Morning Update:
OVERNIGHT CNN POLL:
79 percent of Americans had a "very positive" or "somewhat positive" reaction, and only 18 percent had a "negative" reaction.
_________________________________
This is going to be short and sweet.
My take on the President's speech (video here) to the Nation on securing our borders was: EXCELLENT. A 5-point plan that, as far as I can see, covers all bases. His point that we must accomplish all aspects of the plan in order to have success, leave one or more parts out and the entire solution is doomed to failure, is spot on. I also like and strongly support the use of electronic fences and unmanned aerial vehicles to supplement patrol of the wilder areas along the thousands of miles of border. I was glad to hear the President highlight the addition of these controls.
After speech reaction =
King and Tancredo are hypocrites and obstructionists. "... rather have no bill than a bad bill ... President's plan has no chance." This tells me they are all hot air and no substance. I would go so far as to say, with their reaction, it tells us they don't want border reform and all their bluster is just playing politics. Boo on both of them!
Michelle Malkin - "too little too late" made her sound like a spoiled brat.
Democratic talking points, you pick which one -- "same ol'" loved the question, "what has Bush been doing for the last five years?" Oh, I don't know ... maybe he was busy winning the War on Terror and having to address moonbats like you.
Bill O'Reilly -- positive reaction although he wishes the number was 15,000 rather than 6,000 National Guard.
A roundup from Instapundit includes:
JOE MALCHOW LIKED THE SPEECH. "This is the best offer American sovereigntists which is to say almost everyone, whether they realize it or notwill have for a long time."
Jonah Goldberg: "My guess is he sounded pretty reasonable to most Americans not already deeply committed on the issue of immigration."
Hugh Hewitt calls it "a good start."
Mark Tapscott thinks it sounds familiar.
John Hinderaker thinks Bush blew it.
Ed Morrissey: "President Bush tried reaching for the center -- a position he has occupied on this issue all along. He tried a one-from-column-A, two-from-column-B approach that probably will leave all sides more or less dissatisfied. His declaration that catch-and-release would end was the most welcome news in the entire speech. He delivered that well and sounded forceful and presidential, but most people will wonder why this practice didn't end on September 12, 2001."
An "A" from Black Five:
OK,
I score that speech an A for content and for maybe the first time an A for delivery. I have no quibbles with any of the action items because he made the first one securing the borders. And since nobody other than Chuck really believes we would round up millions of people, some amnesty lite was gonna come, plus I like bio-metric IDs.
He admitted we do not control our borders, and said we will fix that, good. Let's see what Congress does.
And perhaps my very favorite comment, by MacsMind. Go read it all, it is hard hitting and hilarious at the same time. I agree completely with him.:
NOTE: Vent to the Whiny-Baby Republicans out there:
Stay home on election day because your're pissed at Bush?
Go ahead. Kiss your family goodbye after November 8th.
I don't know who's more full of crap on this issue the so-called "shoot the bastards" pundits or the clueless Democrats, but this immigration issue isn't going to be fixed by taking your ball and staying home on election day.
This problem didn't begin in 2001 and isn't going to get fixed by 2008 or beyond. Fact is that whether you like it or not or believe it or not WE created this problem not President Bush. You might not like his solutions or plan, but calling him "El Presidente" is childish and moronic.
So in closing, stay home if you want. But do us another favor - stay there. We don't need you.
Also via MacsMind is this UPDATE:
Alexander at Polipundit breaks ranks and joins sanity.
"The President announced that he will oppose amnesty. In his own words, “It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently – and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship – but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty – it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.”
If you think that is amnesty, then you are either a moron or a liar. If you are truly a Republican to begin with, if you are truly a conservative, then you will applaud this speech and support the reforms he has articulated. Otherwise, you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are a LIAR. A LIAR"
I'm afraid he's right. The line of who is and who isn't truly Conservative and who is a "wingnut" is becoming very clear. Again, now I know that there are those on the right with a totally different agenda than the rest of us - the majority of us.
JOHN PODHORETZ on the immigration debate: from Podhoretz mouth to the Nation's ears ... we absolutely 100% agree here:
"The immigration debate is a very heated and passionate one, and the heat and passion on the part of those on the restrictionist side have been useful tools for pushing the conversation in your direction. But there's a difference between heated disagreement and the insistence on lock-step uniformity. . . . This inability to stomach disagreement on a hot-button issue should be troubling to anyone and everyone who has found an intellectual home on the Right in part to avoid the kind of crippling self-censorship that has afflicted the P.C. Left."
Yes. If you find yourself sounding like a Kos diarist, step away from the blog and take a break, lest you do for your cause what the Kossacks have done for theirs.
It is good to see there is more than one sensible voice out there on the more conservative side of the blog world. I was beginning to get worried. AJ Strata weighs in, go read it all. Here is a taste:
*** Addendum: I want to be clear that I am all for debate. But when debate is over and an idea has or is being rejected (like the deportment and detainment schemes) those who are serious join back together and move on. I am for strong laws, background checks, the fence/wall and one strike your out (never to get a second chance). Which doesn’t make me ‘moderate’ or ‘pro amnesty’. People need to ask themselves a question about who they want on their side. Someone like me are someone like young Adolph here***
For all those flaming the anti-immigrant flames, let me show you a glimpse into an ugly future: [READ IT ALL HERE]
____________________________
A reader emails regarding Michelle Malkin:
"Too little, too late."OTOH: It's a start. Get a life, Michelle. What's the matter? The WH didn't ask you to draft the policy?I'm pissed at her smarmy ridicule of a good, sensible, tactful message, even if it is overdue. Like I said in my post a month or so ago,"...details can be worked out." Bush pretty much covered the same ground I did, and I'm gled to hear what he said.Fuck her!
________________________________
Afternoon UPDATE:
The following is a post at BMEWS. We are quoting it almost in entirety because it is worthy of being spread to as many as can see it. BMEWS has an open thread to discuss the issue and we would encourage you to take a look and join an active discussion HERE.
The Idjits Speak
Argue with the President all you want in the posts below this one but remember that any action is going to have to have the cooperation of Congress and guess what’s going to happen there? Take a look at the comments below from leading
assholesDemocrats and Liberals. Get the picture? You and I may have problems with aspects of President Bush’s plan but it will surely fail if these Donk goobers continue to howl at the moon and get in the way of any plan of any kind that comes from Bush or the GOP. Touch choice, ain’t it? We can nitpick the plan and watch the Donks get what they want (control of Congress in November) or we can go along with the damn plan and hope for the best. Did somebody mention something about a “rock and a hard place”?The New York Times: “Some of the border state governors, Democrats in Congress, and others immediately raised questions about the practicality of the plan.” (Jim Rutenberg, “President Calls For Compromise On Immigration,” The New York Times, 5/16/06)
DNC Chair Howard Dean: “Unfortunately, at a time when we needed real leadership, we once again heard a political PR campaign filled with an unrealistic short-term fix, rather than a detailed long term solution.” (Stephen Dinan, “Bush Calls For Guard On Border,” The Washington Times, 5/16/06)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): “It is not enough for President Bush to tell us he wants to increase security at our borders. After all, he’s had five years to do it. If he wants to be credible on border security, he must acknowledge his mistakes and commit to fixing them.” (Mark Silva, “President Calls For Balance On Border,” Chicago Tribune, 5/16/06)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “We must protect our borders, but militarizing our borders is a desperate response by the president to his and Republican Congress’ policy failures.” (Mark Silva, “President Calls For Balance On Border,” Chicago Tribune, 5/16/06)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM): “[I]’m very skeptical as a border governor that deals with this issue every day of the National Guard deployed at the border.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 5/15/06)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “Democrats are willing to support any reasonable plan that will secure our borders, including deploying National Guard troops ... But Americans don’t want a plan that’s been cobbled together to win political favor.” (David Espo, “Bush Proposes Sending Troops To Border,” The Associated Press, 5/16/06)
Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D-OR): “Within the conservative wing of the Republican Party ... [the President’s plan] may be good politics. But it is lousy policy.” (Mark Silva, “President Calls For Balance On Border,” Chicago Tribune, 5/16/06)
"[DNC Chair Howard] Dean Said His Party Will Make Immigration An Issue As Part Of Its Strategy To ‘Nationalize’ The Fall Elections And Is Opening A Television Advertising Campaign ..." (Ralph Z. Hallow, “Dean Calls The Border Top Priority,” The Washington Times, 4/20/06)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “I think politics got in front of policy on this issue.” (Carl Hulse and Rachel L. Swarns, “Blame And Uncertainty As Immigration Deal Fails,” The New York Times, 4/8/06)
Did someone forget to put out Michelle's bowl of milk again? Quick, do it...add 10 mg of lithobid, and let's hope she's ok in the morning...
Posted by: linearthinker | 15 May 2006 at 07:01 PM
Finally - sanity on this issue! I had been reading Polipundit, but unfortunately PWS (Perfect World Syndrome) struck the host and he kicked out the guests, Michelle Malkin I gave up for lost long ago on this issue and even the Powerline guys are a bit of a downer today.
I thought the president did a masterful job of reaching out to the middle (CNN viewers no less!) by giving us a PLAN and detailing how the plan would work. I have no problem with a systematic approach to the issue as long as it develops into - hello! - a working solution that is enacted, preferably before summer.
The president has thrown down the gauntlet to Congress and I daresay that they won't let it lay there long. We will see steps forward - big ones too, despite the whiners on the extreme right of this issue.
Posted by: robinrt | 16 May 2006 at 02:06 PM
I've skimmed the firestorm ignited by Bush's speech, and can't escape the notion that once again he's taken the path of principles over politics. I'm curious, too, if the architects of the new policy are different than his last "architect?" If so, Karl's reassignment was definitely a good move. I continually am amazed at the resilience of George Bush in the endurance he demonstrates in the face of unrelenting sniping, ankle-biting, lying, and even betrayal from within his own party. No wonder he only watches Fox News.
Posted by: linearthinker | 16 May 2006 at 05:20 PM