Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Conservative Was Bush?
On his Facebook page, in the course of responding to an attack on Sarah Palin launched on Politico, Mark Levin has lodged charges against her detractors among those – such as Karl Rove, David Frum, and Peter Wehner – who served in the administration of George W. Bush. In this context, he argues,
Bush’s record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse. In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush’s profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs). And while Bush’s spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama’s, that is not the standard. Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices. I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner. (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)
On the Contentions blog maintained by Commentary, Peter Wehner has come to W.’s defense, suggesting that in a great many areas W. was as conservative, if not more conservative, than his revered predecessor Ronald Reagan. Wehner is intelligent and thoughtful. His posts are always worth reading, and he has a case to make in almost every sphere – apart from the one cited by Mark Levin: spending (where he concedes that the younger Bush fell short).
He leaves out one issue, however, that I think paramount: McCain-Feingold. Bush rightly considered the bill unconstitutional, and he made his opinion known. After all, the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” How could the language of the Constitution be made clearer?
In signing McCain-Feingold, George W. Bush betrayed his oath of office – which requires that he uphold and defend the Constitution. We are fortunate that, under the Obama administration, the Supreme Court has chipped away at that malicious piece of legislation. But Bush left us to the mercy of Justice Kennedy, and that is hard to forgive. The liberals want to shut down talk radio, where they have proven unable to compete. They want to subsidize newspapers, which for the most part they control; they want to regulate the internet to their advantage; and they want to regulate expenditures on advertising that might affect the outcome of elections.
Freedom of speech really is our first freedom. It is our chief protection against administrative tyranny. And in a world in which greater and greater power is concentrated in administrative agencies that operate behind closed doors and issue regulations that in manifold ways shape our lives, it is our only bulwark. On the day he signed McCain-Feingold, President Bush disgraced himself.
Why he gave way I have often wondered but do not know. There is only one possible motive that I can think of. I suspect that a deal was done with John McCain to ensure the latter’s enthusiastic support in the general election. If so, Bush’s action was all the more shameful – for, if there was such a deal, it was the very model of what once was termed “a corrupt bargain” – the sacrifice of high principle for personal gain. Were I to learn that I am dead wrong in this suspicion, that Bush had some less reprehensible motive, I would be very glad – for, in many ways, I admire the man. When, in the face of almost universal opposition, he pressed on with the “surge” in Iraq, he had a moment of greatness.
Published in General
What I mean by all other freedoms flowing from property rights is that recognizing private ownership sends waves through all other areas of freedom. Patents are ownership to our ideas, deeds ownership to our “castles.” When the government acknowledges that it is dealing with citizens that have a limited form of sovereignty in property ownership, it must also acknowledge that citizen’s stake in defending the interests of that property through free speech. Government must also acknowledge that, barring the violation of someone else’s freedoms, that citizen may worship as he or she chooses, particularly within the confines of private property. Only when someone else’s freedoms (and safety) are abridged may government then enter this sovereign area to intercede on the victim’s behalf.
Oversimplified? Sure, but I think the point is made. What interest would a government have in freedom of speech if it did not first recognize the individual empowerment of intellectual and physical property? In such a case, the government would have total control of all resources and an individual’s interests would be of no consequence.
Edited on Mar 18 at 09:36 am
First. Words have meaning. The word “immigration” alone means one thing. Illegal immigration means another entirely. Few are against “immigration” so who is being intellectually dishonest? I’m not torn on immigration. I’m all for it!
This not difficult. We, as a sovereign country, are allowed to protect our borders like any other country. The United States has value. Our constitution gives our government the power to protect our borders and the fact that our government has been derelict in this area doesn’t mean that US citizens must dilute their vote to accommodate millions of trespassers.
It is also conservative to believe in the existing culture without undue haste in transforming it to another simply because of economic problems in border countries.
Misleading is crafting legislation that is sure to lead to a certain result, and denying that result would happen merely because you avoid using a certain term. Then when rational people call you on it, say they are wrong because it technically isn’t “amnesty”. ·Mar 18 at 10:22am
My understanding of the legislation is that it was not and would not lead to amnesty (defined as “a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out.”). The act required payment of a fine prior to any legalization of status. By definition, if you are punished (fined) for your offense then your not being forgiven for it.
‘Amnesty’ is a loaded term that, in my opinion, misrepresented the legislation.
His conduct as CinC will make of him one of America’s three legendary war-strategist presidents: Washington, Lincoln, and Bush43.
Bush41 failed the Iraqis, Reagan failed our Marines and the Lebanese, too many to count failed the Vietnamese, Eisenhower and Truman failed the Koreans, Roosevelt was an ineffectual CinC—thanks to the heavens he had many stars in charge—and Wilson was in league with other nations hostile to our sovereignty.
War-strategist CinC makes him a steadfast patriot president—if that makes him a conservative, at least in that one endeavor, so be it.
Everything else, an unmitigated Leviathan interventionist disaster. His domestic policies should make him a hero of the leftists, but their hatred of his defense of American interests abroad using armed forces made them blind to his common cause with them.
Fitting for his administration’s end are his last words that will ring forever with infamy: “I have abandoned free market principles…”
But, the even worse infamy his domestic legacy will bear consists of his creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and its agency the TSA. Having taken over our airports, it will soon unionize.
Once its own union formed, TSA will strike.
Franco
‘Amnesty’ is a loaded term that, in my opinion, misrepresented the legislation. ·Mar 18 at 11:53a
It would be a wrist-slap in return for full legal status here. Still, the issue isn’t about “punishment” anyway, it is about fairness and encouraging others to come here illegally – at a time when the Federal Government is derelict in it’s enforcement duties. So, as I have said, technically it isn’t amnesty. And here’s the test:: Would those who would like to enter and work in the US pay this fine proactively in return for the privilege? I say there are tens of millions who would. Thus it is de facto amnesty. Call it what you like – it’s very bad policy.
It would be a wrist-slap in return for full legal status here. Still, the issue isn’t about “punishment” anyway, it is about fairness and encouraging others to come here illegally – at a time when the Federal Government is derelict in it’s enforcement duties. So, as I have said, technically it isn’t amnesty. And here’s the test:: Would those who would like to enter and work in the US pay this fine proactively in return for the privilege? I say there are tens of millions who would. Thus it is de facto amnesty. Call it what you like – it’s very bad policy. ·Mar 18 at 3:05pm
Whether it is good policy is debatable. As I said I do not have a firm position on the issue and see merit in the argument of both sides. My only point is that if it is not amnesty (and I do not believe it is de facto amnesty either), then honesty demands we not use the term to describe it.
Franco
First. Words have meaning. The word “immigration” alone means one thing. Illegal immigration means another entirely. Few are against “immigration” so who is being intellectually dishonest? I’m not torn on immigration. I’m all for it!
…
It is also a bit pointless to differentiate legal from illegal when the discussion is about legislating what should and should not be legally permissible. You are left arguing that it should be against the law because it is illegal.
Few are against “immigration” It is clear in my comment and even contained in the portion you selected to quote, so why start off your rebuttal with an exception, as though that has any relevance?
It remains true that whether this Kirkorian fellow is ant-immigration, he is representing the few, including conservatives.
Franco
It would be a wrist-slap in return for full legal status here. Still, the issue isn’t about “punishment” anyway, it is about fairness and encouraging others to come here illegally – at a time when the Federal Government is derelict in it’s enforcement duties. So, as I have said, technically it isn’t amnesty. And here’s the test:: Would those who would like to enter and work in the US pay this fine proactively in return for the privilege? I say there are tens of millions who would. Thus it is de facto amnesty. Call it what you like – it’s very bad policy. ·Mar 18 at 3:05pm
Everything is debatable, that doesn’t mean the argument has intrinsic merit. You can make a case for open borders?
Klaatu,
How is a wrist-slap not de facto amnesty? Pay a fine and you are in! If that was extended to everyone in the world, we’d be overrun. Actually it is beyond amnesty, because the exchange benefits the illegal. It would be like I steal a car and then get to keep it if I pay $10 a month for ten years. All this car theft happened and there’s no more prison space and so, oh well.
Do you think the Federal Government would do that with taxes? How would that be fair for law abiding taxpayers?
The issue is not a single family or person who wishes to make a better life here. I feel no animosity toward them. The issue is what kind of laws should we have to discourage certain behaviors.
We as citizens must hold our government accountable. This is perhaps the main reason I take issue with these schemes to paper-over real problems and derelictions of duty. The governmentcan enforce the borders! Mexico can do it. Other countries with fewer resources than ours do it as a matter of course.
Few are against “immigration” It is clear in my comment and even contained in the portion you selected to quote, so why start off your rebuttal with an exception, as though that has any relevance?
It remains true that whether this Kirkorian fellow is ant-immigration, he is representing the few, including conservatives. ·Mar 18 at 3:26pm
Mark Krikorian heads the Center for Immigration Studies, it is not as though his views are insignificant in the debate.
How is a wrist-slap not de facto amnesty? Pay a fine and you are in! If that was extended to everyone in the world, we’d be overrun. Actually it is beyond amnesty, because the exchange benefits the illegal. It would be like I steal a car and then get to keep it if I pay $10 a month for ten years. All this car theft happened and there’s no more prison space and so, oh well.
Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Overstaying a visa is a misdemeanor. How is a $2,000 fine a wrist-slap?
The issue is precisely the family that wants a better life for themselves. That is the overwhelming majority of the people we are talking about. What do you propose we do with these people? How do we benefit by their current status?
How would you propose we enforce the border?
Few are against “immigration” It is clear in my comment and even contained in the portion you selected to quote, so why start off your rebuttal with an exception, as though that has any relevance?
It remains true that whether this Kirkorian fellow is ant-immigration, he is representing the few, including conservatives. ·Mar 18 at 3:26pm
Go ahead..double down on faulty logic. I pointed out initially that few are against immigration, you cited ONE person no matter how high placed as a rebuttal. It doesn’t wash.
His view ARE insignificant because we are not debating legal immigration are we? His view are irellevant to the conversation and you introduced them in order to do what exactly? Confuse the debate? That’s what it starting to look like. You don’t seem to be arguing in good faith.
Franco: Klaatu,
How is a wrist-slap not de facto amnesty? Pay a fine and you are in! If that was extended to everyone in the world, we’d be overrun.
The issue is precisely the family that wants a better life for themselves. That is the overwhelming majority of the people we are talking about. What do you propose we do with these people? How do we benefit by their current status?
How would you propose we enforce the border? ·Mar 18 at 4:51pm
You don’t seem to be reading my responses. How does every other country in the world enforce their border? It isn’t an impossible task. Try crossing the border from the US to Mexico without papers and good luck getting and/ior staying in.
Again, if paying 2 thousand dollars is all that is required, how many folks who would like to come live here from all over the world would scrape that up, even if they are poor. Are you kidding me?.
Go ahead..double down on faulty logic. I pointed out initially that few are against immigration, you cited ONE person no matter how high placed as a rebuttal. It doesn’t wash.
His view ARE insignificant because we are not debating legal immigration are we? His view are irellevant to the conversation and you introduced them in order to do what exactly? Confuse the debate? That’s what it starting to look like. You don’t seem to be arguing in good faith. ·Mar 19 at 6:38am
Edited on Mar 19 at 06:41 am
We are discussing immigration law and immigration policy. That means we are trying to determine what should be and should not be legal. Part of that discussion is what to do with the people already in the country illegally and what the requirements for entry should be. The distinction between what is now legal and illegal is pointless as we are discussing where that line should be drawn.
The views of a leading advocate on one side of the debate are not irrelevant.
You don’t seem to be reading my responses. How does every other country in the world enforce their border? It isn’t an impossible task. Try crossing the border from the US to Mexico without papers and good luck getting and/ior staying in.
Again, if paying 2 thousand dollars is all that is required, how many folks who would like to come live here from all over the world would scrape that up, even if they are poor. Are you kidding me?. ·Mar 19 at 6:51am
What other country in the world faces the same challenges we do? An extremely long border, generally difficult terrain, and a immense demand for entry. Crossing the border into Mexico is as easy, if not easier than crossing from Mexico to the US. Do you believe there is a one way valve on the border?
What should be the penalty for overstaying a visa? For crossing the border illegally? How do we benefit from the status quo? What can and should be done to alter the status quo and to what end?
What are the solutions you propose?
The views of a leading advocate on one side of the debate are not irrelevant.
Yes they are because we aren’t talking about LEGAL immigration.
We are talking about illegal immigration.
Just because there is a debate doesn’t mean the laws don’t exist.
Let me slow down for you. There is a difference between legal and illegal drugs. There is a debate about legalizing some drugs currently illegal. So does this mean the existing laws are not relevant? Further there are people who would like to outlaw or further control existing legal drugs. Does this mean their opinions are relevant to the debate about making drugs like marijuana legal?
I propose enforcing existing laws until such time as blanket solutions are viable.
First. Words have meaning. The word “immigration” alone means one thing. Illegal immigration means another entirely. Few are against “immigration” so who is being intellectually dishonest? I’m not torn on immigration. I’m all for it!
…
First I would mention that there are those such as Mark Kirkorian who are not simply anti-illegal immigration but anti-immigration.
It is also a bit pointless to differentiate legal from illegal when the discussion is about legislating what should and should not be legally permissible. You are left arguing that it should be against the law because it is illegal.
I do not deny that we are sovereign nation entitled to defend our borders. In fact, it is a national security imperative that we do so. I also know that there are and always will be a limited amount of resources available to accomplish the job. I would rather see if we can devise a system in which those resources are focused on preventing violent criminals, terrorists, and drugs from entering rather than being concerned with someone who simply wants to make a better life for himself and his family.
Yes they are because we aren’t talking about LEGAL immigration.
We are talking about illegal immigration.
Just because there is a debate doesn’t mean the laws don’t exist.
Let me slow down for you. There is a difference between legal and illegal drugs. There is a debate about legalizing some drugs currently illegal. So does this mean the existing laws are not relevant? Further there are people who would like to outlaw or further control existing legal drugs. Does this mean their opinions are relevant to the debate about making drugs like marijuana legal?
I propose enforcing existing laws until such time as blanket solutions are viable. ·Mar 19 at 11:02am
The existing laws are clearly not enforceable given the current resources available or those likely to become available.
I’m sorry but I completely reject your continued assertion that the distinction between what is now legal and illegal is relevant to this discussion. The entire point of this debate is where that line should be drawn.
We learned from Reagan’s amnesty that it doesn’t solve the problem, and actually created bigger problems. We tried it – it didn’t work. It is conservative to learn from past mistakes.
Second, at the time America could afford to try an amnesty plan as there were only 2 million illegals (not 20 million) here at that time. · Mar 18 at 8:46am
Third, from the Mark Levin Fan blog archive:
As then-Attorney General Edwin Meese wrote in 2006, in part: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399:
“President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.”
cont…
“He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
“If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was.”
However, as Meese also wrote: “The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens. So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.”
Franco:
I propose enforcing existing laws until such time as blanket solutions are viable. ·Mar 19 at 11:02am
I’m sorry but I completely reject your continued assertion that the distinction between what is now legal and illegal is relevant to this discussion. The entire point of this debate is where that line should be drawn. ·Mar 19 at 2:20pm
The same could be said of drug laws and drug policy. personally I am for a relaxation of punishment, maybe even an amnesty -that is pay a fine and be released from jail for some drug offenders. But that doesn’t change the argument.
Tell me, if immigration laws are so unenforceable 1 How does every other nation manage to do this from Mexico (they deport illegals) to Germany, China, Brazil ….
2. Once you put in play the paying of the fine scheme or de facto AMNESTY , our borders remain open and unenforceableaccording to you . 3. How do they collect the fines from the illegals is that enforceable?
I’m sorry but I completely reject your continued assertion that the distinction between what is now legal and illegal is relevant to this discussion. The entire point of this debate is where that line should be drawn.
You completely reject…OK I see, you are the arbiter in this debate. I didn’t realize I was arguing with a referee. Excuse me. I’ll respond to you when you start making sense and making valid arguments.
The same could be said of drug laws and drug policy. personally I am for a relaxation of punishment, maybe even an amnesty -that is pay a fine and be released from jail for some drug offenders. But that doesn’t change the argument.
Tell me, if immigration laws are so unenforceable 1 How does every other nation manage to do this from Mexico (they deport illegals) to Germany, China, Brazil ….
2. Once you put in play the paying of the fine scheme or de facto AMNESTY , our borders remain open and unenforceableaccording to you . 3. How do they collect the fines from the illegals is that enforceable? · Mar 19 at 3:47pm
Of course that would change the argument. The questions would become how much of a fine, which types of offenders, and which types of drugs. Right now you are not making any distinction between the man who wants to make a better life for his family and the man who is bringing drugs into the country. They are both illegal immigrants, period, end of discussion.
What makes you think Germany and Brazil do not have an illegal immigration problem?
2. Once you put in play the paying of the fine scheme or de facto AMNESTY , our borders remain open and unenforceableaccording to you . 3. How do they collect the fines from the illegals is that enforceable? · Mar 19 at 3:47pm
2. The entire concept of the bill was a comprehensive approach to the problem. Deal with those already in the country by legalizing their status after the payment of a fine. Create a guest worker program to reduce the strain on Border Patrol resources so those resources can be focused against those who wish to do us harm.
3. The fine is collected from those in the country who wish to regularize their status.
You completely reject…OK I see, you are the arbiter in this debate. I didn’t realize I was arguing with a referee. Excuse me. I’ll respond to you when you start making sense and making valid arguments. ·Mar 19 at 3:51pm
Yes, I reject the premise of your argument that something should be against the law because it is illegal. That is a circular argument.