The Dems responses were full of scare tactics, with Reid using words like "immmoral" and "gambling", etc, when talking about the Pres's SS plan. Nancy P - she is out of touch with reality, but then again, most Americans DON'T know about the reconstruction that has been going on in Iraq as the msm doesn't report about it very much. (She has no excuse - she has been there to visit the troops.)
Did you notice that both Dems made references to God in their rebuttals and that Dubya had fewer in his? (So, Peggy Noonan can't call this speech "God drenched", she should be happy with that).
BTW - Cal Thomas interviewed the President and over on Townhall there is a edited transcript of the interview.
One of my favorite parts of the interview:
Q: You know, you play this dumb thing really well. (Laughter.) You go through these books and everything, this is a strategy of yours, isn't it? You are - this is amazing - you go through these three books you're reading - Peter Hanford I think may have been that other author you were - he's written a book on George Washington, or he's got a short book -
THE PRESIDENT: Pretty long. I'll get you the name of it. I read a lot.
Q: I know.
THE PRESIDENT: And I like to read. And it's - that dumb thing, that's the elites who put that out.
Q: It's great, it works well for you.
THE PRESIDENT: I like it. I like it.
The elites hate Bush because he will not pander to them. He doesn't care what the NYT says. He is comfortable with who he is. He doesn't need to say "oh yes I do too read books!"
I didn't get a chance to watch the Democrats response. But it seems that that many left of center pundits believe that the response was weak.
I wonder what Peggy Noonan will say about the speech, since Bush did not back off of the "worldwide freedom revolution" rhetoric.
Tom,
Thanks for directing us to NRO's corner.
I found this gem a few posts up from Kate O'Beirne's post.
PARTISAN HALITOSIS? [Tim Graham]
In yet another Hillary-boosting WashPost column, Tina Brown despairs at the bungled timing behind Iraq gloom from Kennedy and Kerry: "New Yorkers had to wake up on Monday to an especially acute gust of partisan halitosis from John Podhoretz in the New York Post that was all the more galling because it was true."
The Democratic response was pathetic, all "doom and gloom". Nancy Pelosi has had so much done to her face that she looks like a mannequin.
Today the dems are all whining about the hug between the marine's mom and the Iraqi woman, saying that it was "staged". These people have no heart, do they?
Just read the Brown article. Oh please, "They are like wives midway through marriage therapy designed to reconcile and foster a new beginning with a feckless husband who has perpetually let them down. Hillary Clinton knows what that feels like better than anyone else."
OH, yeah, Hillary "stood by her man even though he let her down". NO-O-O, she kept her side of the bargain and stayed with him so he could stay in power and thus she grew more powerful as a result.
Today in Senate testimony, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Gen. Richard Myers, talked about reduction in our troop strength in Iraq, how it will not come down until Iraqis are sufficiently trained. Guess what? Kennedy had some choice words in response:
- - "How long is it going to take to train Iraqis to fight for their own country, to shed their own blood, as Americans are doing it?" Kennedy demanded. "Is that going to take four months? Is it going to take 12 months?"
Wolfowitz said 1,342 Iraqi police and soldiers had been killed - nearly as many as the 1,439 American dead.- -
'somehow have to come up with an extra 200 billion dollars to keep the system afloat '
'somehow'? try the social security trust fund.
actus,
The social security trust fund contains only federal treasury notes. Cashing these notes in would just force the federal government to borrow more money. So, the federal government could either borrow the "extra 200 billion," raise taxes by that amount, cut spending by that amount or a combination of all three.
'Cashing these notes in would just force the federal government to borrow more money.'
Of course. So the somehow is the same somehow that we use to resolve all general fund problems, and there isn't a social security crisis but a general fund fiscal crisis. And there the big problems aren't social security but medicare. Lets get to talking how we'll meet our general fund obligations.
Otherwise, stiffing the social security fund is essentially a retroactive regressive tax change, since the social security fund is funded by taxes more regressive than the general fund.
I did like the anti-gang initiave. Hopefully it will take us part of the way to mars.
Good writeup Tom. It's not that I want to sound like an echo here to please you, but I find myself in accordance with you - except for one thing, the new Immigration Policy.
Comments section is too small for this discussion, but you may be interested to know that one year ago over at Downeast and A New Birth of Freedom, there was exactly this sicussion between Mark/CO on the one hand and Kerry, Tom and Scott on the other hand. I did not exactly participate, but I thought I was more on Marks side, i.e. more or less agreeing with Bush's immigration proposals. Boy, be content that you have only Mexicans to worry about and not (or at least fewer) islamonuts like o'er here in U-RO-Land.
One last note: was surprised that the Prez mentioned Jordan. I mean, I know it is no democracy, but I though it was at least a fairly "free" country for ME standards.
Tsk tsk. "sicussion"
Discussion!
Getting late you know. 1.30am.
There are many issues surrounding the immigration policy, including the lack of enforcement of the current policy and the proposed changes to include a "guest worker" program. There are so many problems now that a lot of folks don't even want to hear about anything new until we enforce what we have and STOP them from coming in. I agree - the borders are porous. But I also look at what Bush has proposed and see merit in it. So, until we tighten up the borders, NO ONE is going to go for the Bush proposal and I can't say that I blame them!
What I see in Bush's proposal is this:
If the workers are here legally, the people who hire them will have to pay them REAL wages and will not be able to threaten them with deportation. That will take away the benefits of hiring illegals because the employers won't be able to make lots of money off of the cheap labor. So, there is no incentive to hire them. BUT, this will only work if there is enforcement of the laws against employing illegals. And then, the only incentive that employers will have to hire them would be if they were better workers than American workers! And, btw, there are many jobs that Mexicans will take which Americans won't take, contrary to what a lot of folks say.
....continued
continued...
For instance, here in Alabama there are a lot of poultry plants which require "chicken catchers" - guys whose only job is going into the chicken houses and catching the chickens for shipment to the processing plants. But, there are jobs which the Mexicans take that Americans are willing to take, and those are in the construction business! Currently the builders can hire illegals, pay them low wages and work them unmercifully, so they are making lots and lots of money! Think about it, once the Mexicans can start demanding pay equal to American workers, there won't be as much demand for them.
And, if the process that is set up for the Guest Worker program to get clearance for Mexican workers works like most governmental processes, it will be such a hassle to do it that a lot of employers won't be wanting to fool with it!
And if the Mexicans join the unions that will be the end of it altogether!
Jamie,
You have driven to the heart of the illegal immigration issue: The sluggish Mexican economy versus the dynamic American economy.
If Mexico would implement some decent economic reform, this issue would be a small one. But the elites in Mexico haven't pushed enough reforms.
What to do in the meantime? Securing our borders is a must, regardless of how many legal immigrants we accept.
I agree. And all of this is gradually coming to a head, especially in light of all the recent reports of middle eastern men coming across the border. Here in Alabaster we are starting to have a serious illegal alien problem and the local government is ignoring it, saying we don't have a problem. Its the same in Hoover, a few miles down the road from here. There has been talk of the prescense of a Salvadoran gang called the Mara Salva Trucha. Yet the city council there is promoting a "center" to help mexican "immigrants".
No doubt immigration is an issue that we'll have to deal with. But it is also one that threatens to drive some conservatives from Bush. The issue is divisive enough on the right, let alone in the country as a whole.
I'm not happy with Bush's proposals as well but totally sealing the borders does not seem politicall possible.
And sealing the borders would not be effect free; with less low-paid workers employeers would have to pay more thus driving up prices. Mexicans stuck in their country might demand reform, but they might revolt as well. No easy answers from what I can tell.
But I will give Bush credit for taking it on. Think, he's got enough on his hands with Iraq, the WOT, and the usual economic/budget stuff. He's bold enough, though, to take on other issues that need to be dealt with, like Social Security and immigration.
Tom,
One debate that seems to be looming in the background in this immigration issue is a debate over legal immigration. I suspect that many Congresspeople are opposed to the current rate of legal immigration, believing that new immigrants don't assimilate as quickly as previous ones did and that they are disproportionately dependent on social services.
This issue must also be addressed.
Nice work Tom, I thought President Bush was at his best while the Democrat response was predictably boring and uninspiring. I was actually hoping my old party would show some signs of life but they continue to recycle old worn-out and failed campaign mantras as if they’re suddenly going to grow wings and fly. Somehow the last U.S. and Iraq election went right over their heads. They’re almost in denial that either of these events actually took place.
Is anybody else getting tired of the catch phrase “exit strategy”? No answer is satisfactory for the Dems unless it comes with a precise date (which would be strategically idiotic). (cont.)
I agree with Michael that our current immigration problems are pale next to his. I really hope the E.U. doesn’t allow itself to completely succumb to this cancer.
We have millions of illegal immigrants here merely trying to escape poverty. Shipping them all back or incarcerating them is not at all practical or morally prudent. Yet the status quo is not acceptable either. With all the great resources in Mexico I don’t know why we can’t do for them what we’re doing for China. A fast growing economy would limit the exodus from Mexico.
Larry
You are right that the immigration problem is worse in Europe. From what I understand, the root of the problem is that they have no tradition of how to integrate immigrants into their countries. And (from what I understand) the reason for that is sort of ethnic: can an Arab really become "a Frenchman" or "a German"?? On the other hand, anyone can become an American.
In the US there's a give-and-take; each side trades some cultural attributes. Immigrants (are supposed to, anyway) learn to speak English and pick up parts of our culture etc. Natives pick up things from the immigrants like food and some other things (Christmas trees).
Not only does this not occur in Europe, most of them have no idea how to bring it about.
Exception; from what I hear The Netherlands has started to require that immigrants pass a fairly comprehensive test on their language, history, and culture.
Perhams our Outlaw Michael can address this further.
Americans slanted their immigration system away from Europe in 1964 towards Asia..........it now seems easier to get into the US if you don't speak English !
Commenting by HaloScan
