The AP reports:
President George W. Bush told a group of Texas reporters Friday that he regretted immigration policies were not reformed while he was in office.
"I'm very disappointed that it didn't pass," he said in an interview with correspondents from his home state. "I'm very worried about the message that said, 'Republicans are anti-immigrant.'"
Bush said he wanted a comprehensive immigration plan "not for political standing or for Latinos, but because it was best for the country," the Houston Chronicle reported in its online edition Friday.
The outgoing president said that in hindsight he should have pushed his immigration proposal soon after the 2004 election, rather than after partisan squabbling over Social Security began.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
23 comments:
Notice he didn't say he regretted the 600 billion spent on Iraq where there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, the Wall Street loss of 4000 points on the DOW, the mortgage mess, the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, there being no real wall (security) on our southern border, the loss of civil liberties entailed from the War on Terror, the stronger Iran which his dunderheaded policies helped create, the new Democratic Majority in the House and Senate and the Democratic occupant in the White House, the record-high defecits, the loss of trust in Wall Street, the lack of savings the average American has, and I could go on and on............
Bush was no conservative and the fact that he got to run as such says much about the media filters on the right. Its amazing NRO and the Weekly SLandard sold this guy as a conservative. He is not and was not. Damage is done. m
I understand that President Bush is incapable of abstract thought, but if he were he might notice this odd contradiction: he constantly speaks about his support for democracy, but when American public opinion is opposed to his policies he simply asserts that he's right and the people are wrong. In fact, he takes pride in telling us he doesn't govern by polls or worry about his popularity. So how is he different than any other leader who thinks he knows what's best for everyone?
I've long held that Bush was more stupid/incompetent/clueless than evil/looking-out-for-his-own, etc and this pushes my view of him even further in that direction.
When Bush was pushing this sort of nonsense during his administration it was possible to consider that, being a member of the plutocracy, he simply wanted what was best for his class - the rich - which was cheaper goods, cheaper services and cheaper labor but the fact that he's speaking of this wistfully as he's leaving office leads me to believe that his primary devotion to immigration "reform" is the same as that of the media elite, he wants to do something "good" for people and seeing how he has no way whatsoever of encountering any of the multitude of negative repercussions of a hundred million more incoming immigrants, he views this incoming as a pure moral good.
It seems me more likely that Bush is a clueless stooge of the plutocracy than that he's a decision maker or policy setter from (and for) that class.
Which is probably a good thing. Better a stupid leader with bad policies than an intelligent one (excepting of course when it comes to waging war and "minutia" like that).
mnuez
In some ways, I'm finding myself grateful for Bush, McCain and their ilk in the Republican Party with the miserable state that they've left the party in. I hope the Republican Party dies.
From the 1992 convention and Buchanan's speech to McCain's putting any mention of Rev. Wright off-limits, the GOP establishment has done everything it can to quash anything that even smelled of genuinely interesting politics and set itself up as a pseudo-conservative and pseudo-patriotic sham opposition. The game was simple: play the evangelicals with the false hope that Roe might someday be overturned, play the neocons and flag-waving yahoos with wars, play the country-club and Wall Street sets with cheap labor. Bush tried to add playing the minorities with cheap mortgages. Rinse, lather, repeat. This game wasted a lot of unfocused but very real energy that had been building up during the Clinton years.
The problem was that keeping the hoi-polloi off the convention podium meant keeping a shallow and insular bench of talent. It meant either toothless septugenarian Senators who would have been right at home in a Politburo (Dole, McCain) or the feeble-minded princeling of the last Republican President (Bush).
The princeling couldn't keep the game running, and so it has hopefully ended. Granted, the condition he's left our country in is a miserable one, and the band of wild leftists we've inherited will be a problem for some time to come, but we should be grateful that the Republican "loyal opposition" has taken a grievous, and hopefully fatal, blow. The GOP collapse, the desperate state of the economy, eventual overreach by the Democrats, the Madoff scandal and current Mid-East war possibly weakening and distracting a troubling and powerful ethnic-based lobbying and cultural regime, these all may indicate fertile ground for a genuine opposition to grow...
"The game was simple: play the evangelicals with the false hope that Roe might someday be overturned, play the neocons and flag-waving yahoos with wars, play the country-club and Wall Street sets with cheap labor."
Uhhh... The neocons and and the country club people got most of what they wanted. They weren't exactly being played.
Kind of an unbelievable douchebag, really.
He and McSame won't be missed.
"Uhhh... The neocons and and the country club people got most of what they wanted. They weren't exactly being played."
Naah, necons were looking for an Iran bombing and Pakistan nuking down the road. Maybe after that a direct military occupation of Saudi Arabia.
Afghanistan was basically accpetable in that the bad guys had to be smoked out. Most Europeans did not really oppose Afghanistan.
They just got started with Iraq and now the party is over. I'm sure serious Neocons are not happy right now.
And in honor of Bush's free parting advice to the GOP that he helped to obliterate, I give you the late, great Allan Sherman.
Uhhh... The neocons and and the country club people got most of what they wanted. They weren't exactly being played.
Exactly, and Obama and his ilk have realized just how cheap and easy the rest of the GOP base is to buy off. That's why he's having a special inaugural ball for the military and why he's having Rick Warren give the inaugural prayer.
Bush is a complete moron. He may have fought for open borders, but every Asian friend of mine hates the guy anyway. Most of them don't even know or care who Jason Chaffetz, Tom Tancredo and Jeff Sessions are. Much of the GOP still in power is right there with Bush, including my multiculti Governor Jonnie Huntsman, Jr, who said, after his candidate Johnny McAmnesty lost the elction, that "one reason national Republicans took a beating in the 2008 elections is because they lost the Hispanic vote by 2-to-1 to Democratic candidates, and the 'critical' tone of Republicans on immigration was a big factor in those numbers."
Republicans are still led by imbeciles.
Great post and great comments. I'd only add that one of the consequences is that Bush will be portrayed as a huge free market, anti-government guy by the Left and the MSM the same way that Hoover is.
"Anonymous said...
Its amazing NRO and the Weekly SLandard sold this guy as a conservative. He is not and was not. Damage is done."
That's because NR and the WS are themselves NOT conservative publications. We should stop thinking of them as such.
"Anonymous said...
I hope the Republican Party dies."
Seconded. Except perhaps for a fifty year period (1910 - 1960), the Republican party has existed only to exploit conservatives for the purpose of serving the interests of plutocrats.
"From the 1992 convention and Buchanan's speech to McCain's putting any mention of Rev. Wright off-limits, the GOP establishment has done everything it can to quash anything that even smelled of genuinely interesting politics..."
Not sure what you mean by invoking Buchannan - his speech at the 92' convention was the last truly conservative speech ever given at a republican convention. It's just a shame that it was done for the benefit of one of the execrable Bush family.
Little George should just go away. We don't care what you think, what you feel, or what you regret. You've done your damage. Just go away George, and never come back.
"Uhhh... The neocons and and the country club people got most of what they wanted. They weren't exactly being played."
The point was to play them, not to give them everything they wanted. You hold unstable and unnatural political coalitions like the Republican party together by keeping the factions on the hook, not by giving them everything they want. They leave once they either get what they want or realize that they're not going to.
Being a "national security Republican" was a lot more relevant when we still had money or an army to spare to fight more wars. That's why the neocon wet-dream of an Iran war never got off the ground. Uncontrolled illegal immigration could have gone on for the next 50 years pretty much as it had except that Shrub was foolish enough to try to legitimize the process with amnesty as an even bigger giveaway to business and to get the "The Race" lobbies in on the scheme.
Bush has also stated that he knew, or at least was told, that if he had withdrawn from Iraq, the Republican party might not have been devastated at the polls the last two elections (with more to come it appears). But Bush refused to “bail-out” the Republican party with a withdrawal, about the only bail-out he refused.
Of course, Bush cared more about sticking it out for his own future reputation and for fear of those he would be “crossing” if he did withdraw, at the same time those he feared were already dumping on him for “mishandling” the Iraq “cake-walk.”
If that guy could have had two more terms, we'd end up looking like f--king Zimbabwe.
A Republican president who had deliberately set out to destroy the GOP's reputation could not have done a better job of it than Bush did accidentally. Which makes me wonder...
Anonymous said...
Jonnie Huntsman, Jr, who said, after his candidate Johnny McAmnesty lost the elction, that "one reason national Republicans took a beating in the 2008 elections is because they lost the Hispanic vote by 2-to-1 to Democratic candidates, and the 'critical' tone of Republicans on immigration was a big factor in those numbers."
Republicans are still led by imbeciles."
Yeah, that's a howler. He may as well have added that the Republicans lost the black vote 10-1 or the liberal vote 10-1. Perhaps he thinks the GOP should have nominated Jesse Jackson or Michael Moor. The GOP has sometimes been called the stupid party. Now that label just doesn't seem strong enough.
The NR just put out a whole issue that is an apologia for Bush.
The NR just put out a whole issue that is an apologia for Bush.
If they're smart they'll issue an entire issue that's a rebuttal. It would have to be one of those extra thick special editions, though, and shipped in a box instead of the normal plastic wrap.
"weren't any weapons of mass destruction"
I'm cool with Saddam being dead. Aren't you?
"Neocons" means nothing.
What else is wrong with these comments...oh, Bush is stupid? If only some blogger would write an article about the evidence that he's not stupid at all!
As bad as Bush has been, BDS scares me more.
Look what's going on in the GOP in Bush's new home:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/photoGallery/?gallery=1168920
The local party is ripe for a takeover, but where am I going to find the time?
ben tillman wrote:
Saddam is dead, but so are several thousand Americans and many times that number of Iraqis. Moreover, the government financed its evil escapade (in part) by stealing $35,000 from my wife and me.
And you support all this. You're worse than Saddam.
Well said.
Evil fascist" my ass. Stand up guy (for an Arab).
They don't make guys like that much anymore. A real hard case and a "hands-on" type of leader, though not in a good way. He was no pussy either. I read a story some time back that duing the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam was visting the front lines with his security detail when the Iranians suddenly attacked(they had no idea Saddam was there, it was just a general attack on Iraqi positions). Apparently, the Irqais got overrun and Saddam was got separated from his people. He was a cool cat and waited it out until the counterattack. I especially liked his exchange with his executioners. He will be missed!
Stand up guy (for an Arab).
Heh, great line.
"I'm very worried about the message that said, 'Republicans are anti-immigrant.'"
Does he have any idea how those on the right are light years beyond being worried about the message he embodied that said (and continues to say), "Republicans are too 'anti'-competent to control the world's most powerful military, biggest governmental budget, guide the world's largest economy, etc"?!
""Evil fascist" my ass. Stand up guy (for an Arab).
They don't make guys like that much anymore. "
Saddam and his sons were wimps. He liked doling out to others but when it hit him he was recalcitrant. He even cursed his henchmen instead of taking it in quiet. Saddam was a very brutal person who harmed many of his own people. His punishment was singularly the most important aspect of the Iraq war. As far as I am concerned the US could have gotten out of the place on midnight after they took care of him and saved themselves a lot of trouble. The big mistake of the war was trying to "democratize" Iraq. That was an ideologically driven no-brainer.
Post a Comment