The President's speech: around the blogosphere
Predictably, Michelle Malkin is unimpressed and scornful of President Bush's speech last night.
Hugh Hewitt, on the other hand, started to like it, and then changed his mind.
Irish Pennants is "just south of pleased."
Ezra Klein thinks that it could have gone worse.
Bull Moose (how not to like a blog with a bully name like that?) has the audacity to suggest that the President may in danger of committing statesmanship.
Liberty Files waxes vegetarian, praising the speech for its high content of serious policy and low content of red meat.
Rossputin thinks the President got it exactly right. He also notes that Ben Johnson hated it, while Dick Morris loved it.
More on that last in a moment.
Powerlineblog says that the President had his chance, and blew it.
Matthew Yglesias likes neither the President nor the concept of a guest worker program.
John Podhoretz at the National Review Online blog, The Corner, is wise enough to mourn the inability of so many on the Right to remember this President's yeoman service to The Cause on matters ranging from the encouragement of faith-based public service projects to opposition to fetal stem- cell research to the beginning of a renaissance of strict constructionism in the Federal judiciary to entitlement reform to historic tax cuts- all because of a handful of hot-button issues on which emotion gets the better of their common sense.
Hear, hear.
The Barking Moonbat Early Warning System warns us- are you listening, potential ship-jumpers?- that any immigration plan- any immigration plan at all- is going to have to get through a moonbat-infested Congress. Having to deal with reality is a bummer, isn't it?
Mark Kilmer is- as usual- rational, thoughtful, and pretty much right on target when he portrays the speech as a reasonable one unlikely to please unreasonable people of any stripe.
Now. Back. as promised, to Dick Morris.
Amid all the anti-Bush hysteria on the Right these past weeks, nobody has bothered to ask why the President might be reluctant to lower the boom on illegal immigrants. Morris understands. I doubt that the red meat crowd will- but then, that goes without saying.
A hallmark of George W. Bush's public career has been the building of bridges between the Hispanic community and the Republican Party- and, by extension, conservatism. This is not the stretch it seems; Hispanic culture is very family oriented and very traditional. Hispanics are also the fastest growing demographic group in the United States (and yes, I realize that illegal immigration is one reason).
Bush would like this growing body of voters to be conservative Republicans- and throughout his career, he has attracted Hispanic votes in unprecedented numbers. Hispanics are an important voting bloc in states like Florida, Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona... well, you get the picture. Mr. Bush amazed everyone by only losing the Latino vote to Al Gore by 30 percent in 2000. He only lost it to John Kerry by 10 percent in 2004.
Were he to go Tancredo on immigration- or, more to the point, were the Republican Party to do so- the progress that has been made in no small measure because of President Bush's personal efforts to bring Hispanic Americans into the Republican fold would be completely undone. The fastest- growing demographic group in America and the decisive factor in the fastest growing American region- the Southwest- would become predictably, solidly, and permanently Democratic, and both conservatives and Republicans would become a permanent minority.
There are political costs, to be sure, to be paid for not resorting to the measures the Michelle Malkins and the Tom Tancredos advocate. But in the long run, there would be a heavier political price to be paid for alienating a powerful, growing, and- until now, at least- increasingly Republican constituency.
Dick Morris understands that. But there's one more point that needs to be made here, and it has nothing to do with politics.
Whether you agree with it or not, the President's nuanced stance on immigration is an act of principle. He has taken it because he believes that either extreme- mass deportations on one hand, or amnesty on the other- would be wrong. He believes that the solution to the problem of illegal immigration will need to be a careful and rational one, and that fairness and practicality are every bit as important as decisiveness and emotional gratification.
We ordinarily consider people- and especially politicians- who take principled stands despite their unpopularity to be admirable. We may not always agree with them, but I think it would be hard to make the case that we don't need more of them.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Hugh Hewitt, on the other hand, started to like it, and then changed his mind.
Irish Pennants is "just south of pleased."
Ezra Klein thinks that it could have gone worse.
Bull Moose (how not to like a blog with a bully name like that?) has the audacity to suggest that the President may in danger of committing statesmanship.
Liberty Files waxes vegetarian, praising the speech for its high content of serious policy and low content of red meat.
Rossputin thinks the President got it exactly right. He also notes that Ben Johnson hated it, while Dick Morris loved it.
More on that last in a moment.
Powerlineblog says that the President had his chance, and blew it.
Matthew Yglesias likes neither the President nor the concept of a guest worker program.
John Podhoretz at the National Review Online blog, The Corner, is wise enough to mourn the inability of so many on the Right to remember this President's yeoman service to The Cause on matters ranging from the encouragement of faith-based public service projects to opposition to fetal stem- cell research to the beginning of a renaissance of strict constructionism in the Federal judiciary to entitlement reform to historic tax cuts- all because of a handful of hot-button issues on which emotion gets the better of their common sense.
Hear, hear.
The Barking Moonbat Early Warning System warns us- are you listening, potential ship-jumpers?- that any immigration plan- any immigration plan at all- is going to have to get through a moonbat-infested Congress. Having to deal with reality is a bummer, isn't it?
Mark Kilmer is- as usual- rational, thoughtful, and pretty much right on target when he portrays the speech as a reasonable one unlikely to please unreasonable people of any stripe.
Now. Back. as promised, to Dick Morris.
Amid all the anti-Bush hysteria on the Right these past weeks, nobody has bothered to ask why the President might be reluctant to lower the boom on illegal immigrants. Morris understands. I doubt that the red meat crowd will- but then, that goes without saying.
A hallmark of George W. Bush's public career has been the building of bridges between the Hispanic community and the Republican Party- and, by extension, conservatism. This is not the stretch it seems; Hispanic culture is very family oriented and very traditional. Hispanics are also the fastest growing demographic group in the United States (and yes, I realize that illegal immigration is one reason).
Bush would like this growing body of voters to be conservative Republicans- and throughout his career, he has attracted Hispanic votes in unprecedented numbers. Hispanics are an important voting bloc in states like Florida, Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona... well, you get the picture. Mr. Bush amazed everyone by only losing the Latino vote to Al Gore by 30 percent in 2000. He only lost it to John Kerry by 10 percent in 2004.
Were he to go Tancredo on immigration- or, more to the point, were the Republican Party to do so- the progress that has been made in no small measure because of President Bush's personal efforts to bring Hispanic Americans into the Republican fold would be completely undone. The fastest- growing demographic group in America and the decisive factor in the fastest growing American region- the Southwest- would become predictably, solidly, and permanently Democratic, and both conservatives and Republicans would become a permanent minority.
There are political costs, to be sure, to be paid for not resorting to the measures the Michelle Malkins and the Tom Tancredos advocate. But in the long run, there would be a heavier political price to be paid for alienating a powerful, growing, and- until now, at least- increasingly Republican constituency.
Dick Morris understands that. But there's one more point that needs to be made here, and it has nothing to do with politics.
Whether you agree with it or not, the President's nuanced stance on immigration is an act of principle. He has taken it because he believes that either extreme- mass deportations on one hand, or amnesty on the other- would be wrong. He believes that the solution to the problem of illegal immigration will need to be a careful and rational one, and that fairness and practicality are every bit as important as decisiveness and emotional gratification.
We ordinarily consider people- and especially politicians- who take principled stands despite their unpopularity to be admirable. We may not always agree with them, but I think it would be hard to make the case that we don't need more of them.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments
"We ordinarily consider people- and especially politicians- who take principled stands despite their unpopularity to be admirable."
No, let's modify that:
"We ordinarily consider people- and especially politicians- who take principled stands despite their unpopularity to be admirable when those stands are the same as our stands. Otherwise you're a squish or a fool or a corporate tool or a divider or a traitor or . . . "
Whether we acknowledge that any given politician at any given time is, indeed, acting on principle, most of us would agree that, in general, it's a good thing when they do.
And moving to the concrete, I'm suggesting that President Bush is. I do not doubt that many will prefer to disagree.