the proverbial bedcovers…
Gov Richardson thinks the bill is too harsh on illegal aliens, not speedy enough in granting permanent status to aliens and stresses border security without offering aliens an option to vote in American elections.
Gosh, there’s no difference.
Biden, who originally voted for the Wall, now thinks a fence is a bad idea. He must have been studying Kerry’s book: “What Every Dummmy Needs to Know About Flip Flopping”.
Nine of the Dem candidates don’t think learning English is important requisite to American citizenship; three would like illegal aliens to be able to vote in federal elections.
Gosh, there’s no difference.
ScreaminHowieDean wants to protect American jobs by creating protected classes of jobs that legal aliens can NOT hold… in construction, in hospitality, in education and other areas. A clear bow to the BigUnions and BigLabor.
Gosh, there’s no difference.
On the floor (Malkin is liveblogging the debate) Cornyn is offering an amendment to bar felons from access to amnesty. Kennedy and Schumer are apoplectic.
Was it the fear of that flood that kept all those social conservative majorities in Congress in the last three sessions from moving on immigration reform? Just curious.
Matt, I specifically responded to that question here.
And I will repeat the questions I asked in that post:
How is refusing to enforce immigration law AT ALL, as your bill (and every other Senate bill before it) allows cities, counties, and states to do, “securing the border”?
And why should we believe that Linda Chavez and her fellow “moderates” will enforce immigration law, when they themselves shelter, aid, and employ illegal immigrants?
VdaK writes about my point on the 100% requirement #232: “There is no such Amendment listed at senate.gov, and a search on Thomas shows no results for the phrase “establish and demonstrate operational control”” And later “As i searched fruitlessly for the amendment MM cited, I have had the opportunity to read the latest text of the bill. It’s quite depressing. The Border Security section is heavy with “The Secretary Shall Submit a plan,” but light on actual requirements for border enforcement.”
Sorry, I was looking at my dayplanner from the week prior and left it flipped open. My bad. It wasn’t last week. It was the week prior to that.
But I kind of detect a little… oh, gee, I don’t know… a little incredulity in your comments, VdaK… like there’s no such amendment because you’re such a crack researcher? Or you searched fruitlessly for an amendment that MM cited BUT DOESN’T EXIST. Maybe I’m just too sensitive from the battering I’ve been subjected to by you and Echo.
It was the Sen Gregg amendment –the one that was done by a voice vote. It was done on the 25th. It was further in the very amendment you were likely looking at before your incredulity seemed to set in… it reads:
“… the programs established by title IV, and the programs established by title VI that grant legal status to any individual or that adjust the current status of any individual who is unlawfully present in the United States to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, shall become effective on the date that the Secretary submits a written certification to the President and the Congress, based on analysis by and in consultation with the Comptroller General, that each of the following border security and other measures are established, funded, and operational:
(1) OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER WITH MEXICO.–The Secretary of Homeland Security has established and demonstrated operational control of 100 percent of the international land border between the United States and Mexico, including the ability to monitor such border through available methods and technology.
(2) STAFF ENHANCEMENTS FOR BORDER PATROL.–The United States Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol has hired, trained, and reporting for duty 20,000 full-time agents as of the date of the certification under this subsection.
(3) STRONG BORDER BARRIERS.–There has been–
(A) installed along the international land border between the United States and Mexico as of the date of the certification under this subsection, at least–
(i) 300 miles of vehicle barriers;
(ii) 370 miles of fencing; and
(iii) 105 ground-based radar and camera towers; and
(B) deployed for use along the along the international land border between the United States and Mexico, as of the date of the certification under this subsection, 4 unmanned aerial vehicles, and the supporting systems for such vehicles.
(4) CATCH AND RETURN.–The Secretary of Homeland Security is detaining all removable aliens apprehended crossing the international land border between the United States and Mexico in violation of Federal or State law, except as specifically mandated by Federal or State law or humanitarian circumstances, and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the resources to maintain this practice, including the resources necessary to detain up to 31,500 aliens per day on an annual basis.
#239 – In other words: Y’all have no choice to support the bill, because a weak / bad / empty / meaningless bill is still better than what is wanted by THE DEMOCRATS!!!
Just like: Y’all have no choice but to vote Republican and support the neo-mod “compassionate” grip on the Republican Party, because a weak / bad / empty / Me-Too / corrupt / compromised Republican Party is still better than THE DEMOCRATS!!!
Well, again folks, I did vote Republican in 2006. But as a registered Independent, I’m able to recognize that “Because You Have No Choice” is not a good enough reason to support anything. In 1976-86, Reagan proved me right.
(actually, I should say, Reagan proved me wrong, because as a kid I thought Ford was alright and disapproved of Reagan. What a mistake, LOL 🙂 )
BTW, another voice vote amendment I read was by Sen McCain –yeah, that guy some here now call Sen McAmnesty…
He wants to make sure that illegal aliens pay their backtaxes once they enter the legalization process. Go figure? I thought he was pure evil.
He got that one added to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
EchoCal asks: “Also, purely for personal curiosity: Matt, did you accept Clinton’s apology for Monicagate? Why or why not?”
Echo, I did accept it because he said he was sorry. We do that whether we’re in and out of the pew at Church; my moral code requires it of me.
Why?
I suppose that when a name-caller finds his targets confronting him, it would seem like “battering” to him.
Sounds impressive, Matt.
Until you consider the fact that to drive from Brownsville, TX to San Diego, CA — a road route that roughly parallels the US-Mexico border — is over 1,500 miles.
Because that cuts across the various ups and downs in the border, it significantly underestimates the distance; however, to be kind, let’s use it.
So, in other words:
1) Just over one-fifth of the border will have an actual fence meant to keep vehicles and people out
2) An additional one-fifth will have “vehicle barriers”, meant to stop people from driving over them, but doing nothing to stop people who, as do the vast majority of immigrants, walk.
That leaves three-fifths of the border — or approximately 900-plus miles — without any physical barrier to entry whatsoever.
And with “105 camera and radar towers” to presumably cover the rest, that means that there will be a camera or radar tower every nine miles — with “4 UAVs” meaning each one will be expected to cover a 200-mile-plus area.
Meanwhile, even assuming that “20,000 Border Patrol agents” could be deployed directly to the border (think of how many are held hostage at the legal entry points), that would be 20,000 people to, if you consider the border area to be three miles wide, 4500 square miles — or slightly under 5 people per square mile. In contrast, the City of San Francisco is, by voter ordinance, mandated to have approximately 1,900 officers to cover its 49 square miles — or just under 39 officers per square mile.
And again, remember, I’m being generous; the actual length of the border is closer to 2,000 miles.
In short, what you’re touting is akin to deadbolting the front door of a house and leaving all the windows open.
The Gregg Amendment was adopted on 5-23. And it is an improvement over the original Kennedy-McCain language.
And it wouldn’t have gotten in the bill if the administration had gotten their way and the quick vote they wanted.
But, it looks like the Cornyn bill was voted down. Felons still get amnesty. Yippee.
EchoCalarato at #245, I see you’re still taking comments from people you disagree with out of context, reducing them to an absurd caricature and then steping up on the soapbox and announcing your novel recitation to the crowd.
Still practicing from the cheap seats?
I know, I know, you’re disgusted at how far I’ve fallen from YOUR grace.
Can you at least save that little rhetorical trick for your debate of Ian or sean or keogh; it’s tiresome to keep calling you out to the curb for another dressing down.
“4 UAVs” meaning each one will be expected to cover a 200-mile-plus area.
It’s worse than that.
UAV’s can’t operate 24-7. So, the four will be enough to provide continuous surveillance over one 200 mile stretch of the border, or intermittent protection over longer stretches. And that’s providing none of them crash, which they often do.
I wrote my Masters Thesis on UAV’s. You’ll have to trust me on this one.
Relative to McCain (emphasis mine):
He wants to make sure that illegal aliens pay their backtaxes once they enter the legalization process.
So now you’re telling immigrants that, if they enter the legalization process, they will have to pay taxes.
However, since the Democrats, McCain, and the “moderates” refuse to arrest and deport people for being in the country illegally, if they choose not to enter the legalization process, there will be no penalty AND they don’t have to pay taxes.
Gee, I wonder which they’ll choose?
He wants to make sure that illegal aliens pay their backtaxes once they enter the legalization process. Go figure? I thought he was pure evil.
Jeff Sessions responds:
V, that (#251) may be the very first acknowledgment from you of anything by you in this entire discussion.
I wish the Cornyn amendment (it’s not a bill btw) would have passed. At least it would have filled one of those mythical loopholes of the FarRightFringe.
I also hope the sanctuary provision gets addressed… as well as requiring locals to enforce the Act. That one lost by a single vote… paging NDTXXX
#246 – So, you raised your opinion of Clinton because of his apology?
I’m curious because I noticed that Clinton’s apology
(1) wasn’t accompanied by further names and personal attacks on his opponents – I mean, at least not in the same speech – he did it later; and
(2) was accompanied by changes Clinton’s behavior – at least as far as the public could know.
That’s what makes it an apology. You don’t combine it with further attacks and names on the person. If you do, it is an attack. (As your thing earlier.)
If you ever want to make a real apology, Matt, we’ll both know – because it won’t haven any names or further personal attacks embedded. And I’ll accept that.
And, NDT is right. Since deporting illegals is inhumane, impractical, and nativist, there’s really no penalty if they don’t obey the laws. We wouldn’t want to break up families, would we?
Funny, somehow I don’t think John McCain would give a damn about breaking up my family by sending me to prison for tax evasion.
#250 – Insult, insult, insult. 🙂 Keep going, Matt.
I also hope the sanctuary provision gets addressed… as well as requiring locals to enforce the Act.
The cut off for amendments is five minutes from now. So, I don’t think anyone need be concerned with any more meddling in Ted Kennedy’s masterpiece.
I wish the Cornyn amendment (it’s not a bill btw) would have passed. At least it would have filled one of those mythical loopholes of the FarRightFringe.
So, the idea that felons are eligible for amnesty bothers you less than the idea that the “FarRightFringe” can criticize the bill for granting amnesty to felons. Is that right?
Guess what, V… McCain’s staff has an amendment pending to further clarify his language means the payment of back taxes.
Sen Sessions flunkie failed to let you know that before providing third-rate advice on this matter.
But to the point: if an alien wants to stay, he has to prove payment of backtaxes before moving on… proof of payment, even in the twisted upside down world of Congressional conservatives translates into payment.
Well, that (#261) was the shortest stay for you yet on the HonestDebate Farm, VdaK. Wow, 8 comments and you’re back at it.
To answer your question: No, I didn’t “buy” Sen Sessions’ flunkie’s spin on Loophole “Felon Encouraged to Grab Amnesty Brass Ring Now”.
I think Cornyn’s amendment (it’s not a bill) was good. It clarified an unwarranted concern about an unlikely hypothetical situation for the FarRightFringe’s animation express.
It’s why I took exception to your reliance on Sen Sessions’ silly 20 loopholes… which, as we inspected, weren’t.
I wish the Cornyn amendment (it’s not a bill btw) would have passed. At least it would have filled one of those mythical loopholes of the FarRightFringe.
I also hope the sanctuary provision gets addressed… as well as requiring locals to enforce the Act. That one lost by a single vote… paging NDTXXX
“Hoping” doesn’t change the legislation.
You know what would have gotten the Cornyn amendment passed? Telling Ted Kennedy that, without it, the immigration bill is dead in the water. Just like the sanctuary provision.
But what we have now is a bill that makes any attempt at enforcement irrelevant, because it torpedoes all penalties for being in the country. You can now be convicted by our court system and ignore your deportation order. If you’re an al-Qaeda terrorist, there is zero – ZERO – penalty for overstaying your visa, and even LESS likelihood that you’ll be caught when you do it.
Do you hear me, Matt? Your “friend” Ted Kennedy just made it illegal to deport criminals. Do you even CARE?
I said bill when I meant Amendment. I guess that proves I’m an evil racist nativist bigot.
So, Senator Sessions “Flunkie” was wrong about John McAmnesty’s back taxes amendment, but McAmnesty is preparing language to fix it anyway. That makes total sense.
NDT, I think Kennedy was miffed because Cornyn’s amendment would have allowed illegals to be deported for multiple DUI’s. He was afraid they’d be coming after Patrick.
EchoCalarato, please see #252 for future reference, ok? It’s easier that way. You don’t want to accept a good natured, sincere apology from someone you’ve been browbeating, battering and making a target of cheap rhetorical tricks… ok. I can comprehend that impulse… not understand it, just comprehend it.
Like VdaK offered earlier, stick to debating the bill… that’s what sidekicks are for… inside and outside the echo chamber.
Guess what, V… McCain’s staff has an amendment pending to further clarify his language means the payment of back taxes……But to the point: if an alien wants to stay, he has to prove payment of backtaxes before moving on… proof of payment, even in the twisted upside down world of Congressional conservatives translates into payment.
Or he can simply not report in and not have to pay taxes at all — again without penalty, because McCain, the “moderates”, and their Democrat allies all oppose arresting and deporting illegal immigrants.
Again, it’s like voluntary dog licensing; given the choice between paying $40 to license your dog and paying nothing, when there is no penalty for doing so, the vast majority of people choose nothing.
McCain, the “moderates”, and their Democrat allies all oppose arresting and deporting illegal immigrants.
Even felons, gang members, and terrorist affiliates.
(Snarky aside) I wonder if MM will be boycotting those Nativist Nazzis at Dunkin Donuts.
NDXXX writes: “You know what would have gotten the Cornyn amendment passed? Telling Ted Kennedy that, without it, the immigration bill is dead in the water. Just like the sanctuary provision”
Actually, NDXXX that’s what the last few sessions of your conservative Congress did on immigration reform… anyone who brought it forward, Tom DeLay and the other social conservatives told them to “go fish”.
No way, it aint happening.
Guess what, you guys gave Kennedy the power he has today… vent your rage where it belongs… with the idiots and dolts on the FarRightFringe who wanted to teach the GOP a lesson with electoral defeat of the social conservatives. I’ll avoid naming names here.
I’ve pointed out before that your simplistic approach to working with a Democrat majority just doesn’t cut it. The political landscape has changed since ’06 elections and in order to secure progress, political compromise even with the Devil is part of getting the job done.
And honest, I think Kennedy is about as evil as they get. Well, there’s HowieDean who is closer to a satan.
You can sit back with VdaK in the armchair and bitch, of course. You can call it Amnesty even.
And for all the kiddies here still learning about govt? VdaK didn’t tell you that although the opportunity for amendments is ending shortly… if the motion to end debate doesn’t get 60 votes, it ain’t happening in the current form.
Which is ok. Because that would get us back to ending sanctuary, maybe lowering the number of visas by half again (it’s been cut 50% once)… maybe even additional improvements to the bill… but then that could mean the liberals get a couple of items in exchange, too. Like voting rights? Broadly extended families? No touchback provision every 2 years… where the alien has to return home for at least 1 year.
#238 “So, MM, are you going to be against the Iraq war now since polls show most people oppose it?”
Matt established in his first comment in this thread (#37) his criticism of Peggy Noonan for misrepresenting the conservative position as against the war. It was my assumption that she considered it safe to do so due to the polls. In fact, that subject is what launched (in comment #2) this huge, lumbering, wide-ranging, often interesting, sometimes utterly ludicrous thread. I would think that Matt deserves some thanks for accurately describing what everyone knows is a conservative position (everyone except Noonan, that is). But integrity is really not the point of such a comment, is it, what with the price of snarky sarcasm at record lows?
This discussion has become meaningless. Everyone claims they’ve brought honesty to the debate, yet we masochistically continue to participate despite the dishonesty, the references to past threads, the “You called me a name back in comment #112…”, the name-calling itself, the attempts to seem relevant with claims of imperviousness interwoven with obvious personal pain, using a definition of amnesty the width of a rhetorical sliver so that debate points can be more easily scored, etc.
Finding common ground isn’t the point, is it? Is it any wonder we have such an immigration problem?
I suspect that in their own fashion, our American ancestors (not necessarily our actual ancestors — some of mine weren’t here yet) had the same sorts of debates during the waves upon waves of immigrants beginning in the late 19th century. There are distinct differences, however. Whereas much of the debate then was ethnocentric as opposed to racial (and Latino is not a race as we define other races, so I find that bringing the issue of race into a debate vastly overrepresented by illegal Latinos entirely suspect) and was largely focused on disease and sanitation (which were very real problems back then) coupled with some cultural fears, we are now focused on illegality (which we can change and redefine) via geography (which we cannot). Immigration waves of the past were processed through the channels of legality; with the benefit of the Atlantic, the waves could be controlled much like a faucet. Also, it appears to me that the reasons for this illegal immigration are different when compared to past waves of immigrants. These are not ‘huddled masses yearning to be free’, but economic opportunists.
These are a few gross simplifications, obviously. However, I think in our discussions of this issue, we should recognize that the nature of immigration to the United States has changed drastically. We can’t simply say “America is the land of opportunity and these people are here to take advantage of that, just like immigrants of the past” because it’s not true. That doesn’t mean that today’s immigrants (legal or not) are automatically any less valuable, but for most, the horrors that prior immigrants were fleeing don’t exist. Does the nature of the entrance into our borders (fleeing tyranny or just taking advantage of economic opportunity) mean that the type of immigrant we now attract is different, particularly when contrasting those who are legal with those who are not? I think it’s reasonable to assume so. Does this mean that an illegal economic opportunist is less likely to assimilate, to desire to become an American not merely on paper, but in his soul? Not necessarily, but it’s not far-fetched to entertain the idea. If the answer is yes for a large enough segment of immigrants, are there long-term implications we should be discussing and if so, what are they?
One thing is certain, as Matt pointed out in his question posed in #230:
“Was it the fear of that flood that kept all those social conservative majorities in Congress in the last three sessions from moving on immigration reform? Just curious.”
This is a Republican issue. We all know it.
VdaK asks at #269 “I wonder if MM will be boycotting those Nativist Nazzis”
I wouldn’t rain on one of your cell meetings, buddy.
By the way, as my partner points out who’s been observing this debate from across town at his office, it should be Neo-Nazi Nativist Know Nothings. More musical and greater drama –which seems to ignite you social conservatives… drama.
#264 Matt:
Reminder, for the record: This is what Matt offered:
That is neither sincere nor good-natured. In fact: It wasn’t even addressed to me.
Think about that, folks. What Matt is insistently calling an “apology” **was not even addressed to me.** (It was a side comment addressed to a third party, V the K.)
Look, Matt: If you want to make a sincere apology, make one and get it over with. Hint: It wouldn’t have any further insults, attacks or names embedded. I’ll accept it.
Otherwise: Cut the pretense. You are only embarassing yourself.
Frankly, I always thought the ‘touchback’ provision was silly, and that four years for temporary workers was better than two. If those can be traded off to end the sanctuary provisions and the amnesty for felons, that’s a fair trade. If they can be traded off for more enforcement and verification, even better.
And then there’s this:
I think the picture is coming clearer. Matt, I am going to call you my first – and only – name in this thread. You are a bully. You are showing all the classic marks of a bully syndrome.
You act as if you think you’re entitled to smear, name, attack, insult, etc. others people as you see fit. (Rather than, say, debate details of a bill – Which you have only started doing AFTER I’ve made a point of highlighting this about you.) When someone confronts you, as I’ve done, it feels like “battering” to you – You are the victim. That’s classic bully syndrome.
Saying the magic words “I apologize” in a meaningless, insincere way – actually accompanied by further bullying insults, names and attacks – and then expecting that to make the other person lie down, is the next step or tactic in the classic bully pattern. You’re enraged because I’m having none of it.
Echo, could you give me an example of what constitutes a sincere apology to you? I have a feeling you’ve been signaling in from another planet lately and I don’t follow alien logic all that well; Hell, I have trouble understanding what my newly ascribed “friend” TeddieK is thinking. (Thanks NDXXX for that one)
And for the Love of Mike, get off the soapbox aka “Think about that, folks” and addressing the crowd like you’re selling snake oil on the street corner. It’s pathetic.
I hurt your feelings. I further hurt your feelings. I’m sorry. I thought we could debate the merits of the bill without you playing debate games from the cheap seats.
Get back to me on the model apology for sidekicks, ok?
VdaK, #273 sounds good to me. Any chance you’ll agree the Wall isn’t needed? Maybe if I got my newly ascribed “friend” TeddieK to shoot himself? Fair enough trade for you?
Hey, I’ve enjoyed the give & take on this issue, VdaK. See you at the Dunkin Donuts cell meeting of the Neo-Nazi Nativist Know Nothings? Do I need a special decoder ring?
Good fences make good neighbors.
Echo, I missed this one entirely “You’re enraged because I’m having none of it.”
I’m not a bully. You know that very well from my conduct here over the last two years. Remember YOU were the one who was recently bragging about how when you want to dress someone down, you rip them a new asshole in every orifice.
My partner says you’re exhibiting classic signs of projection… he’s a great psychiatrist, you’d think he would know, right?
Actually, NDXXX that’s what the last few sessions of your conservative Congress did on immigration reform… anyone who brought it forward, Tom DeLay and the other social conservatives told them to “go fish”.
Matt, this will be exactly the third time I have posted this.
What the “social conservatives” did was pass a law with teeth and which put a priority on actually enforcing our immigration law — versus this third attempt by McCainKennedy to push through a bill that claims to enforce the law and then exempts the majority of people who it would affect from enforcement.
Do not tell me a bill that exempts felons and people convicted of assault from being deported does anything to improve our “border security”.
Do not tell me a bill that does not consider forging identity documents to be a crime worthy of arrest and deportation does anything to improve our ability to track terrorists.
You, McCain, and “Racist” Linda Chavez are going to answer me this; why are you pushing a bill that allows a terrorist who arrives in our country illegally, forges documentation to get a job at an airport, and then robs a local business to get the cash he needs to buy bombs to be exempted from being deported for ANY of those things?
You know what’s ironic? MM is bashing social conservatives six ways til Sunday. But some Republicans argue for amnesty on the grounds that hispanics will become Republicans because their values are socially conservative.
I don’t buy any part of that proposition, but it is ironic when you think about it.
Do not tell me a bill that does not consider forging identity documents to be a crime worthy of arrest and deportation does anything to improve our ability to track terrorists.
You know what’s worse? Under the bill, the fine illegals have to pay to apply for a z-visa $1,000. The fine for misusing data on an illegal’s z-visa application is $10,000.
There seems to be a certain lack of proportionality there.
Gotta run guys… we have to fill up the H3, hook up the boat and go water skiing on the Huron River -it always pisses off the enviromentalists collecting water samples and weeds.
Have a good afternoon!
Needless to say, NDT, I agree entirely with your points in #276.
Matt,
You are a bully. I know that from your conduct here in the last 2 years, and especially these last few weeks.
I have always had doubts about your unusual heights of name-calling. If I didn’t say anything a year ago, say, it’s because you were up against people (who are now banned, or whom we would now call “lower casers”) as bad as you – and doing it on behalf of bad causes. In part, your name-calling and habitual insults seemed justified. To put it another way, I couldn’t muster enough sympathy for your targets to fight you over it.
I could still be on your good side now. It was my conscious choice to confront you about your mis-use of “racist”, “bigot”, “nativist”, “know-nothing”, “Nazi” (#206), and the rest of the infinite MM repertoire of epithets, when you started in on good GP, the last few months.
When you turn it on people I know to be good, and undeserving of it, that’s when I say, “Hey!”
Final note: Interesting that you would now seek to cite the authority of (or lean on the external validation of) someone who isn’t a participant here and is obviously attached to you (or obviously going to be highly in your corner). Another check mark. “My mom says I’m not a bully! [bash bash]”
That’s what I just don’t get, V the K.
Matt honestly believes that the American public will not be upset by the fact that an illegal immigrant can steal someone’s social security number, use it to forge all manner of documentation, and get away scot-free with no threat of deportation.
And that’s just one of the loopholes. Matt keeps arguing that the political will is to pass this bill — as if the American public wants a bill that allows law enforcement to enforce immigration laws only when THEY choose, that allows immigrants to work and live without any threat of deportation whatsoever, that allows gang members and felons to be safe from deportation, and that provides greater protection for those who forge documentation than for those from whom they steal identifying information.
I think there’s an ulterior motive here — as if Matt, LindaChavez, and the rest of the “moderate” cadre are fighting tooth and nail to prevent immigration laws from being enforced and to shield illegal immigrants from ever being arrested or deported, and trying to hide behind “the American public won’t support it” as an excuse for why their Democrat “allies” are casually punching loophole after loophole after loophole to ensure that illegal immigrants have better protections than US citizens from things like identity theft.
NDT, just a thought: Could it be that Linda, or anyone else, is connected with an industry that relies on cheap illegal-immigrant labor?
(Disclosure: I speak as one connected with an industry that relies heavily on expensive, but productive, legal-immigrant labor.)
And, along the same lines, Democrats are now whining and crying that NASA employees have to undergo background checks.
Yeah, it’s not like they work with and around explosives or anything that could do a lot of damage.
I think the Democrat Party has finally slipped over into insanity. Evidently they believe that, by allowing everyone into the country, regardless of motive, and giving them unlimited access to destructive material and potential, it will give them political power.
The bottom line is this bill is pro-illegal immigrant, anti-legal immigrant and screw the native American again!
Don’t give me that crap that Mexicans are more native American then the Gringo either, bottom line is that we both speak European Languages.
I think Kennedy, Linda Chavez, and the rest are counting on the public being too stupid to realize what’s in the bill. The editorial signed by Chavez and the rest was dishonest on its face. It states “[T]he package is built around a set of enforcement benchmarks that must be met before a single guest worker is hired or illegal immigrant legalized.” Not even Tony Snow is claiming that any more.
But the public isn’t stupid. Rasmussen Polling finds only 23% of Americans in support of the bill.
As to what the agenda is, I think it’s obvious. Business interests want an unlimited pool of below-market labor. Kennedy sees how immigration turned California deep blue and knows a flood of legalized illegal immigrants will do the same to other states. Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona have all gone from reliably Republican to toss-up or leaning Democrat.
Teddy Kennedy knows exactly what he’s doing.
NDT, just a thought: Could it be that Linda, or anyone else, is connected with an industry that relies on cheap illegal-immigrant labor?
LOL….yeah, her own house.
And ILC, the amusing part is that your and my industry is extraordinarily compliant in terms of immigration — because the Democrat Party abruptly flip flops when their union members, who in our industry tend to be far more wealthy than most union members, are whining about allegedly being replaced by “cheap immigrant labor”, and regularly forces investigations and enforcement. Indeed, we’re well aware of the fact that union members regularly case immigrants’ homes and look for reasons to get them deported.
Where, Matt? Do tell. Offer a real quote and date (if links don’t work), so we can start the process of verifying your claim.
Totally agree, V the K.
Democrats depend on uneducated, illiterate or semi-literate, and poor people who are dependent on government handouts to survive. Because of Mexico’s abysmal education system and a lack of English proficiency, the majority of illegal immigrants qualify on the first two — and, because they literally leave everything behind when they come here, the second as well.
The reason Kennedy is so adamantly opposed to anything that would clarify that the law is to be enforced against people is because the decision to enforce is his stick to demand good behavior. As I mentioned to ILC above, in our industry, Democrats will go so far as to rat out to DHS people who they think are illegal immigrants and companies who hire them.
And what Kennedy is flatly doing is exploiting the fact that LindaChavez and others have personal reasons for opposing the deportation of illegal immigrants. I don’t think it’s the pervasive “evil business” culture that you quite make it out to be; it’s simply a wink to avoid enforcement for personal reasons.
And also, V, this is an incredible opportunity.
This bill lays bare the entire agenda of the Democrat Party relative to immigration — automatic amnesty, immediate right to vote, and a complete absence of enforcement.
More usefully, it also makes clear that all the so-called “conservative” Democrats who claimed they were against illegal immigration to get elected last fall are flat-out liars.
A solid counterattack at this point, laying out every one of those things, would force the Democrats at all levels to choose between their party and their constituents. Given their belief, as solidified by the behavior of their puppets like Ian and Chase, that they can lie with impunity, they will all come out in favor of Queen Nan, Prince Harry, and Duke Teddy.
And then the fun starts.
Let’s see how long Gabrielle Giffords, for one, stays in office when she publicly states her opposition to deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes against her constituents — and her support for immediately granting them US citizenship and the right to vote.
Just to clarify, I don’t think business culture is “evil.” (I do, however, think union culture is “evil.”) But there are unscrupulous people in business.
The example I use is the business owner in my church who hires teenagers to work through the summer in his pool-covering business. He pays them pretty well… north of $20 per hour… and they save the money to finance their missions.
What happens when the honest business man has to compete with someone who will pay illegals have or a third that wage? I think it hurts honest businessmen when these laws are not enforced, and it hurts teenagers and our culture as a whole. I know Karl Rove thinks his kids are too good for menial work, but I think hard work builds character.
NDT #288: The strategy only works if the party makes a united front against legalizing felons and for enforcing the border. It was very hard for Republicans in 2006 to make a case for being the party of border security when John McCain and George Bush were pushing amnesty.
#289 “A solid counterattack at this point, would…”
But NDT – who is going to make it?
Republicans seem to be kooky (Ron Paul), no balls (George Bush on domestic issues), or both (McCain, Hagel and the rest).
But NDT – who is going to make it?.
Fred Thompson?
He’s been pretty smart so far. If he can tell Michael Moron to check into a mental institution, I bet he can take on Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Plan. I bet more people watched his live interview on H&C than watched the debate thingy.
I’m not a Fredhead. I’m waiting to see if there’s steak to go with the sizzle. But he was on Bennett this morning, saying he hasn’t spent his whole life wanting to be president. There’s a certain appeal in that. He shows promise.
Plus, Ann Coulter hates him.
Really? What’s her problem w him?
Didn’t see it, but I’m told it’s because Fred only voted to remove Clinton from office on one count instead of two counts.
“This is our home and we get to decide who gets to come into our home.” – Fred Thompson.
NDT, you always seem to misrepresent how DADT came to be.
From what I’ve read in the encyclopedia and from news articles, President Clinton announced shortly after taking office his intention to sign an executive order that would end the ban on gays in the military. The Congress at that time told the President, if he did so, they would pass a law codifying the ban, presumably with a veto-proof majority. President Clinton, facing defeat, then came up with the DADT compromise, who’s centerpiece was basically the agreement that the military would no longer specifically ask if someone was gay during the enlistment process. In return, he allowed Congress to codify the ban into legislative law.
The Congress at the time was controlled by the Democrats. However, the Democratic caucus was then dominated by socially conservative southern Democrats, as this occurred prior to the political realignment of 1994 in which the south began to turn solidly “red”. Georgia Democrat, Senator Sam Nunn led the opposition.
Is that not accurate? Of course the policy today looks completely Neanderthal. But it was an improvement to have the military no longer ask if someone was gay, albeit a small one in regard to the initial goal. In retrospect, it did do perhaps more harm than good though, as a future President will now have to go to Congress to end the ban, since it is codified into legislative law.
And the moral from today’s history lesson? In 1993, the bigots in Congress were both Republicans AND Democrats.
Thought about this, driving back from lunch. This is my final statement on the Matt / bully issue.
Anyone who is not interested, can skip. And Matt, I don’t care if you see this or reply. This is me leaving a clean record behind me.
First of all – Anytime someone uses a “You are…” grammatical form to attack someone else, well, it’s just wrong. Even when I do it, LOL 🙂 The speaker assumes 3 things:
1) That they know everything about the target person,
2) That the target person can never change or grow,
3) That others – readers, bystanders – need to be told what to think of the target person.
At least one of those is always wrong, and usually all 3. Taking my earlier statement about Matt being a bully, as an example:
1) I don’t know everything about Matt, e.g., how he is outside of his GayPatriot behavior.
2) Even if I did, and were right, I can’t give the final word on Matt; he always gets to change and grow.
3) Nobody here needs me to instruct them on forming an opinion about him.
That is why I usually stay away from such statements, and have not called Matt any names until “bully” just recently. (was #281 but is now #288)
And that is why I hereby apologize to Matt and everyone for having done so. I should have continued my policy of only responding to Matt’s visible behavior.
Now… It’s wrong when I do the “You are…” form… and Matt, it’s wrong when you do it too. Which means: you have stuff to apologize for.
Here’s what I really think:
— Matt, you have a lot of good qualities.
— Everybody on GP makes personal attacks or calls names at times (except GPW).
— Statisticially, you seem to do it most predictably or often.
— If you’re doing it to bad people on GP who have basically asked for it, I inwardly cringe a bit – but, as you know, I stay out of your way and have for 2 years.
— If instead, you’re doing it to good people on GP who don’t deserve it: I’m going to point it out and have for 3-4 weeks now.
It’s not about my supposed / imagined “hurt feelings”. Honestly Matt, you are a stranger, and only friends (or hoped-for friends) can really hurt my feelings. If you imagine it’s about that, you do need me to explain it again. So here goes.
It is all about justice, Matt. Stay away from doing your sick epithets when it comes to the good people on GP who don’t deserve it, and we’ll be fine.
#280 (just now appeared – was probably held up in moderation) – Matt, you asked me what a sincere apology from you would look like. It would look like this:
OK? Clear? #280 is “still not it, Cartman”.
And, as I pointed out, they certainly can be, Sonic; there’s the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, and the Department of Commerce, just to name four places, in which these folks can put their talents to use serving their country.
And black people could’ve used the “colored” water fountains? It’s the same situation here. The mere option of an alternative does not make it equal.
NDT, are you even gay? It’s hard to believe that someone who is gay could support the ban on gays in the military.
And BTW, what happened to the owners of the site? There hasn’t been any blogging in a week.
I hope all is well and that they’re just busy.
Chase, the fact that you compare DADT, which affects a tiny subpopulation of people, the majority of whom are hostile towards the military and would never serve in the first place, to the legalized and pervasive racism during the Jim Crow era, which literally affected every single aspect of the lives of people of color regardless of who they were and whether they wanted it or not………is a classic example of “drama queen” in action.
The military has and exercises the right to separate people who are likely to be sexually attracted to each other for privacy reasons; that is why women and men do not share quarters except in extreme situations and why women are not allowed to serve on US submarines. Just as no one would insist that women be forced to share quarters with men because it’s not “equal”, no one should insist that straight men be required to share quarters with gay men.
NDT, are you even gay? It’s hard to believe that someone who is gay could support the ban on gays in the military.
Of course — because you’re not used to considering other peoples’ feelings, and consider the fact that you’re gay to be the overriding trump card in terms of deciding matters.
#306:
Chase, just check his response in #308 and you’ll understand NDT’s problem: he apparently doesn’t believe he could control his urges were he in close quarters with other men so he assumes it would be a problem for every gay man or woman. Screw the facts and experiences with other nations’ armed forces, NDT couldn’t control himself, so in his mind, nobody else could either.
So, Ian, do you believe the fact that we have separate men’s and women’s locker rooms at gyms, in schools, and even in military bases indicates that all men and all women are incapable of sexually controlling themselves?
And if not, then by your logic, we should abolish all gender separation because it’s not “equal”, consequences be damned.
What the discussion about DADT reveals, just as do most discussions with gay leftists, is that the practical aspects of the matter are irrelevant to them; they are interested only in social engineering, regardless of what it would do to the military.
I say let them social engineer in schools, where they ban JROTC, harass recruiters, and engage in heated and hateful antimilitary rhetoric, and leave the armed forces alone to defend the country. Their behavior in schools makes it quite clear that they loathe the military and all that it stands for anyway; why do they need so desperately to serve in it?
just check his response in #308 and you’ll understand NDT’s problem: he apparently doesn’t believe he could control his urges…
How TF did you arrive at that conclusion? You truly are nucking futz.
#200. To the Lady from Dallas: Looks like those flip-flopping Democrats keep flopping in a pro-gay direction, huh? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/05/national/a194905D03.DTL&hw=marriage&sn=003&sc=674 And, again the GOP votes against gay folks. Or threatens another veto. BUT, of course, it is liberal that are the great menace to lesbians and gays, right? LOL.
#310. Confirmation: she’s an apologist for anti-gay GOP. The pathos and histrionics and fantasies in her comments, where she so often turns her favorite high-profile episode into a vast endemism, all in the service of attacking gay people, are really and truly quite sad. She makes herself out to be such a victim, victim, victim of…not those screwing gay people over and over…but of gay people. Truly sad.
#310 NDT, although military life is clearly different, the military still mirrors civilian life in many respects, including the business of having separate bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms for men and women. Outside the military, there aren’t separate locker rooms, bathrooms, and showers for gay men and straight men, or lesbians and straight woman, and it seems to work out just fine. I would like to think if we common folk could handle this situation, that the military with their discipline and training, could handle it as well. I can’t see how a young man could be trained to stay in a sh&thole trench under fire from an enemy, but can’t be trained to take a shower in the same facility as a gay man. What about integrating men and women’s showers and living quarters together? If there is a need to have that done for some mission, that could be done as well. Shuttle crews seemed to work okay with both men and women in the crew.
314, Sean, we Democrats/liberals are many times apologists for anti-gay Democrats. Or for Democrats who are (or appear to be) mostly gay supportive, but still can’t say that homosexuality is not a sin. You can say that Democrats are less anti-gay than Republicans in general, and I would agree with you. But we still need to call out on Democrats when they pull anti-gay crap.
Not sure if I erased my last post before submitting, or if it’s in the moderation queue.
Sean, we Democrats/liberals are sometimes apologists for anti-gay Democrats. Or for Democrats who are (or appear to be) mostly gay supportive, but can’t even say that homosexuality is not a sin (see Hillary Clinton for her lame, complete lack of leadership response). If you say that Democrats are generally less anti-gay than Republicans, I would agree with you. But we should also call on Democrats when they pull their anti-gay crap as well.
#314: Well put, Pat. I would simply add that we already have years of experience of gays openly serving in most western military forces without any of the dire consequences that have NDT wringing his hands. His stance is so preposterous, I sometimes wonder if he isn’t just acting the part of a homohating right wing tool. Surely, no gay man could really believe some of the sh!t he spews.
Outside the military, there aren’t separate locker rooms, bathrooms, and showers for gay men and straight men, or lesbians and straight woman, and it seems to work out just fine.
That would be because people have the choice of where they wish to go and where they do not wish to go. For instance, not many straight people — and quite a few gay men — choose to use the Gold’s Gym on Market Street locker room because of what takes place therein.
In the military, you don’t get that choice.
I would simply add that we already have years of experience of gays openly serving in most western military forces without any of the dire consequences that have NDT wringing his hands.
Oddly enough, Ian, what you leave out is that those countries with “integrated” forces, like Australia, Canada, and the UK, have done everything in their power to keep their troops OUT of combat in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan; in fact, they’ve expressly forbidden it in several cases.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of having armed forces that are “support-only” and can’t handle combat.
Besides, given that gay leftists like you consider our troops to be “war criminals”, baby-killers, and redneck morons, why on earth do you want to be part of them?
Looks like those flip-flopping Democrats keep flopping in a pro-gay direction, huh?
Of course, sean; it’s not an election year.
You see, the cycle is this; they vote on meaningless legislation in off years, i.e. 2005 and 2007, and then they refuse to even bring it up in election years. Furthermore, they endorse candidates like Kerry and Ford, who support state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and the FMA respectively, during election years.
They know gays like you will support those bans — just like you did DADT and DOMA when your Democrat masters told you to do it.
NDT – I have some concerns with a few points that you make in #318 responding to Pat and Ian.
1. Re: the ability to choose the places and facilities that are used, you seem to imply that the sickening behavior of a few gay people is representative of all gay folks. Maybe that’s not what you meant to do, but that’s how it came across to me. In situations less extreme than the Gold’s Gym on Market street, gay and straight people share restrooms and locker rooms with no incident.
2. Re: those western militaries that allow openly gay soldiers, you advise us that they have the luxury of avoiding combat situations. Are you saying that openly gay soldiers are incapable of serving in the combat arena, where closeted ones are? Or are you saying that straight soldiers will not perform well in combat with openly gay colleagues, where they perform well now with quasi-closeted ones?
I guess I’m hoping that you are making these points in order to caution us not to be flippant about revoking DADT. I think regardless of the fact that some, vocal or otherwise, gay folks are anti-military, doesn’t change the fact that a number of folks in our military have to keep a major part of who they are in secret. To me this is unacceptable, and I haven’t seen concrete evidence that proves it’s necessary.
Thoughts?
Relative to HotMess’s post…..
1. You’re damn right it’s sickening. But, as the article references, it occurs year after year after year, and year after year after year they have hand-wringing and want to hold meeting after meeting to discuss what should be patently obvious to anyone.
Trust me, the simple way to fix the problem would be to arrest people for breaking San Francisco’s public sex law. But do that, and the full force of the gay community will come down whining about how repressive it is.
So, in short, words about the behavior being “sickening” needs to translate into doing something about it — and it needs to be shown that, when the military decides to can soldiers for having sex in the showers, that the gay community will applaud, not start screaming about how “repressive” it is.
2. Closeted soldiers have incentive not to have public sex. Gay soldiers, as I discussed in #1, do not; the gay community has demonstrated repeatedly that, while it might consider public sex “sickening”, it opposes actually putting an end to it.
How well do you think that will function in combat?
I think regardless of the fact that some, vocal or otherwise, gay folks are anti-military, doesn’t change the fact that a number of folks in our military have to keep a major part of who they are in secret.
We have an all-volunteer military, HotMess. These people do not “have” to keep their sexual orientation secret; they can reveal it and be discharged, or they can never join in the first place.
And yes, I am making these points to caution us not to be flippant about DADT, because I frankly think the people who it most upsets are the ones whose behavior makes it a rational policy in the first place.
NDT, there are many things that we have choices for, but military personnel don’t. For example, I imagine that many cannot choose what kind of bed to sleep in, what to have for dinner, what time they have to wake up in the morning, etc. I doubt the sheninigans to the magnitude described in your link would happen in a military locker room. Yes, I’m sure there are examples of gay servicemen having sex in inappropriate locations with some getting caught, and some not, just as I’m sure there are examples of straight military personnel having sex in inappropriate locations. I have high confidence that the best military in the world could handle it, whether there are closeted or open gay men and women in the military.
#318:
Such arrogant and insulting ignorance! No wonder you worship Bush. Just FYI, Canadian troop levels in Afghanistan are at 2500 while US troop levels are about 20,000. The US is ten times the size of Canada in population so Canada is more than pulling its own weight vis a vis the US in Afghanistan. As for casualties, Canada has lost 56 so far in Afghanistan while the US has lost 398. Do the math and you’ll see that Canadians are dying at a greater rate there than American troops. So much for your breathtakingly idiotic idea that the Canadian forces are “support-only” and “can’t handle combat.”
LOL…..Ian, even assuming that the Canadians’ limited role in Afghanistan is equal to the full-on combat mode of the US troops in Afghanistan, who regularly have gone into the more-dangerous areas while the Canadians have lingered behind, the fact that proportionately more Canadians are being killed than Americans indicates that Canadian troops are less trained, less protected, and less able to handle combat.
What is kind of sad is that it represents preventable deaths; if Canadian troops spent more time in military training like our troops do and less time in meeting diversity quotas and practicing social engineering, they would be better able to defend themselves and less of them would die.
#323:
Than whom? This guy convicted of dereliction of duty? Talk about poor training!
You’re just the whiny conservative version of the “Ugly American.” You bitch and moan about allies who don’t do enough then you denigrate the support they do provide.
Here’s hoping you have even more to whine about come November next year.
And yet, Ian, despite that example, our casualties are still proportionately less than yours.
In other words, the Canadian military is even more poorly-trained, equipped, and able to fight than the American pilot you cited.
Furthermore, Ian, we know full well that the NDP, your own Liberal Party, and others will yank Canada’s troops at the first opportunity.
Therefore, I for one see no reason to be nice to a country that calls our military “war criminals”, sends shoddy troops themselves, and then yanks them out at the first opportunity.
I can understand why other countries and their agents abroad want the Democrats in power, Ian; under a Democrat administration, the United States is more than willing to play the world’s bitch, doing everyone’s work while being blamed for every problem.
Under a Republican administration, we’re less inclined to put up with countries and people like you, who namecall us even while taking handouts and depending on our troops to fight their battles for them.
#325:
What do you mean “we?” Americans like me are fed up with dead-ender Bushies like you and we’re the majority. Get used to it.
Mhm.
That’s why YOU lost the Iraq funding bill.
That’s why YOU are begging and screaming for President Bush to rescue your attempt to grant blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants.
That’s why YOU are backpedaling, spinning, trying to explain why “Cold Cash” Jefferson not only got re-elected by the Democrat Party, but why Nancy Pelosi rewarded him with plum committee seats.
While it hurts to lose elections, Americans now know the obvious; Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat puppets endorse terrorist groups and the countries that support them like Syria as “peaceful”, are deliberately trying to sabotage our military so that we lose in Iraq, did their best to try to block us from preventing Iran to get a nuclear weapon, want to grant blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants, and utterly refuse to enforce immigration law.