That was inevitable. But of course that genius Karl Rove could not foresee it.

Bush and Rove should have seen this coming. Actually, I wonder if they truly disagree with the Democrats’ proposal. There is every reason now to think that Bush, at least emotionally, agrees with letting illegal aliens become U.S. citizens.

What is striking, although not surprising, about the Democrats’ proposal is what is presented as desirable: that illegal aliens should become U.S. citizens as soon as possible; that they should be able to import all of their relatives (presumably to become citizens themselves in short order); and that even before citizenship they should partake of the full smorgasbord of American welfare programs - including in-state tuition at state universities. The idea that America is or should be the Americans’ country is utterly absent.

Even if this is merely an election year ploy to counter Bush’s amnesty plan, I hope it will make those thinking of voting Democratic to unseat Bush reconsider. Bush is an enemy, to be sure, but the Democratic Party remains the worst enemy. We need a third party challenge from the Right, focused on immigration. HRS

It’s like Bush’s No Child Left Behind bill; once the Dems got through with it, it was stripped of the provision that all the “conservatives” thought was the whole point, vouchers.

When you open yourself as far to the left as Bush has done with his immigration plan, while showing that you have no red lines that you will not cross and that your “safeguards” are only a transparent rhetorical ploy, then inevitably the left will take the idea even further to the left, and you will have nothing to say against that.

What an irony, that after Bush 41 showed himself to be this empty suit who sold out conservatism, he had a son who seemed to have all the qualities the father lacked, including some genuine conservatism. But the son is too much like the father. I said to a friend in 2000: “He’s a Bush, and Bushes will always sell you out.”

I think this may be helpful in the long run. Many open borders Democrats who were otherwise inclined to support the Bush plan will vote against it, because it does not go far enough, hence splitting the open borders vote.

Many analysists thought that the reason that Clinton’s socialist health plan failed in 93 was because lots of liberal democrats voted against it, insisting on a Canadian Style plan.

Excellent point, Mr. Epstein!

I’ve suggested voting Democratic defeat and to send a message to Bush and Rove. But I would insist that we should at the same time return Republican congressmen and Senators. The congressmen, at least those who are gerrymandered into Republican districts, are closer, I think, to their constituents and may be able to hold the fort while we await an immigration moderate (immigration restrictionist) to be nominated as president.

Mr. Hume is correct that we do indeed need to defeat GWB and keep at least the House Republican. I have some hope that Governor Owens of Colorado will be the GOP pick in 08, and will run as an immigration reformer. BTW, Owens has already started a Presidential pack for the 08 run !

All this talk of 3rd parties & tactical votes for the Democrat presidential suit neglects what should be an obvious top priority: UNSEAT GOP open border shills in the congress. Immigration reformers should nationally focus all their money and energy to ensure primary defeats for Bush’s key open borders allies within the GOP: Congressman Chris Cannon, Senator Orrin Hatch & Senator Chuck Hagel. Replace them with immigration reformers and this will send a message to the Bush/Rove GOP elite more unequivocal than anything else.

In 2000 we defeated Republican Senator Abraham, Saudi Arabia. So far not much good came out of it, there is no fear among Republican whores to vote for open borders. It has to be repeated a few times before message will sink in.

Mr Sutherland writes:
“Bush and Rove should have seen this coming.”

Of course they (at least Rove) did. They laid a pretty obvious trap for the Dems who did not fail to step into it. Now Bush can point to the Dems with a concrete prove that they are worse than him on open borders.

There are too many people already who argue that Bush is bad but a Dem in White House is worse. Dems just gave them the extra help.

I don’t buy this argument. Kerry or Edwards in WH with Repub Congress is MUCH more preferable than Senor Bush. Just compare Clinton doings about borders with Bush’s Immigration Manifesto. And Bush is doing it AFTER 9/11.

In economic area a Dem almost certainly will do better than Bush, Dems learned they lesson in economy while Repubs forgot the little the knew.

In security area a Dem will be worse than Senor Bush but probably not by much.

It comes down to this: the only way the GOP will oppose leftism is if it’s coming from Democrats. If it’s coming from Republicans, they’ll go along with it.

On national security, the Dems would be incalculably worse than Bush. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

True…Except that, the FBI and CIA were not “gutted” and restaffed with Republicans/conservatives in 2001 as we would have expected. And if current news stories are to be believed, our intel failed miserably during BOTH Clinton’s years and Bush’s first-right-up-til- now years—even though they had plenty of signs. Who’s to know if Intel is getting a bad rap? I used to see it as a Demo/Reub thing, but now I don’t think so. It’s bureaucratic idiocy and there’s a lot of cya-ing going on there. Right now, dirty tricks are being shown to be a Republican Senatorial job (Sen. Frist) and Sen. Shelby or some staffer of his is “a leak-ee”. I want great, reliable intel and I don’t care if it comes under a Demo President or a Republican President as long as it is reliable.

I agree with Mr. Levin that Bush cannot be criticized strongly enough for his leaving Tenet at the CIA and his choice of the cowardly and guilty-looking Mueller to head the FBI. Even if they were doing a good job now, which I don’t believe to be the case, the fact of Bush’s putting these men in office is deeply demoralizing and undermining of the war on terror.

Mr. Auster writes:
“On national security, the Dems would be incalculably worse than Bush. Let’s not pretend otherwise.”

We are talking about next Prez of the USA. I make an educated guess that Repubs are going to hold the Congress. So the issue is how bad Prez Kerry or Prez Edwards will be in security area compare to Bush?

Here are several quick points:

1. Bush basically continued most/all important Clinton policies in security area till 9/11.

2. Bush changed direction on 9/12. How would Gore have done on 9/12? There is a chance, admittedly small, that Gore, being a talentless political whore, would have been Bush-light after 9/11. Gore’s numero uno priority at that point would have been to get reelected. Under popular pressure and with Repub House pushing he MIGHT have become Bush-light.

3. It looks like only Kerry and Edwards have any chance in Dems primaries. Both are standard issue political whores, Kerry is of North-East kind, Edwards is of Southern, Clinton type. Whatever they instincts are, they are more than capable to do the popular thing and quite capable to cave under Congress pressure.

4. Bush is doing many things in the security area including undermaining borders. But he doesn’t do most important thing - he refuses to conduct a war of civilizations. As result so called ‘war on terror’ (terror is a tool, one cannot do war on a tool) will stretch out unneccesary. Either Kerry or Edwards will stretch ‘war on terror’ even farther. Unlike to be too big of a deal.

5. It is always possible that a Dem prez will surprise us. I was surprised by Bush’s determination in ‘war on terror’. Before 9/11 I thought Bush is a well-balanced uniformly mediocre prez.