You had your chance.

     Last week we were treated to a steady stream of people telling us not to attack Senator Kyl. Such voices of civility as Nathan Sproul, Gordon James, Lisa James, Trent Franks, and Judi White said we could criticize the senate immigration bill but that people should not attack the people supporting the bill.

     Will these same voices of civility be writing letters to the editor and sending out e-mails telling the president that he may defend the bill but he should not attack critics of the senate bill? (Wasn’t that Bill Clinton’s favorite technique; don’t dispute the facts just attach your critics.)

     The most amazing part of Bush’s speech is “Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don’t try to kill this bill before it gets moving,”

     Mr. President you have had the past 6 years to enforce existing law and secure the border and you have, by Senator Kyl’s own admission, failed to do that.

     You may defend this bill but please do not attack your follow citizens.


Comments

  1. I liked where the President said that passage of the bill would make it “more likely” that the border would be secured.

    He’s not even pretending that the border will be secure. It will just be more likely… Like the odds will do from 0% to 2% so we should all give it a chance to work?

  2. AZGOPgal says

    It saddens me to see Republicans jumping on the Bush-hating band-wagon. Now that he’s on his way out, everyone feels comfortable abandoning ship?

    It is one thing to be critical, it is quite another to be unreasonable. Something we need to understand is that we could very well lose the Presidency in ’08. We have already lost the House and the Senate, why not try to do the absolute best that we can while we still have something going in our favor.

    Sometimes concessions have to be made – whether we like it or not.

  3. Oro Valley Dad says

    AZGOPgal,

    “It saddens me to see” the president attacking his critics instead of defending the bill.

    If this bill gets signed into law “we could well lose the Presidency in ’08” thanks to George Bush.

  4. AZGOPgal is ignoring the facts if she thinks that rallying to George Bush and getting closer to him is going to get a Republican elected to the White House in 2008. Only once since FDR has a party held the White House for three consecutive elections and that was when Reagan was popular enough to get Bush 41 elected.

    Republicans are going to have to run as agents of change to win in 2008. As in change from George Bush.

    It just so happens that, perhaps in his genius way, Bush 43 is making that so easy for us.

  5. Sadder but wiser says

    As someone who twice voted for Bush and encouraged others to do the same, I am horrified that he would lambaste those of us who believe in securing our borders and protecting our future.

    Yes, he is responsible for two (hopefully fine) Supreme Court Justices–although we nearly got his unqualified chum, Harriet Miers. He condoned out-of-control spending and dropped the ball on necessary social security reform. I am more than disappointed for numerous reasons. But, to chastise Americans for demanding the imposition of national security in these times of great global uncertainly is both irresponsible and patently foolish on his part.

    In a country the size of the United States, why are we given such abysmal choices when it comes to electing a President? When I read his comments today in which he reproached American citizens for desiring an end to the invasion of our nation, I was disgusted.

Leave a Reply