The Day After
...Most center-right reaction to President Bush's "much anticipated" immigration address to the nation isn't any better than it was the night before.
Jed Babbin: "It was a speech worthy of Dominique de Villepin or Jacques Chirac."
Mark Levin: "I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this."
Rich Lowry: "Clintonian at the Border - President Bush's final, desperate descent"
NRO: "Amnesty Undeniable"
Jim Pinkerton: "Bush's border shift needs policing"
Cap'n Ed discovered that the Bush Administration didn't bother to check first with the governors of the affected states who would have to first approve federalization of the National Guard troops he's already "volunteered" for this mission of symbolism over substance.
An NG member emailed the RCP guys his opinion that said deployment, in addition to doing little or nothing to enhance true border control, will detract from troop training and battle-readiness. Which is what one would expect, I'm guessing, from a sustained period of sharpening pencils and fetching coffee for the BP, as Mr. Lowry phrased it.
John O'Sullivan didn't need precognition to pre-pan Dubya's attempt at being "Slick Georgie."
Lest I be accused of stacking the link/quote deck, Professor Bainbridge liked it without any bearing of fangs. I'm sure there must have been a few others.
Though, for their sakes, no others like ex-Polipundit contributor Alexander McClure:
I'm guessing that came in response to his ex-boss, Polipundit himself:
This tete-a-tete has caused Lori Byrd to bail out and blown up the Polipundit team itself. That and the fact that P refuses to allow any immigration views on the site other than his own. That's a shame since I can recall my rumble with Jennifer last fall over the Harriet Miers debacle, which got heated (though not quite THAT heated) but never prompted me to even ponder laying down the editorial law. It's also a shame since P has by far the better side of the argument (since he agrees with me....) and would pound the bejeesus out of any dissenters on his now-former staff, certainly if McClure's offering above is any indication. By blowing it up himself, P makes it look just the opposite.
Rather symbolic, I should think, of what the President is doing to the Republican Party, and trying to eventually do to the country's economy and cultural identity.
They say that great leaders always have a blind spot. Winston Churchill's, for example, was his refusal to let go of India, resulting in its partition. Ronald Reagan's was Red China (which doesn't exactly put him in exclusive company). George W. Bush's is Mexico.
You know, the slow-motion conquerer of the United States. To whom, last night, Dubya announced our unconditional surrender.
UPDATE 5/17: Dick Morris liked Bush's speech as well. Which probably isn't a good thing.
Here's a whole lot more....
Jed Babbin: "It was a speech worthy of Dominique de Villepin or Jacques Chirac."
Mark Levin: "I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this."
Rich Lowry: "Clintonian at the Border - President Bush's final, desperate descent"
NRO: "Amnesty Undeniable"
Jim Pinkerton: "Bush's border shift needs policing"
Cap'n Ed discovered that the Bush Administration didn't bother to check first with the governors of the affected states who would have to first approve federalization of the National Guard troops he's already "volunteered" for this mission of symbolism over substance.
An NG member emailed the RCP guys his opinion that said deployment, in addition to doing little or nothing to enhance true border control, will detract from troop training and battle-readiness. Which is what one would expect, I'm guessing, from a sustained period of sharpening pencils and fetching coffee for the BP, as Mr. Lowry phrased it.
John O'Sullivan didn't need precognition to pre-pan Dubya's attempt at being "Slick Georgie."
Lest I be accused of stacking the link/quote deck, Professor Bainbridge liked it without any bearing of fangs. I'm sure there must have been a few others.
Though, for their sakes, no others like ex-Polipundit contributor Alexander McClure:
If you think that [Bush's proposal] is amnesty, then you are either a moron or a liar. If you ar [sic] 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 guessing that came in response to his ex-boss, Polipundit himself:
El Presidente is speaking now, and every word coming out of his mouth is a lie. He is trying to bait-and-switch us yahoos into buying an unprecedented sell-out of America to Mexico.
This tete-a-tete has caused Lori Byrd to bail out and blown up the Polipundit team itself. That and the fact that P refuses to allow any immigration views on the site other than his own. That's a shame since I can recall my rumble with Jennifer last fall over the Harriet Miers debacle, which got heated (though not quite THAT heated) but never prompted me to even ponder laying down the editorial law. It's also a shame since P has by far the better side of the argument (since he agrees with me....) and would pound the bejeesus out of any dissenters on his now-former staff, certainly if McClure's offering above is any indication. By blowing it up himself, P makes it look just the opposite.
Rather symbolic, I should think, of what the President is doing to the Republican Party, and trying to eventually do to the country's economy and cultural identity.
They say that great leaders always have a blind spot. Winston Churchill's, for example, was his refusal to let go of India, resulting in its partition. Ronald Reagan's was Red China (which doesn't exactly put him in exclusive company). George W. Bush's is Mexico.
You know, the slow-motion conquerer of the United States. To whom, last night, Dubya announced our unconditional surrender.
UPDATE 5/17: Dick Morris liked Bush's speech as well. Which probably isn't a good thing.
Here's a whole lot more....
posted by JASmius at 6:03 PM
<<< Home