PDA

View Full Version : Et tu, Peggy?


oldandslow
06-01-2007, 09:00 AM
Wow. This piece is a hatchet job by one of the most talented republican speech writers EVER.

Peggy Noonan, I salute you.

By the way, are Ms. Noonan and BEP the same person...hmmm. :hmmm:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

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."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.

They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!

If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.


The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that 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, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, 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.


One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 01:17 PM
Wow. This piece is a hatchet job by one of the most talented republican speech writers EVER.



Plagiarizing a poem and writing "Tear down this wall" does not a good speech writer make ;)

Brock
06-01-2007, 01:19 PM
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation."

Yeah, so what?

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 01:43 PM
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
This rhetorical strategem is so effing tired. Why would Peggy borrow it from the lefty nutroots?

Cochise
06-01-2007, 02:07 PM
This rhetorical strategem is so effing tired. Why would Peggy borrow it from the lefty nutroots?

You must be one of the bigots!

Baby Lee
06-01-2007, 02:28 PM
You must be one of the bigots!
The strategem I was referring to wasn't about intoning bigotry.
It was saying 'the president said,' then quoting a list of folks who, last time I checked, were not in fact the president.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 02:31 PM
You must be one of the bigots!
What have you got against bigots? You bigot!

penchief
06-01-2007, 02:40 PM
This rhetorical strategem is so effing tired. Why would Peggy borrow it from the lefty nutroots?

Because that is what this administration always does. It has become a very distinct pattern. The difference is that now they're using it on conservatives and republicans. It's a little different when you're having to take it instead of enjoying it dished out to those whom you disagree with.

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2007, 03:04 PM
The strategem I was referring to wasn't about intoning bigotry.
It was saying 'the president said,' then quoting a list of folks who, last time I checked, were not in fact the president.I didn't read it that way. They attributed a quote to the president, then they quoted other people and attributed the quotes as such. I'm not sure how that is confusing.

Pitt Gorilla
06-01-2007, 03:04 PM
You must be one of the bigots!I honestly have no idea what this means.

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 03:34 PM
I honestly have no idea what this means.


The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

:shrug:

dirk digler
06-01-2007, 04:11 PM
:shrug:

Bush: “If you want to kill the bill,” he said, “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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30immig.html?ex=1338177600&en=3b359bf5bde4767b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2007, 04:20 PM
I didn't read it that way. They attributed a quote to the president, then they quoted other people and attributed the quotes as such. I'm not sure how that is confusing.It's not confusing....it is a rhetorical technique that misleads lazy folks (most average citizens, for that matter) into believing, by association, that the President also agrees with the characterizations of those who are, apparently, talkin' outta their asses--by engaging their mouth before their brain.

It's not confusing to educated folks; it is purposefully disingenuous and manipulative, though.

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 04:26 PM
Bush: “If you want to kill the bill,” he said, “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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30immig.html?ex=1338177600&en=3b359bf5bde4767b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I think you misunderstand my intent, dirk.
Pitt was confused, I tried to point out where the quote in question came from, not imply that one party is less guilty in this case than the other.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 04:26 PM
My, my. This immigration thing sure gets people's panties in a bunch. I tend to side against the president on this, but I just can't get that fired up about it.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 04:27 PM
You're unpatriotic. :harumph:

dirk digler
06-01-2007, 04:32 PM
I think you misunderstand my intent, dirk.
Pitt was confused, I tried to point out where the quote in question came from, not imply that one party is less guilty in this case than the other.

I am confused alot so don't mind me.

Anyway I think Bush and the rest of the senators that want to sellout our country to Mexico maybe they should move there since they like them so much.

the Talking Can
06-01-2007, 06:56 PM
Hilarious...she says what intelligent citizens have been screaming about for years...but of course she waits until the damage is already done...what courage!

And this is just too priceless:

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?

Bush and Republicans at every level, from government to tv to this board have been labeling anyone in disagreement with them as un-American...this has happened every day since Sept 12th, it's what people without ideas do - it is the only thing patteau does....but she never spoke up because it wasn't happening to Republicans, and now she wants to cry about it?

weak and cowardly and partisan...still, this has to sting the little Bush bootlickers:

For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.

What I came in time to believe is that 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, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, 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.

Taco John
06-01-2007, 11:06 PM
You want to fix the immigration problem? Give Mexico "most favored nation" trading status. If we would have done that in the 70's instead of giving it to China, we wouldn't be having the immigration problems we have now.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2007, 11:29 PM
You want to fix the immigration problem? Give Mexico "most favored nation" trading status. If we would have done that in the 70's instead of giving it to China, we wouldn't be having the immigration problems we have now.
Very interesting. How would that be?

Logical
06-01-2007, 11:45 PM
You want to fix the immigration problem? Give Mexico "most favored nation" trading status. If we would have done that in the 70's instead of giving it to China, we wouldn't be having the immigration problems we have now.Most intelligent post I have seen you make. Bravo...:clap:

Logical
06-01-2007, 11:48 PM
This rhetorical strategem is so effing tired. Why would Peggy borrow it from the lefty nutroots?

My question is, is your criticism of her attacking Bush, or just the method she has selected to make the attack.

KC Jones
06-01-2007, 11:56 PM
The nerve of people, to think that somehow a political party or an administration would coordinate with members of congress and others to get certain talking points on the air?!?! That is simply the most asinine and ridiculous concept I have ever heard of. That most assuredly never happens.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 12:03 AM
The nerve of people, to think that somehow a political party or an administration would coordinate with members of congress and others to get certain talking points on the air?!?! That is simply the most asinine and ridiculous concept I have ever heard of. That most assuredly never happens.
No kidding. Heaven knows that never happened prior to the rein of this current Satanic regime.

dirk digler
06-02-2007, 12:18 AM
No kidding. Heaven knows that never happened prior to the rein of this current Satanic regime.

Sure it has happened before but it gets tiresome from the current administration being called unpatriotic or I don't want what's best for the country just because I don't agree with them selling out America to become North Mexico.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 12:45 AM
Sure it has happened before but it gets tiresome from the current administration being called unpatriotic or I don't want what's best for the country just because I don't agree with them selling out America to become North Mexico.
You know, I always hear this line...."they keep calling us unpatriotic?" Who is this "they" because, you know, I have RARELY ever actually heard anyone call anyone "unpatriotic?" Do you have names, and links to people calling people "unpatriotic?" :hmmm:

As for the remarks of these dunces who are apparently trying to bring the public over to their position through exaggerations and silly emotional appeals....I've already condemned that. So on that, I'm no your side. :shrug:

I'm just agreeing with Jones that this is just more politics as usual. :shrug:

Logical
06-02-2007, 01:07 AM
You know, I always hear this line...."they keep calling us unpatriotic?" Who is this "they" because, you know, I have RARELY ever actually heard anyone call anyone "unpatriotic?" Do you have names, and links to people calling people "unpatriotic?" :hmmm:

As for the remarks of these dunces who are apparently trying to bring the public over to their position through exaggerations and silly emotional appeals....I've already condemned that. So on that, I'm no your side. :shrug:

I'm just agreeing with Jones that this is just more politics as usual. :shrug:

I guess you are calling Peggy Noonan a liar then?

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America."

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 01:11 AM
I guess you are calling Peggy Noonan a liar then?Pretty much. "...not doing what is right for America...." is different from what is intoned by personally calling someone "unpatriotic. Words mean something. I'm saying her characterization is an interpretation of others remarks that is subjective. I don't expect you to see the difference though. ;)

And I'm actually thinking of it more in the knee-jerk response anti-war types have whenever anyone dares to criticize them: "Wah! That butthead just called me 'unpatriotic' mommy! Wah-wah!"--when the critic did no such thing.

Taco John
06-02-2007, 01:49 AM
Very interesting. How would that be?


I should say it differently, because the cat is already out of the bag on that one. We should never have given China MFN in the first place, and instead given it to Mexico back in the 70's when it would have made a difference. Since the formation of the WTO, the MFN status has become watered down because everyone gets it from every member of the organization.

Our trade relationship with China is a blight on the world and our own society. To me, it pretty much amounts to an economic mutually assured destrcution pact. We've made a communist nation rich beyond their wildest dreams. Supposedly Communism is an idea that doesn't work and will collapse in on itself. Well, that isn't the case when it's being funded by a consumer nation who believes that trading with China will make them a more progressive nation, exposed to the concepts of liberty. That's like saying putting a leash on a Grizzly Bear is going to make the bear more exposed to the idea of domestication.

The opportunity cost for Mexico of our trade policy with China over the last 30 years should be more than apparent by now. China is rebuilding their country, while illegal aliens are pouring over the borders looking for opportunity, as they're not finding it at home. The idea behind NAFTA was to fix this neglect, but it's backfired in that regard. Supposedly, once the NAFTA Superhighway (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/nasco_highway.jpg) is operational, doing business with Mexico will get very cheap, and new opportunity will open up for them. Win-win... Or so goes the theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_SuperCorridor_Coalition).

Even if this "NAFTA Superhighway" concept works, my thought is that things will get worse before they get better.

I figure we're 50 years or so away from the North American Union. One Continent, Under God, with universal healthcare and integrated social security for all.

Taco John
06-02-2007, 02:05 AM
You know, I always hear this line...."they keep calling us unpatriotic?" Who is this "they" because, you know, I have RARELY ever actually heard anyone call anyone "unpatriotic?" Do you have names, and links to people calling people "unpatriotic?" :hmmm:



Are you in favor of the proposed immigration bill or are you just fillibustering as usual?

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2007, 02:32 AM
I should say it differently, because the cat is already out of the bag on that one. We should never have given China MFN in the first place, and instead given it to Mexico back in the 70's when it would have made a difference. Since the formation of the WTO, the MFN status has become watered down because everyone gets it from every member of the organization.

Our trade relationship with China is a blight on the world and our own society. To me, it pretty much amounts to an economic mutually assured destrcution pact. We've made a communist nation rich beyond their wildest dreams. Supposedly Communism is an idea that doesn't work and will collapse in on itself. Well, that isn't the case when it's being funded by a consumer nation who believes that trading with China will make them a more progressive nation, exposed to the concepts of liberty. That's like saying putting a leash on a Grizzly Bear is going to make the bear more exposed to the idea of domestication.

The opportunity cost for Mexico of our trade policy with China over the last 30 years should be more than apparent by now. China is rebuilding their country, while illegal aliens are pouring over the borders looking for opportunity, as they're not finding it at home. The idea behind NAFTA was to fix this neglect, but it's backfired in that regard. Supposedly, once the NAFTA Superhighway (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/nasco_highway.jpg) is operational, doing business with Mexico will get very cheap, and new opportunity will open up for them. Win-win... Or so goes the theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_SuperCorridor_Coalition).

Even if this "NAFTA Superhighway" concept works, my thought is that things will get worse before they get better.

I figure we're 50 years or so away from the North American Union. One Continent, Under God, with universal healthcare and integrated social security for all.

I'll only argue with your last point, because your others are basically sound, IMO.

I don't see the North American Union happening at all. I don't think younger Canadians are remotely interested in moving closer to the U.S., and they'll be the ones running that country 40-50 years from now. And from what I've seen of the way the Mexican system works, the power brokers down there won't play along either.

Much of Canada is very European in its own mind (there's also a good bit of Asian influence in western Canada, and that influence is oddly Western Capitalistic, on balance. British Columbia is a real puzzlement to me). Mexico was set up in its most recent constitution to be a Socialist system. The revolution was decidedly Socialist, but the reality has played itself out to be as corrupted as it possibly could be. IMO, that's one of the things that's led to our recent problems with illegal immigration. There are actually aspects of our system that have become more Socialist than what's to be found in Mexico, and that may be, in part, why Mexicans have finally given up on their system and flooded ours.

Somewhere between real Socialism in Canada, pretended Socialism in Mexico, and creeping Socialism in the U.S., we'll not be able to come to agreement. There's just too much money and/or power at stake, again IMO.

I was going to say that I'd guess that there would be a more likely redrawing of borders, but I'm going to back off that idea.

I'd rather say that I have no idea at all where we'll be in 50 years, but I doubt that we'll be in a North American Union.

Taco John
06-02-2007, 03:06 AM
I'll only argue with your last point, because your others are basically sound, IMO.

I don't see the North American Union happening at all.

I don't think younger Canadians are remotely interested in moving closer to the U.S., and they'll be the ones running that country 40-50 years from now. And from what I've seen of the way the Mexican system works, the power brokers down there won't play along either.

Much of Canada is very European in its own mind (there's also a good bit of Asian influence in western Canada, and that influence is oddly Western Capitalistic, on balance. British Columbia is a real puzzlement to me). Mexico was set up in its most recent constitution to be a Socialist system. The revolution was decidedly Socialist, but the reality has played itself out to be as corrupted as it possibly could be. IMO, that's one of the things that's led to our recent problems with illegal immigration. There are actually aspects of our system that have become more Socialist than what's to be found in Mexico, and that may be, in part, why Mexicans have finally given up on their system and flooded ours.

Somewhere between real Socialism in Canada, pretended Socialism in Mexico, and creeping Socialism in the U.S., we'll not be able to come to agreement. There's just too much money and/or power at stake, again IMO.

I was going to say that I'd guess that there would be a more likely redrawing of borders, but I'm going to back off that idea.

I'd rather say that I have no idea at all where we'll be in 50 years, but I doubt that we'll be in a North American Union.


I don't know if I honestly believe that it's 50 years away (or it'll ever happen period)... I'm just very cynical about it, as I believe that we're already on the proverbial slippery slope.

It all start as a trading agreement (see NAFTA). Eventually (inevitably?) a single currency is introduced, making the economic union more efficient by eliminating exchange rates and associated costs. Obviously, there's a beuracracy involved with that, and since it deals with cash that ties together the fortunes of three nations, it'd be a pretty powerful one.

Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

ClevelandBronco
06-02-2007, 03:12 AM
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

It's going to be interesting to watch. That's for sure.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 05:13 AM
Are you in favor of the proposed immigration bill or are you just fillibustering as usual?
I'm opposed to the current amnesty bill, as is.

FTR, I favor of securing borders first (not a total, physical wall--but rather through selective "walls" and increased surveillance and monitoring,) I favor tremendous increases in both policing employers who hire illegals as well as funding for agents and agencies to enforce those laws, and I favor a gradual but merit-based and incentive-laden road to citizenship for those currently in the country (with benchmarks to be achieved over a number of years.)

Finally, I'd favor both most favored nation trade status for Mexico and perhaps even increased immigration quotas, coupled with a revision of the jus sanguinas provision of U.S. citizenship laws--as a strategy to stop continued future illegal immigration. Which is what should have been done in 1986 the last time we dealt with this whole thing in a serious way.

patteeu
06-02-2007, 10:32 AM
You want to fix the immigration problem? Give Mexico "most favored nation" trading status. If we would have done that in the 70's instead of giving it to China, we wouldn't be having the immigration problems we have now.

Huh? I'm pretty sure that Mexico has had MFN status for quite some time. I don't know if it dates all the way back to the 70's, but at one point during the 90's, there were only a few countries in the world who didn't have MFN status with the US (e.g. the Irans, the North Koreas, and the Cubas of the world). China was always in the news because they only had conditional MFN status that had to be actively renewed from time to time and that renewal was always in question because of human rights issues and other sources of friction between us.

Adept Havelock
06-02-2007, 12:27 PM
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?

Because it's tough to change SOP after half a decade of it?

It's pretty much all they know, IMO.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 02:56 PM
Because it's tough to change SOP after half a century of it?

It's pretty much all they know, IMO.

FYP ;)

dirk digler
06-02-2007, 04:38 PM
You know, I always hear this line...."they keep calling us unpatriotic?" Who is this "they" because, you know, I have RARELY ever actually heard anyone call anyone "unpatriotic?" Do you have names, and links to people calling people "unpatriotic?" :hmmm:

As for the remarks of these dunces who are apparently trying to bring the public over to their position through exaggerations and silly emotional appeals....I've already condemned that. So on that, I'm no your side. :shrug:

I'm just agreeing with Jones that this is just more politics as usual. :shrug:

This pretty much sums it up:

President Bush had had enough. His last chance at another legacy achievement, immigration reform, was in peril, and from his own people, conservative Republicans. He wasn’t going to take it any more.
At a school for border agents, the president ripped into his own people for opposing his bill. Bush did so indirectly, so a guided tour through the speech may be in order.
The opponents, he said, “haven’t read the bill,” a polite way of saying they are ignorant.
They are opposing it with “empty political rhetoric.” They’re vacuous, too.
They worry the bill “would make somebody else look good.” They’re selfish.
They call it an amnesty bill. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our fellow citizens.” And they lie.
They “need the courage to go back to their districts” and fully explain the bill and then they need “the courage necessary” to enact it. They’re more than likely cowards as well.
OK, vote against it then “if you don’t want to do what’s right for America.” They want al-Qaeda to win.
He accused opponents of immigration reform of using distortion and scare tactics “to frighten our citizens.” That’s exactly what the Democrats accused Bush of doing in 2004 and 2006 but, hey, it worked for him then and it might work for him now.
Just as the campaign used to do, after Bush accused his opponents of being unpatriotic and un-American, a senior official approached reporters to say, “In no way was he questioning anyone’s patriotism or desire to do what’s right.”
To paraphrase an old expression, who are you going to believe? Me or your lying ears? After all, it’s not President Bush’s fault if the opponents of this measure are ignorant, selfish and dishonest, even if they were once his most fervent supporters.

Oh and why after this speech did one of his officials go talk to reporters to do damage control?
A senior official approached reporters to say, “In no way was he questioning anyone’s patriotism or desire to do what’s right.”

Adept Havelock
06-02-2007, 04:46 PM
FYP ;)


I see your point, but you missed the mark. Peggy was referring specifically to the current administration with that question. Your "FYP" only makes sense if they had been in power for the last 50 years, which thankfully is impossible. I'm sure you are familiar with the 22nd amendment.

:p

penchief
06-03-2007, 07:10 PM
My, my. This immigration thing sure gets people's panties in a bunch. I tend to side against the president on this, but I just can't get that fired up about it.

Something we agree on. Wow.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:09 PM
Something we agree on. Wow.

I just knew you couldn't be wrong about everything. ;) :p