Out of Steam.
Bush has lost his battle over immigration and can't hide his anger as he spits out this statement. His fight on this subject was always likely to pit him against the grassroots of his party, who have been wound up whenever it suited the Republican cause to rant against "waves of immigrants".
Of course, Bush's problem is that big business - who fund his party - were very keen on cheap Mexican workers. He could never please both camps. And there's an irony that the grassroots, who he is usually able to fob off with the odd religious remark or by letting it be known that he would like to overturn Roe vs Wade, has actually been victorious over big business' interests. Big business invests in the Republicans to avoid defeats like this. They won't be best pleased.
"Sand is flowing out of the hourglass," said Fred I. Greenstein, a Princeton University scholar on the presidency, who was struck by the gloomy tone of Bush's televised statement. "He looked much less like the kid on the cover of Mad magazine without a care. . . . He looked very angry and almost having difficulty getting the sentences out. That seems to me to contrast with some of the early stages" of his presidency.
6 comments:
His fight on this subject was always likely to pit him against the grassroots of his party, who have been wound up whenever it suited the Republican cause to rant against "waves of immigrants".
The bill died because some Democrats who were expected to support the bill didn't. Some members of Congress, an institution whose approval ratings are lower than the President's, apparently chose to heed the flood of angry calls from constituents that shut down the Capitol switchboard.
The Dem's like to keep saying how they are trying to carry out the "will of the people", but as the will of the people is squarely against this bill and their party largely supported it, that's obviously not the case. Luckily 15 of them at least were worried about their jobs.
Jason,
You can seek to make this an issue for the Democrats as much as you like but the truth is that this bill was Bush's. Why did he pursue it if it was an unpopular as it was? It is my contention that he did so to please big business and that this put him at odds with the grassroots of his own party. I always thought that was his conundrum with this bill.
Now it looks like the steam is running out of his administration. "The Decider" is no longer deciding.
As I presume you were opposed to this legislation, why do you suppose Bush embarked on such a suicidal course?
It is not a "Bush" bill. The bill was drafted by McCain and Ted Kennedy, although Bush certainly worked with them to come up with what they thought would be a strong bill, and very strongly backed their bill.
Unlike the Dems in Congress, Bush seems more driven by what he feels is right and less driven by opinion polls. In this case, as a former governor of Texas (and therefore had firsthand experience with the illegals) and someone who is very pro-business, these were factors that no doubt contributed to his position. He has had a long history of working closely with the hispanic community going back to well before he was President and I have no doubt that this is indicative of the moral stance he has regarding this issue.
The fact that there were many on both sides who strongly disliked the bill, albeit for different reasons, tells me that however bad I thought it was, it didn't seem particularly driven by an ideology that was either very left or very right.
No, I think immigration is a subject on which the left are generally more tolerant than the right. However, I feel sure Bush's interests were supplying cheap Labour for big business. I'm not attacking that, they financially backed him and I think this was what they wanted in return.
And every time the bill is referred to over here it is called "one of his (Bush's) central policy planks". And the New York Times are certainly putting the blame at the door of Republicans.
"Then, Mr. Bush’s party abandoned him in droves on the immigration bill, sending the measure to its death in the Senate, despite the president’s fervent lobbying for it."
"For a president who once boasted that he had political capital and intended to use it, the back-to-back desertions demonstrated starkly just how little of that capital is left."
Do you think Bush is now a lame duck President or was that legislation simply too divisive to some members of both parties?
No, I think immigration is a subject on which the left are generally more tolerant than the right.
Tolerance for immigration has nothing to do with it. As we are a nation of immigrants, most of us are all for robust immigration. However, that immigration must be legal and controlled. Last I read we legally admit more immigrants than anyone else already, so there is certainly no problem with legal immigration.
Unfortunately some people think we shouldn't be a sovereign nation with the right to control its own borders. These are the so-called "open borders" crowd.
The success of our system has been due to the fact that we are a melting pot. That is, immigrants must be willing to assimilate and buy into the system. This has been the case with our legal immigrant population over the centuries and we are much stronger for it. In Europe however assimilation is a dirty word and multi-culturalism is championed, with some pretty bad results in many cases.
Do you think Bush is now a lame duck President or was that legislation simply too divisive to some members of both parties?
The legislation was extremely divisive. The populace doesn't trust that the government will effectively control the borders and stem the tide of illegal immigration, despite constant promises to do so. Many, such as myself, believe that once the borders are effectively controlled, then we can address what to do with the illegals who are here now.
As we are a nation of immigrants, most of us are all for robust immigration.
I don't think that's true anymore Jason. Indeed, when I hear Irish American Senators speaking out against the bill I get the distinct impression that some people want to pull up the drawbridge that their same ancestors crossed over.
The success of our system has been due to the fact that we are a melting pot. That is, immigrants must be willing to assimilate and buy into the system. This has been the case with our legal immigrant population over the centuries and we are much stronger for it. In Europe however assimilation is a dirty word and multi-culturalism is championed, with some pretty bad results in many cases.
There have been some places where multiculturalism has proven tricky, like Bolton, but in London especially I think multiculturalism has been a great success. I know people from all faiths and from all regions of the world and we often discuss why we all do certain things a certain way. My best friend, who is Jewish, was recently explaining why they change plates at the time of the passover and I, in turn, tell her why Christians have certain customs. This even extends to the young Asian that I buy coffee from each morning. We always discuss what's going on in the world and I am always fascinated when he gives me his perspective.
And I wonder how the US would cope were it's immigrant population to suddenly up sticks and leave. I think that, in a similar way to Britain, you have possibly become very dependent on the immigrant population to do the jobs that Americans don't want to do. That's certainly the case here.
Post a Comment