Bush on Immigration

This is an interesting nugget:

President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.

Several officials familiar with the meeting also said Democrats protested radio commercials that blamed them for Republican-written legislation that passed the House and would make illegal immigrants vulnerable to felony charges.

When this administration is finally over, and historians look back, it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings and find out what he actually belived in, and what he just went along with out of pure political calculus. I have never thought of Bush as a hater, racist, gay-basher, etc., and it will probably turn out that my instincts are correct. I am also not naive enough to think that this is the first President to ever allow political considerations to sway his behavior. It just seems that with Bush, that seems to be the case a helluva lot more than I would like.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






137 replies
  1. 1
    Punchy says:

    You’re assuming, of course, that A) he actually writes, and B) those writings won’t be classified and sealed and buried and covered in 2 tons of concrete and dropped in the ocean. And guarded 24/7 by the Coast Guard.

    I have a feeling if we could–and we probably will not–ever see his writings/ramblings, they’d display a style, meter, and language sophistication of a 7th grader.

  2. 2
    Larry says:

    and historians look back, it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings

    How long does crayon last anyway?

  3. 3
    Steve says:

    I think Bush is not a racist. The positive things he said about Islam after 9/11 – he didn’t have to go as far as he did, and it took political courage. Even though his administration has pushed a crazy evangelical agenda, he has always said the right thing when it comes to religious tolerance, as opposed to his father, who said he didn’t think atheists should be citizens. You can say “actions speak louder than words,” but actually, the tone the President sets is very important. There are certain statesmanlike things that I want to hear a President say, and Bush certainly needs all the statesmanlike moments he can get.

    Now, as for discrimination towards gays… well, I don’t think he’s a huge gay-basher or anything, but there’s no way you could be complicit in this degree of anti-gay activism if you were a genuinely tolerant person at heart. The occasional pander is one thing, but wanting to enshrine anti-gay bias into the Constitution itself, that’s not a position one takes lightly. So I won’t give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue.

  4. 4
    neil says:

    Yeah, and Hitler was a sensitive vegetarian. So the hell what?

  5. 5
    tBone says:

    it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings

    Cueing crayon jokes in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

    I have never thought of Bush as a hater, racist, gay-basher, etc

    Me neither. I think he just does what’s politically expedient 99% of the time. I’m not sure which is worse.

    I do give him credit on immigration. I think he genuinely wants to do the right thing on that issue.

  6. 6
    tBone says:

    How long does crayon last anyway?

    Shit, I wasn’t fast enough.

  7. 7
    neil says:

    Although on a more serious note — this was in the NYPost:

    …the period 1995-1997 saw 10,000 to 18,000 worksite arrests of illegals a year. Some 1,000 employers were served notices of fines for employing them.

    Under the Bush administration, however, worksite arrests fell to 159 in 2004 — with the princely total of three notices of intent to fine served on employers.

    The fines are absolutely negligible ($250 per head — little enough that it’d be a good deal to hire illegals if you considered it just a taxa) so the arrests are probably more important. Is it perhaps some way to make the Hispanic demographic more happy? Or to inflame the base over immigration? Or maybe just because they gave control of the office to an unqualified crony? With so many possibilities it’s hard to be sure.

  8. 8
    Punchy says:

    I think he genuinely wants to do the right thing on that issue.

    And by the “right thing”, you mean whatever the Hood-wearing Tancredos tell him to do.

  9. 9
    ppGaz says:

    it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings

    Surely, that was tongue in cheek?

    Tell me it was tongue in cheek.

    It had to be tongue in cheek.

  10. 10
    tBone says:

    And by the “right thing”, you mean whatever the Hood-wearing Tancredos tell him to do.

    I said I think he wants to do the right thing, not that I think he’ll do it. See comment above re: political expediency.

    Please don’t make me defend him any more than I already have; I’m getting hives.

  11. 11
    Dumbliberal says:

    There is no way to get rid of the mob in the immigration game. Everybody stalls and that isprobably why.

  12. 12
    Otto Man says:

    Well, I don’t think Bush is personally racist in the slightest.

    He and his men are purely political — as John D’Iulio and other administration castaways have said, politics determines everything. You need look no further than the elevation of Karl Rove to Deputy Chief of Staff to see that.

    And politics is, as Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips put it, the art of knowing “who hatres who.” A large swath of the GOP base hates Mexicans, Arabs, gays, what have you. And so Bush and his men make craven appeals to that hatred, stoking the fires of bigotry and intolerance not because they themselves believe in it, but because they know playing to their base’s darkest hatreds is the best way for them to stay in office.

    The fact that Bush isn’t personally a racist doesn’t absolve him from this, in my opinion. It makes him look much worse.

  13. 13
    Doctor Gonzo says:

    If he believes all these things yet doesn’t govern by them, then what’s the point? Why would anybody run for office in the first place if they were willing to completely shove aside their core beliefs.

    Unless, of course, the ultimate goal is power, and Bush is getting high on power to replace getting high on alcohol. Hmm.

  14. 14
    KC says:

    Look at Bush’s writings, John? Really? Have you any idea what state the Presidential Records Act is in? Did you know it was one of the first Presidential actions where by fiat, Bush fundamentally altered the law in favor of the Executive?

    I’m actually laughing, sadly, right now.

  15. 15
    Steve says:

    Surely, that was tongue in cheek?

    Maybe it was a SPOOF.

  16. 16

    When this administration is finally over, and historians look back, it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings and find out what he actually belived in, and what he just went along with out of pure political calculus. I have never thought of Bush as a hater, racist, gay-basher, etc., and it will probably turn out that my instincts are correct.

    Let’s be honest here…

    Do I believe Bush personally is a hater? No
    Do I believe Bush peronsally is a racist? No
    Do I believe Bush personally hates Gays? No

    Does it matter what Bush personally believes? No

    This is why Bush has been such a horrible President. He never worries about doing the right thing, it’s all about politics to him. If he had a choice of changing the policy towards Gays in the military to retain Arab translaters, or let ’em get booted out and damage our ability to work in the Middle East. He’d let them get booted out, because he does not want to fight a battle about Gays in the military. Why? Because in his view, it would embolden the liberals, and hurt the conservatives.

    The truth is, it does the opposite. You look at every popular President. Every single one of them. Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, etc. What made them unique? What gave them appeal?

    They abandoned party ideologies to do the right thing when it was necessary. This willingness to abandon politics to do the right thing, is what gave them credibility in the eyes of the voters. It is what held up their popularity. A leader who frequently abandons his own party to do the right thing, gains widespread support. This is more true of Governors and Presidents than Legislators, but it is what it is.

    The key here is that since 2001… Bush has often claimed he was only trying to do the right thing. But it was all bullshit. A Confidence Game. What he’s done, at every turn is to do the political partisan thing with the intent to divide and conquer the electorate and the politics. And this is why, now, today, his popularity is in the toilet and it is not going to come back up unless he abandons the game.

    If he came out tomorrow and stood up for real Immigration reform, he’d improve his popularity. But he would damage the futures of many Republican Congress critters. That’s the key. This is at the heart of the answer, of what Bush cares about. Doing the Right thing, or Republican power?

    So maybe you’re right, and he’s personally a good guy, but his public face is that of an asshat. And in the end, that is what matters.

  17. 17

    If he believes all these things yet doesn’t govern by them, then what’s the point? Why would anybody run for office in the first place if they were willing to completely shove aside their core beliefs.

    My diatribe, shortened to two sentences.

    Well done! :-)

  18. 18
    jg says:

    Bush is not a president, he’s a figurehead. He’s doing whath the party wants him to do not what he as president feels is best for the country and his presidency. That’s why he sucks. He’s an empty suit. People say the emperor has not clothes in reference to Bush but to me the emperor is just a set of clothes.

  19. 19
    ppGaz says:

    People say the emperor has not clothes in reference to Bush but to me the emperor is just a set of clothes.

    Yeah, the “empty suit” image and the “emperor’s new clothes” image never were a good match.

    But anyway, I don’t agree with the “empty suit” model of understanding Bush. I think the “alcoholic” model is the right one. I think that Bush is all about himself, first, last and always. He has a core value …. it’s Him. He’s the core value. Here’s a guy who by his own admission didn’t start acting even superficially like an adult until he was in his forties. Prior to that he was basically the boozing cheerleader frat boy that he had been twenty years earlier.

    Nevertheless, whatever drives him or makes him tick, I don’t care. He’s an employee and he is not getting the job done. He’s fired.

  20. 20
    KC says:

    PpGaz, a subtle genius.

  21. 21
    Otto Man says:

    By the way, there’s no need to wait — historians are already weighing in on Bush’s place in history. You can’t spell WPE without W.

  22. 22
    Par R says:

    ppGaz : He knows nothing and thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a career as a commenter on a blog.

    I am convinced that my parrot would clean the clock of ppGaz in a debate on any subject.

  23. 23
    ppGaz says:

    I am convinced that my parrot would clean the clock of ppGaz in a debate on any subject.

    Well, put him on. Can he type?

  24. 24
    ppGaz says:

    That points clearly to a career as a commenter on a blog.

    But, that’s the job you’re applying for. Are you saying that you know nothing?

    ?

  25. 25
    ppGaz says:

    PpGaz, a subtle genius.

    That’s right. As you know, KC, in times like these, sublety is the one thing we cannot have enough of, or as you might say, of which we cannot have enough. Either way.

    When you have a subtle collossal fuckup like Bush in the White House, it takes a special brand of finesse to deal with it.

    That’s where you come in.

  26. 26
    Mr Furious says:

    “…historians look back, it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings…”

    Bush’s Presidential Library can be in a Best Buy, with his “writings” adorning aisles of refrigerators…

  27. 27
    ppGaz says:

    I am convinced that my parrot would clean the clock of ppGaz in a debate on any subject.

    Bring it. Anything but ornithology.

  28. 28
    ppGaz says:

    I’m terribly sorry, but I must give myself PoTD for that previous post.

  29. 29
    Par R says:

    ppGaz, you are so far in over your head that you should gracefully retire. To recap, and to paraphrase someone else, “My parrot could out-dabate you with one wing tied behind his back.”

  30. 30
    Mr Furious says:

    An early look at some of President George W. Bush’s Presidential papers…here and here

  31. 31
    Pb says:

    Par R,

    My parrot could out-dabate you with one wing tied behind his back.

    Then stop posting, and start letting your parrot post instead. Please.

  32. 32
    Pb says:

    Mr Furious,

    Don’t forget this gem

  33. 33
    Otto Man says:

    Those are classic spoofs, Mr F. But don’t forget some of his real-life writings like this one.

  34. 34
    Mr Furious says:

    Oh, I did! Good job.

  35. 35
    Otto Man says:

    Man, what are the odds of us making the same reference at the same minute?

  36. 36
    Otto Man says:

    Then stop posting, and start letting your parrot post instead. Please.

    Actually, I think the parrot’s already taken control. How else can you explain the name “PAR R”? He dropped the “OT” to make it a little subtler.

  37. 37
    Brian says:

    Can he type?

    Can you?

    John, can you turn this into a v-blog like Malkin has, so we can open a can of whupass on ppGaz for all to see? We want to see him cry.

  38. 38
    Pooh says:

    Well, put him on. Can he type?

    Parrot Point: ppGaz

  39. 39
    ppGaz says:

    “My parrot could out-dabate you with one wing tied behind his back.”

    I think we covered that straightline already, Par.

    Although I’m not sure what “dabate” is. Is it something you when fishing? Put dabate on the hook, or whatever.

    Anyhoo, your parrot sounds pretty interesting. Is he shy, or are you just keeping him in your pants? Let him out and let’s get a look at him.

  40. 40
    ppGaz says:

    Can you?

    Yuk yuk, good one, Brian. Your best retort of the day so far.

  41. 41
    ppGaz says:

    so we can open a can of whupass on ppGaz for all to see

    You go, girl!

  42. 42

    Now, for a serious comment, perhaps John Cole could explain to us why he apparently thinks wanting to enforce our immigration laws is racist. If we want to be non-racist, what exactly do we need to do? Open the borders completely? Capitulate to foreign citizens marching in our streets demanding rights to which they aren’t entitled? Give California back to Mexico?

    Also, has John Cole looked at *any* polls that ask Americans about illegal immigration? I’ve never seen one without a vast majority opposed to it.

    Click my link for a quick overview of the issue and links to much more information.

  43. 43
    ppGaz says:

    Brian, this is boring. Can you advance your game setting to “Intermediate” from “Beginner” please?

    Thanks.

  44. 44
    stickler says:

    What is a “v-blog like Malkin has?” (Ugh, the images that come to mind are not pleasant.) And what does it have to do with whoopass?

  45. 45
    tBone says:

    Actually, I think the parrot’s already taken control. How else can you explain the name “PAR R”? He dropped the “OT” to make it a little subtler.

    So THAT’S why he hates the mainstream media – it’s lining the bottom of his cage.

  46. 46
    ppGaz says:

    it’s lining the bottom of his cage.

    Right. The involuntary elimination thing that birds have would be really irritating to a smart bird like Par’s.

    “Hey … I was reading that!” Then, realizing that it was his own bird dropping that blotted out the story about bird flu ….

  47. 47
    Par's Parrot says:

    …save me…

  48. 48
    ppGaz says:

    Sorry, I meant …

    “Hey! I was reading that! Bawk!”

  49. 49
    ppGaz says:

    Maybe Par’s parrot won’t feel so brave when he finds out that I have a blogging cat?

    This feline is the best bird-killin’ little furball you ever saw. Jumps up and snatches ’em right outta the air with one swipe of her paw.

    Considering all the birds we’ve rescued from this cat, you’d think Par’s parrot would want to show a little respect.

    Bawk!

  50. 50
    Remfin says:

    I think, funnily enough, Kayne West summed up the Bush Admin really well, and probably didn’t understand how good it was…it’s not that he’s a racist (as some have tried to claim he said, distorting the quote), it’s that he has no empathy. There is a longer list of these qualities that seem to erect a barrier for him – being a different race, religion, fiscal status, social status, geography, political philosophy, eduction, some more I’m sure I’m missing – and the barrier is so high he doesn’t even try to put his mind in their shoes

    For instance, when (if) he ever gets a report on the myriad of Democratic bills that do “something” for “people below the poverty line”…he could be thinking of budget issues, or political philosophy issues, or a myraid of political-game issues(note that these aren’t strictly bad things to think of)…but nothing I’ve ever heard or seen from him gives me the idea that he ever thinks first about the people the bill is actually aimed at affecting. Eventually the “will this help? will this hurt? will they care?” questions are all answered, but ONLY after they’ve been wrung through a political process of some kind

    While a total lack of empathy and the natural predilection for one’s own “kind” may lead to actions that look like racism sometimes, they should definately be seen as 2 distinct things. If only to make diagnosing the underlying problem easier so you can try and solve it instead of band-aiding the symptoms (see: some types of affirmative action)

    I base this on how much he stumbles over those differences when he has to mention them in a speech, or how that weasel-laugh only comes out when he’s in a room full of people exactly like him (and the few times it comes out otherwise, you so TOTALLY know he’s looking in a mirror at himself while he does it – like the debate “that’s one of those ‘exaggerations’!” line), and especially because of that incident with the death row inmate he childishly and pointlessly mocked for no reason when he admitted he never even read the facts of the case

  51. 51
    jg says:

    perhaps John Cole could explain to us why he apparently thinks wanting to enforce our immigration laws is racist.

    Not speaking for JC here but maybe if the reasons for enforcing immigration laws weren’t stuff like they don’t assimilate. Assimilate means they will blend in and not be noticed for their differences. If you’re against people because of their differences you will be considered a racist, because you are.

  52. 52
    Andrei says:

    Cole says:

    I have never thought of Bush as a hater, racist, gay-basher, etc., and it will probably turn out that my instincts are correct.

    He’s not, but I guess it’s ok for him to let his political team and advisors use hateful, racist and gay bashing tactics to rile up voting blocks to win elections. Or I guess it was ok with you that Bush let the McCain black baby story run its course and the Swift Boat veterans get their way in the press.

    It will probably turn out your instincts here were as correct as your instincts for why you voted for him in the first place or why we should have begun a pre-emptive war in a country that was not an imminent threat to us with regard to terrorism.

    The day smart guys like you start to think you actually might *wrong* with your instincts is the day most off the country might be able to get back on track.

    “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.”
    – Socrates, from Diogenes Laertius, from Lives of Eminent Philosophers Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC – 399 BC)

  53. 53
    Brian says:

    perhaps John Cole could explain to us why he apparently thinks wanting to enforce our immigration laws is racist

    I can’t speak for John, but what I’ve noticed is that he has not come down on one side or the other, and wonders if the talk on the subject lately is more political bombast than a truly serious discussion of an issue that can be reformed to be any better than it is now. That’s been my take-away from his posts.

    That said, I have yet to see public dialogue that respectfully takes in the concerns of those, like myself, who would like to see the need for firm controls so that we do not have to go through this process again in 10 or 15 years. The dialogue is all but hopeless, given the oppositions proclivity for labels (racist, hatemonger, etc.) and the oversimplification of the complex factors that lead to immigration immigration. They just don’t want the debate.

    This week, the local news here in Los Angeles led their shows with our governor going in front of the cameras to announce the shocking, SHOCKING, story of high profile Latino politicians in CA receiving death threats for their pro-illegal immigration positions. This is a non-story, yet it received high-profile coverage for one purpose: to shut down the debate by supplying a subtext that anyone who is anti-illegal immigration is now aligned with assassins. It was a cheap trick, as high-profile politicians receive death threats regardless. It’s an occupational hazard, and there are authorities who deal with these threats. There was no need to publicize this story in the fashion it was covered, other than to shut down the debate by presenting one side as potential criminals.

  54. 54
    ppGaz says:

    Some of the people who are intensely into “enforcing immigration laws” are either racist, or otherwise mentally ill, AFAIC. I see and hear them right here in my town, in my neighborhood.

    While it is absolutely true that this fact does prove that all or even most people who favor immigration restraint are racists, what it does do is put a loud, obnoxious face on that demo that is pretty ugly, and is going to get exploited by its adversaries, and rightly so. If you take a position that is favored by racists, and don’t separate yourself from them by condemning the racism, why shouldn’t you get painted by that brush?

    Politics is about coalitions, and it’s also about using your own coalition against you. Nothing unfair or illegitimate about it. Lie with the dog, get the flea.

  55. 55
    ppGaz says:

    Good post, Andrei, and I agree with you 100%.

    I think John tends to be a nice guy and assume that other people are nice guys until proven otherwise, but that approach doesn’t work with a George Bush.

    George Bush’s actual values here don’t matter, because it’s what he does that counts, not what he thinks.

    What he’s done is basically hire thugs to turn people against each other and then pretend that since he’s got the appearance of a nice guy, we should not hold him accountable. It worked for a while, but that ship has sailed. Not many are falling for the con any more.

  56. 56
    KevManOH says:

    I remember reading a piece about the 2000 Bush campaign which detailed a campaign official’s take on some conservatives’ views on gays.

    What scared him, IIRC, is that they seemed plain “anti-homosexual,” not “anti-homo ‘agenda'”. Then-Gov. Bush was dismayed at that.

    Now, he’s in the fetal position. Follow thy bigoted base.

  57. 57
    ppGaz says:

    That’s been my take-away from his posts.

    You can hear the reporters rushing to file their stories …. NOW we know what Brian thinks about this.

    Whew, dogies! The suspense!

    Mister Spoofapalooza once again tries his “I’ll pretend to be a reasonable poster” schtick before he blows his spoof cover …….

    Just curious, have you ever been a car salesman?

  58. 58
    ppGaz says:

    While it is absolutely true that this fact does NOT prove

    Whoops.

  59. 59

    Now, for a serious comment, perhaps John Cole could explain to us why he apparently thinks wanting to enforce our immigration laws is racist.

    I didn’t get that impression at all, and I don’t understand why you morons can’t get these things straight.

    In the context above that Bush is quoted, he’s referring to Guest Worker Permits versus Green Cards. Both would be forms of legal immigration, but only Green Cards give you the opportunity for citizenship.

    IMHO, the Guest Worker Permit is bigoted and intended to create a subclass of peasants. Some consider that racist, I don’t care.

  60. 60

    The dialogue is all but hopeless, given the oppositions proclivity for labels (racist, hatemonger, etc.) and the oversimplification of the complex factors that lead to immigration immigration

    I think we’ve already been down this path before, and as was noted prior it is the Republicans who have a proclivity for labels (racist, Bush-hater, etc.) and an oversimplification of the complex factors.

    But as one of my Mexican immigrant friends who was just here in town noted… Again, it’s all about the jobs.

  61. 61

    The day smart guys like you start to think you actually might wrong with your instincts is the day most off the country might be able to get back on track.

    Actually it is interesting. John seems only concerned with the person rather than the policies.

    The opposition point that “Bush is uncaring” doesn’t seem to sway them then. Because in their eyes Bush is a very caring guy. They don’t see the distinction that there is a difference between person and policies.

    So from that perspective, I think the personification of policies towards the Decider may not be effective. If the argument was made towards the policy, rather than the personification, then maybe Cole and his ilk would come to this realization.

  62. 62
    ppGaz says:

    Well, OCS, let’s try this:

    First, split the subject into two distinct parts.

    A) What to do about the ongoing rate of illegal immigration

    B) What to do with the existing population of illegals

    Put aside A for the moment, and address only B. By that I mean, please address B without looping it back to A with some kind of “such and such sends a message” thing. Message sending is the subterfuge of manipulators. Let’s stick with the two distinct questions. Besides, immigration data indicates that the drivers are not things like “messages” sent by programs, but are in fact conditions in the inflow and outflow countries. I’ve already posted links to that and if someone wants to find it again, it’s on their nickel.

    What is your recommendation?

  63. 63
    Tom says:

    “I have never thought of Bush as a hater, racist, gay-basher, etc., and it will probably turn out that my instincts are correct. ”

    HERESY!

    Quick, drop a wall on him!

    BUSH IS HITLER!!!!

  64. 64

    To respond to ppGaz’s insanity, we draw this analogy:

    We’re living in the Netherlands, and the dike has a hole in it. You are the little dutch boy, but your fingers aren’t big enough to plug the hole.

    We have two issues:

    A> What to do about the broken dike and the water flowing in?

    B> What to do with the water which has already flown into our town?

    To most Engineers dealing with this problem, your first priority is fixing the dike, as it does not matter what we do with the water in the town when there is more flowing in.

    Only a fool would say “Man the bilge pumps!”

  65. 65
    ppGaz says:

    What the fuck is the matter with you?

    Whatever you do about A, the problem of B remains.

    Can you not answer the hypothetical as an exercise?

    You have several million people here. In case you hadn’t noticed, a lot of them have been marching in the streets lately.

    Do you have a proposal WRT them?

  66. 66
    jg says:

    the oversimplification of the complex factors

    That’s rich.

    To paraphrase one of what the right would call the most hated presidents, “There are no simple answers to complex questions.”

  67. 67
    D. Mason says:

    B) What to do with the existing population of illegals

    I realise this wasn’t aimed at me but I’ll give it a stab anyway. How about we start really punishing the people who employ those illegals. Say … $1000.00 and 1 day in jail per day per illegal. Once there is no economic benefit to them for staying they will simply go home.

  68. 68
    Brian says:

    Excellent analogy, OCS. Note how ppGaz steered you away from the first point (“Leave aside A”), which achieves the goal of getting you off any discussion of reform or enforcement.

    But the fact is, we need to discuss A before B can be addressed. They are inextricably entwined. If we don’t address the inflow, it’s pointless to give citizenship to those here already. It’s a giveaway that’ll keep being repeated endlessly, and numbskulls like ppGaz know this.

  69. 69
    jg says:

    How about we start really punishing the people who employ those illegals. Say … $1000.00 and 1 day in jail per day per illegal.

    That would require government to get involved in the running of businesses. Would conservatives set aside their hatred for government intervention in order to satisfy their hatred for foreigners living in america?

  70. 70
    Pb says:

    To respond to OCSteve’s insanity, we draw this analogy:

    We’re in a boat, and the boat has a hole in it. OCSteve is the little cabin boy, but his pp isn’t big enough to plug the hole.
    We have two issues:
    A> What to do about the hole in the boat and the water flowing in?
    B> What to do with the water which has already flown into the boat?

    To most pirates in boats dealing with this problem, your first priority is bailing out the boat, as it does not matter if there is a hole in the boat if the boat first sinks.

    Only a fool would say “wow OCSteve, that analogy of yours really convinced me, it totally captured the situation!”

  71. 71
    ppGaz says:

    I realise this wasn’t aimed at me but I’ll give it a stab anyway. How about we start really punishing the people who employ those illegals. Say … $1000.00 and 1 day in jail per day per illegal. Once there is no economic benefit to them for staying they will simply go home.

    I’ll refrain from making comments about this for the time being. But what are the numbers, please?

    Who are these employers, and how do you do this thing? What will it take, what will it cost, what are the time frames? And how do you know what the outcome will be?

    Are you proposing some huge new enforcement agency? Beefing up an existing one? Federal aid to state and local ones? Numbers. What is the impact? Are there a lot of arrests and prosecutions? Who does that work? How long does it take? How homogeneous are the legal issues? One size (charge) fits all, or are there seventy five different kinds of legal approaches here? How many lawyers will this take? How many courtrooms?

    What percentage of the 10-12m people are going to be affected? What percentage will just “go home?” How do you know this? What is the impact on society and communities when tens of thousands of people who are now working and buying groceries and even paying taxes are suddenly thrown out of work? How do you know?

  72. 72
    ppGaz says:

    So, Brian the stupid spoof, your proposal is what?

    Walled America, with the great wall-ditch-barbed wire thing and ultra-hostile enforcement and patrols thereby shutting down the border flows?

    And then what, Brian? What do you do with the 10-12m illegals you already have here?

    You don’t want to answer just one question? Fine, then answer them both.

    Or else Shut. The. Fuck Up.

  73. 73
    Brian says:

    Shut. The. Fuck Up.

    When you can relate to me on a more respectable level, I’ll be happy to respond to you.

    While you’re waiting, you can always read this.

  74. 74
    Steve says:

    I think we ought to give all the illegals who have been here and working for a certain time a path to citizenship, but then we need to talk about what to do about the influx of new illegals.

    No, wait, that’s not it. I think we need to use all the resources at our disposal to round up and deport as many illegals as we can. It’s a pressing national priority. And we also need to talk about what to do about the influx of new illegals.

    No, wait, that’s not it. I don’t really think it’s any big deal. We should just let people keep doing whatever they’re doing, but I don’t mind talking about what we could do about the influx of new illegals.

    Now, do you see how fucking easy it is to take a position on B without solving A?

    We could equally well talk about A and save B for later. But whatever, I’d rather have a discussion about either A or B, than spend all day bickering about which direction we’re going to approach the issue in. Someone asks me my position on B, I’m going to tell him my position on B.

  75. 75
    Otto Man says:

    Tom said:

    “I have never thought of Bush as a hater, racist, gay-basher, etc., and it will probably turn out that my instincts are correct. ”

    HERESY!

    Quick, drop a wall on him!

    BUSH IS HITLER!

    Yeah, don’t let the fact that most liberals here have agreed with John that Bush isn’t personally a racist do anything to deter you.

    Just keep dry-humping that straw man. It’s so much easier than actually engaging with what liberals actually say, right?

  76. 76
    ppGaz says:

    Well, Steve, if you can step back from the absurd situation that OCS has put you in, and look dispassionately at the subject, here’s what you will find:

    You can in fact talk about A and B separately because they are separate and cannot be lumped together. For the obvious reason I’ve already stated, which is, even if you stopped all flow at the border today, B remains unsolved.

    Whatever you do about A, including nothing, or everything, B remains. That’s a fact whether you like it or not.

    But of course that’s not the real point here. The A and B thing is just an exercise in examination. So, you don’t like the model? Propose a different one. Parse the thing, tell us what you think we should do. It was at this point a few weeks ago that OCS descended into a 2-day whine about his girlfriend, and Brian descended further into his “all you lefties are poopyheads” bullshit, and that’s where we were.

    WRT A, here’s the deal. Data and statistics point to a conclusion that (1) the rate of illegal immigration from Mexico has spiked just recenetly, and (b) that is probably due to one big factor: The fact that the Mexican government is actively pushing its unemployment problem over the border, knowing that we won’t do anything to stop it. Just the other day I watched film on CNN about Mexican government workers basically teaching classes to likely emigrants on how to survive out in the Arizona desert! That should give you a clue as to what their motives are here. They basically paint signs pointing to the US, and wait for the emigrants to start sending home the money to their relatives back home. It’s a very cost effective program for Mexico, I assure you.

    So if you really want to address A, you start with that.

    Should the Great Wall-Trench-Fence-Barbed Wire thing be built? I’m not convinced either way. My guess is that without addressing the root problem, it will do little good and be a boondoggle.

    As for B, here’s the deal: According to MSNBC about a month ago, a majority (52%) of Americans responded in the affirmative to a question that I recall as “Should the US provide some path to legal status for the 11m illegal immigrants in the country now?”

    I agree with that 52%, and I further state that there is no workable, practical, responsible or humane alternative to it. If there is, then I’d like to see somebody here spell it out, in between the whining bullshit and the “all lefties are poopyheads” shitstain posts.

  77. 77
    SeesThroughIt says:

    What is a “v-blog like Malkin has?”

    A video blog like the one Michelle Malkin just started. I wouldn’t poke around the site too much as prolonged exposure to Malkin often leads to massive loss of intelligence, critical thinking skills, and gag suppression.

  78. 78
    ppGaz says:

    My apologies to OCS, I meant “TOS” in my previous post.

  79. 79
    ppGaz says:

    most liberals here have agreed with John that Bush isn’t personally a racist

    That’s the good news.

    The bad news is that Bush will sell out anything and anyone including his own values. If you disagree with me on that, then you are left to explain Karl Rove, and the McCain Brown Baby.

  80. 80
    Darrell says:

    I am also not naive enough to think that this is the first President to ever allow political considerations to sway his behavior.

    Contrary to the implication, I don’t believe it’s unprincipled for the President to change his actions because voters disagree with his position.

    Just 3 years ago, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson gave a big official welcome to a caravan of illegal aliens passing through Santa Fe on their way to Washington DC. According to the Wall St. Journal Richardson told them”

    “Viva la raza! . . . Thank you for coming to Santa Fe. Know that New Mexico is your home. We will protect you. You have rights here.”

    Richardson also signed a bill giving illegal aliens in-state tuition rates to attend universities there.

    Then later, under political pressure Richardson declared the illegal immigration problem in New Mexco to be a state of emergency and he floated ideas to pay Mexican military officer to help crack down on flows of illegal immigrants.

    Politicians often yield to the wishes of their constituencies. Nothing immoral or unprincipled about it, as they were elected to serve the people

  81. 81

    Two things:

    #1. Please stop calling me OCSteve

    #2. I refuse to engage in a debate where one of the debators is poisoning the well

  82. 82
    ppGaz says:

    Politicians often yield to the wishes of their constituencies. Nothing immoral or unprincipled about it, as they were elected to serve the people

    I agree. In fact I wish more politicians would be more responsive to the people.

  83. 83
    ppGaz says:

    #1. Please stop calling me OCSteve

    I already corrected the error.

    #2. I refuse to engage in a debate where one of the debators is poisoning the well

    Well in this case, that ain’t me, pal. It’s you, and if you want to go toe to toe on that point, just say the word, because I’m right.

    Just say the fucking word.

  84. 84

    Well in this case, that ain’t me, pal. It’s you, and if you want to go toe to toe on that point, just say the word, because I’m right.

    I’m convinced ppGaz is a spoof. I mean he’s starting to sound like Brian and PAR R. My guess is they’re all one in the same person.

  85. 85
    ppGaz says:

    You mean, because I won’t kiss your ass?

  86. 86
    Darrell says:

    Now, as for discrimination towards gays… well, I don’t think he’s a huge gay-basher or anything, but there’s no way you could be complicit in this degree of anti-gay activism if you were a genuinely tolerant person at heart. The occasional pander is one thing, but wanting to enshrine anti-gay bias into the Constitution itself, that’s not a position one takes lightly.

    Bush never tried to “enshrine anti-gay bias into the constitution” you jackass.

    It was the activist judges and mayors which pushed the issue by defying state laws in allowing gay marriage. Irrespective of how one comes down on the issue, Bush was reacting to the activists who were violating state law. Thirty something states, including liberal California, had voted against allowing gay marriage. Activists defied that law forcing consideration of a constitutional amendment in reaction to those actions.

  87. 87
    ppGaz says:

    You have my email address, Steve. Take your stupid personal beef offline, I don’t think the people here are that interested.

    If you ever want to talk about immigration without being a horse’s ass, let me know. If you can, that is.

  88. 88
    ppGaz says:

    It was the activist judges and mayors which pushed the issue by defying state laws in allowing gay marriage

    Really, Darrell? What part of the Constitution is about marriage, again? Whose idea was it for the federal government to be the authority on marriage, again?

  89. 89
    ppGaz says:

    Sorry, Darrell, I missed it …. which of those activist mayors was tampering with the Constitution, again?

    I’ll need the article or amendment number that is relevant, too.

    Thanks.

  90. 90
    Darrell says:

    which of those activist mayors was tampering with the Constitution, again?

    Reading comprehension difficulties ppgaz?

  91. 91
    ppGaz says:

    Bush never tried to “enshrine anti-gay bias into the constitution” you jackass.

    It was the activist judges and mayors which pushed the issue by defying state laws in allowing gay marriage. Irrespective of how one comes down on the issue, Bush was reacting to the activists

    None. That’s what you said. If creating a constitutional recognition of sexual orientation is not “enshrining anti-gay bias” then what the fuck is it?

    “Responding to activists?” Who gave Bush the authority to respond to anything having to do with marriage? Who gave anyone at the Federal level that authority?

  92. 92
    DougJ says:

    I have little doubt that future historians will be stunned by the eloquence of Bush’s writing. The left has misunderstimated him for so long. History will have the last laugh and it will be at the expense of Bush-haters like ppgaz. Darrell and I expect that future generations will regard Bush much as we regard Lincoln now — as man of simple eloquence who led the nation with courage through one of its most trying periods.

  93. 93
    Darrell says:

    Who gave Bush the authority to respond to anything having to do with marriage? Who gave anyone at the Federal level that authority?

    In violation of state laws, marriage certificates were issued. The problem of recognition of those marriages in other states made it a federal issue. Sorry if that straightforward explanation doesn’t fit your narrative of ‘Republicans are anti-gay bigots’

  94. 94
    Pb says:

    The Other Steve,

    I apologize, I misread; your analogy-dodge was OCSteve-worthy, however. :)

  95. 95
    ppGaz says:

    So, Darrell, it’s your position, speaking as the “Nobody wants their son camping with queers” spokesman here, that there is no anti-gay bias on the part of Bush and the GOP?

    Do I have that right?

  96. 96
    jg says:

    Daaaaaaaaaar-Rel!
    Daaaaaaaaaar-Rel!
    Daaaaaaaaaar-Rel!

    I’m glad you guys cleared up the confusion. I kept going back in the thread trying to find the OCSteve post you were all so worked up over.

  97. 97
    ppGaz says:

    your analogy-dodge was OCSteve-worthy, however

    I think that’s unfair to OCS. I am compelled to say so since it was my typo that exposed him to this complaint in the first place.

  98. 98
    ppGaz says:

    Well, to parphrase a great president, keeping track of all these Steves is Hard Work.

  99. 99

    You have my email address, Steve. Take your stupid personal beef offline, I don’t think the people here are that interested.

    If you ever want to talk about immigration without being a horse’s ass, let me know. If you can, that is.

    Yup definately a spoof.

  100. 100

    I apologize, I misread; your analogy-dodge was OCSteve-worthy, however.

    Heh. My analogy wasn’t a dodge. It was just to show that ppGaz’s desire to not discuss the important issue was a dodge.

  101. 101
    ppGaz says:

    Heh. My analogy wasn’t a dodge.

    No, of course not.

  102. 102
  103. 103
    Steve says:

    Bush never tried to “enshrine anti-gay bias into the constitution” you jackass.

    “Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.” –President George W. Bush

    “I believe marriage has served society well, and I believe it is important to affirm that — that marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal. And the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal.” –President George W. Bush

    And so forth…

    I understand you think the President was inexorably forced to take this position by a sequence of events outside his control, but I happen to believe it was his voluntary decision to take this position. You are free to disagree, of course.

  104. 104
    Steve says:

    In violation of state laws, marriage certificates were issued. The problem of recognition of those marriages in other states made it a federal issue. Sorry if that straightforward explanation doesn’t fit your narrative of ‘Republicans are anti-gay bigots’

    You know how the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery, it was about states’ rights? Well, in much the same way, Republicans aren’t really anti-gay, they just believe very strongly in the rule of law, and that if a state passes an anti-gay law, they should have the right to enforce it. Of course, if a state passes a law allowing gay marriage, the Republicans are fine with that, too, right? Oops, not really.

  105. 105
    Darrell says:

    I understand you think the President was inexorably forced to take this position by a sequence of events outside his control, but I happen to believe it was his voluntary decision to take this position

    If that were the case, then where is the evidence of Bush’s anti-gay sentiment PRIOR to the activists defying state laws in issuing marriage certificates to gay couples? After all, if it was voluntary as you say, rather than reacting to events, wouldn’t he have made a big push earlier?

    And didn’t John Kerry publicly come out against gay marriage? Didn’t Hillary too?

  106. 106
    ppGaz says:

    Yes, Steve, but I’ve never understood why the right wanted to push Right to Life down to the states, but Defense of Marriage up to Washington.

    Hey, what happened to “No (queer) Camping Allowed” Darrell? He disappeared faster than a fart in a windstorm.

  107. 107
    Darrell says:

    You know how the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery, it was about states’ rights? Well, in much the same way, Republicans aren’t really anti-gay, they just believe very strongly in the rule of law, and that if a state passes an anti-gay law, they should have the right to enforce it

    I understand Lincoln permitted slavery in Union states. And by your defintion, California is a bastion of gay hating bigotry for voting to outlaw gay marriage

  108. 108
    ppGaz says:

    Whoops! Speak of the Devil!

    Our resident Grand Dragon Homophobe is here.

  109. 109
    ppGaz says:

    And by your defintion, California is a bastion of gay hating bigotry for voting to outlaw gay marriage

    So, Darrell .. are you suggesting that if a majority of people think it, it isn’t bigotry?

    Or ….?

  110. 110
    Darrell says:

    So, Darrell .. are you suggesting that if a majority of people think it, it isn’t bigotry?

    ppgaz, did you vote for ‘bigot’ John Kerry who publicly opposed gay marriage?

  111. 111
    Steve says:

    Darrell, as usual, wants to change the subject to anything other than the point in contention.

    Darrell Says:

    Bush never tried to “enshrine anti-gay bias into the constitution” you jackass.

    Now that Darrell has been proven 100% wrong, he wants to make the debate about whether Bush is an anti-gay bigot, whether John Kerry is an anti-gay bigot, or any of a number of other things. That’s not the point; I think plenty of people identify as “against gay marriage” who aren’t bigots.

    But I don’t buy the notion that a politician could be genuinely tolerant of gays, yet support an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution for purely political reasons. It’s just too extreme a position to take if there’s not some kernel of honest belief beyond it.

  112. 112
    ppGaz says:

    So, Darrell .. are you suggesting that if a majority of people think it, it isn’t bigotry?

    Answer the question, Darrell.

  113. 113
    ppGaz says:

    It’s just too extreme a position to take if there’s not some kernel of honest belief beyond it.

    “Let the states decide.”

    The kind of thing the right used to say.

  114. 114
    Brian says:

    So, Darrell .. are you suggesting that if a majority of people think it, it isn’t bigotry?

    The world doesn’t work in such nice narrow categories as you do. Being against gay marriage does not make one person, or an entire state, bigoted or homophobic. If John Cole is against intelligent design in public schools, does that make him anti-Christian?

    Sane people here don’t buy your either-or proposition.

    Take your stupid personal beef offline, I don’t think the people here are that interested.

    As I have stated before, stop acting as though you’re the gatekeeper of commentary here.

  115. 115
    Darrell says:

    Now that Darrell has been proven 100% wrong

    Why? because you say so? I love it

    But I don’t buy the notion that a politician could be genuinely tolerant of gays, yet support an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution for purely political reasons

    Wait a minute. You said Bush took actions against gays.. “enshrining anti-gay bias into the constitution”, based on his own desires rather than reacting to events outside of his control is what you wrote. If that were the case, where then is Bush’s history in pushing anti-gay legislation on his own? Bush was in fact reacting to activist judges and mayors who were defying state laws, and you have presented one shred of evidence to the contrary except for your “feelings”

    you got nothin Steve

  116. 116
    ppGaz says:

    Sane people here don’t buy your either-or proposition.

    Sane people? We’re talking about “don’t camp with queers” Darrell, who is in fact a bigot.

    Take your stupid personal beef offline, I don’t think the people here are that interested.

    As I have stated before, stop acting as though you’re the gatekeeper of commentary here.

    Fuck you.

  117. 117
    ppGaz says:

    You said Bush took actions against gays.. “enshrining anti-gay bias into the constitution”, based on his own desires rather than reacting to events outside of his control

    So, “Don’t let your sons grow up to be gay cowboys” Darrell, are you suggesting that Bush is not responsible for his own position on the issue?

  118. 118
    Steve says:

    What are you talking about? The Federal Marriage Amendment would enshrine anti-gay bias in the Constitution. Bush openly proclaimed his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. So your statement

    Bush never tried to “enshrine anti-gay bias into the constitution” you jackass.

    is simply false.

  119. 119
    jg says:

    But Steve he made a whole new statement for you to chase, why are you stuck on that one? You’re not expecting closure are you? Silly dude.

  120. 120
    jg says:

    did you vote for ‘bigot’ John Kerry who publicly opposed gay marriage?

    Does opposition to gay marriage equate to support for a gay marriage amendment?

  121. 121
    Steve says:

    A more interesting question would be: Are you a worse person if you support a gay marriage amendment because you’re anti-gay, or if you support a gay marriage amendment even though you don’t have an anti-gay bone in your body?

  122. 122
    ppGaz says:

    A distinction that Darrell doesn’t have to make since we know he stands squarely behind Bush and the defense of marriage.

    Spare the rod, as they say, and … er … I mean …

  123. 123
    ppGaz says:

    Darrell? Where did you go? We’re keeping your sleeping bag warm for you over here, buddy!

    Yoo hoo!

  124. 124

    As I have stated before, stop acting as though you’re the gatekeeper of commentary here.

    He isn’t?

    He sure does act like it though, doesn’t he?

  125. 125
    Brian says:

    He sure does act like it though, doesn’t he?

    I wonder if he’s short. That would explain a lot. He’s like a little Napoleon….a little tyrant.

  126. 126
    ppGaz says:

    I wonder if he’s short

    I’ll bet you do!

  127. 127
    ppGaz says:

    He sure does act like it though, doesn’t he?

    Looks like you made yourself a new friend, dude!

  128. 128

    I wonder if he’s short. That would explain a lot. He’s like a little Napoleon….a little tyrant.

    LOL! Enough of the spoofing, ppGaz.

  129. 129
    ppGaz says:

    LOL! Enough of the spoofing, ppGaz

    You wish. Soon this site will be SpoofCity like some other sites out there. At this point, I wouldn’t even be surprised if John and Tim were doing it.

  130. 130
    James says:

    I agree, it will be interesting to see what is actually said at the end of it all. This is an interesting issue. I just ran across an interesting article talking about the whole illegal immigration protest. Definitely an interesting read: http://jeffslade.blogspot.com/.....otest.html

    I enjoyed taking a look at your site.

    James

  131. 131
    Mike says:

    it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings and find out what he actually belived in.

    Somehow I can’t picture Bush sitting down and writing his journals, but even if he has some ghostwriter do it, why would you think he’d say anything other that doesn’t make him look best at the moment?

    George Bush stands for two things. “Tax cuts so help me God!” and the wealth of corporate America. Those are the only two things he’s never wavered on even when it was against his political interests. Everything else is just political posturing. He’s a man who admits he doesn’t even spend much time thinking about Osama bin Laden 5 years into the war on terror.

  132. 132
    Mac Buckets says:

    Someone please grenade this page. What ya got here is an irredeemable dungheap.

  133. 133
    ppGaz says:

    What ya got here is an irredeemable dungheap.

    Yeah, when you were posting all the time, it was like the Julliard School around here.

    Those were the days, eh?

  134. 134
    Llelldorin says:

    There are two problems with your argument, Darrell.

    The first is that barring a court case invalidating the relevant laws, marriage certificates issued by San Francisco are invalid. You can’t start a court case with invalid documents. Since gay marriage is simply legal in Massechusetts, I’m not sure why you decided to hang your argument on the San Francisco example.

    The second problem is that there’s a public policy exemption to the full faith and credit clause. It’s possible that the Supreme Court will decide that it doesn’t apply to anti-gay marriage laws, but it seems odd to start scribbling on the Constitution in response to a hypothetical.

    I think the reason people on my side of the debate tend to jump to “bias” so quickly when it comes to gay marriage is that we simply don’t see why anyone who isn’t gay should even care. The entire net effect on my life if gay marriage were approved tomorrow would be that I’d be out a few hundred bucks over my lifetime in wedding gifts for friends. (This is really different from “domestic partnership” legislation, for example, which conflates marriage and cohabitation for heterosexuals.) Barring bias, why does anyone care in the slightest?

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    I’m not sure why you decided to hang your argument on the San Francisco example.

    I’m sorry, could you be so kind as to direct me to where I ever mentioned any San Franciso examples? You know, since I “hung my hat” on the San Francisco example and all I’m sure you’ll have no problem backing up that assertion.. right?

    Gay marriage is not one of my big issues. I only commented on it because ‘Steve’ accused President Bush of pandering to anti-gay bigots and I responded.

    Got any more strawmen you’d like to throw out there?

  136. 136
    Llelldorin says:

    Looking back, you’re right—that was too strong:

    It was the activist judges and mayors which pushed the issue by defying state laws in allowing gay marriage. Irrespective of how one comes down on the issue, Bush was reacting to the activists who were violating state law. Thirty something states, including liberal California, had voted against allowing gay marriage. Activists defied that law forcing consideration of a constitutional amendment in reaction to those actions.

    Outside of San Francisco, what “mayors” are you referencing? Did any other city of similar size issue marriage certificates, particularly to nonresidents?

    In violation of state laws, marriage certificates were issued. The problem of recognition of those marriages in other states made it a federal issue. Sorry if that straightforward explanation doesn’t fit your narrative of ‘Republicans are anti-gay bigots’

    Seeing those two back to back, I assumed it was San Francisco you were most worried about. I can’t recall any other instance of a city issuing as many certificates to nonresidents.

    I live in the Bay Area, though, so that could be an artifact of local news coverage. (Did you know that the mayor involved, Gavin Newsom, is the leader of the more conservative faction in city politics? Our political spectrum is shifted a bit from the US norm.)

    My other objections still stand, though–the public policy exemption still prevents the issued marriage certificates from being whatever “threat” you somehow think they would otherwise be, and that “threat” is entirely ephemeral. I really can’t see how his support of an anti-gay marriage amendment can be construed as anything other than bigotry or pandering to it.

  137. 137
    Christie S. says:

    When this administration is finally over, and historians look back, it will be interesting to look at Bush’s writings and find out what he actually belived in, and what he just went along with out of pure political calculus.

    You dance with the one who brung ya.
    /snark

    It doesn’t really matter what his personal opinions are. It matters what he did.

    He was put into office with the backing of an extremely powerful coalition. At the same time, this coalition also managed to get control of both houses of government. It would take an exceedingly brave person to buck that kind of political might. Mr. Bush has never exhibited (to me) that he has the necessary fortitude to act on his own principles if and when they ever diverged from his electorate’s.

Comments are closed.