March 13, 2007

He has officially lost me

Bush in Mexico:

President Bush, working to rebuild strained U.S.-Mexico relations, promised Tuesday he would do his best to get a deeply divided U.S. Congress to change American immigration policies that are hated south of the border.

"My pledge to you and your government, but more important to the people of Mexico, is I'll work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform," Bush said during a sun-splashed arrival ceremony that opened two days of meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in this Yucatan Peninsula tourist haven.

Dude. Your first, and only, priority is to the American people. How and why are you making pledges to citizens of other countries to make our government work on their behalf? Who are you? And how come we never got the mad rightwinger in you that we were promised?

UPDATE: It's not only Mexicans that are getting promises from our president.

Posted by Karol at March 13, 2007 03:11 PM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:

Does your final paragraph refer to Israel and Iraq as well? Not meaning a soundbite, but really?

Posted by: Jody at March 13, 2007 03:21 PM

The security of Iraq and of Israel should be priorities for the American people. Their stability means less war in the Middle East and more peace for us. I don't see how letting more Mexicans into the US is beneficial to the American people.

Posted by: Karol at March 13, 2007 03:23 PM

i DOES help me stand in longer lines at bank of america, if this afternoon is any indication.

Posted by: brent j. at March 13, 2007 03:25 PM

Jody, the welfare of Iraq and Israel needs to be an American priority, therefore Bush's priority. Mexico, is not an American priority, its an American hemroid.

Posted by: Brennan at March 13, 2007 03:43 PM

Bush the traitor..this country is doomed. He and all of his croonies are giving our country over to the "rats". They sneak in, multiply, spread vermon and filth and ruin everything. They you can't get rid of the bastards.

Way to go Bush.

Posted by: Terri at March 13, 2007 04:29 PM

How about you put a cap on the racism, what say? After all, what's to say your people are improving the place?

Posted by: Ken at March 13, 2007 04:40 PM

K. Wow! Does this mean you'll help me spiritually cleanse (an otherwise dirty) NY Street of Bush's bad energy next time he comes to town?

I should disclaim, however, that we in New York likely have a different ritual on spiritual cleansing than the Mayans have. I believe ours involves peeing on a street, a can of spray paint and a fast food wrapper.

Posted by: Toby at March 13, 2007 04:51 PM

"Bush the traitor..this country is doomed. He and all of his croonies are giving our country over to the "rats". They sneak in, multiply, spread vermon and filth and ruin everything. They you can't get rid of the bastards."

You mean like Karol?

She's an immigrant, you know.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at March 13, 2007 04:52 PM

The security of Iraq and of Israel should be priorities for the American people.

Can you give us a more rational basis for this than Karol said so? Please include why Israel is lumped in with Iraq.

Posted by: David at March 13, 2007 05:02 PM

For the record, I do not share Terri's views on Mexicans and I do approve of legal, controlled immigration. I am thankful to be an immigrant to this country, extremely thankful.

But Bush's ideas for immigration "reform" will only encourage illegal immigration of which I do not approve. Furthermore, I don't care about what ANY country thinks of our policies, immigration or otherwise. For Bush to pledge something to citizens of another country, potentially at the expense of his own citizens, is unacceptable.

Having said all that, no matter what I think of Bush my problems with him always come down to 'he is not conservative enough' and I harbor no illusions that a president Kerry would've been more conservative than him. Dealing with the reality of our political process means choosing Bush in '04 and I would do nothing differently in my support for him.

David, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East and its security is paramount to the US maintaining some level of control over the insane regimes of that region. It isn't very complicated.

Posted by: Karol at March 13, 2007 05:20 PM

Ok Dems, time to start the impeachment hearings...

I don't think you'll find much opposition to it anymore.

Posted by: UberPazooski at March 13, 2007 05:59 PM


Israel is a priority for obvious reasons, mainly its our ally. Its also one of the only democracies in the middle east. They are a strategic and military ally for us.

As far as Iraq is concerned, we leave there, the terrorists have a new staging ground. Against who? Ourselves and Israel. A major threat to the national security of both nations.

A threat to Israel (see first paragraph) is a threat to the US, and a failure in Iraq, is a threat to the US.

Hence the fact that Israel and Iraq need to be US priorities.

Any questions?

Posted by: Brennan at March 13, 2007 06:58 PM

I think Bush is under some kind of witch-craft spell casted by the pelosi-kennedy crowd, no doubt. as a legal immigrant to this great nation lam disturbed by Bush's stance, Mr President you are selling us out!! terri l agree....

Posted by: juana at March 13, 2007 07:57 PM

This is the problem with hereditary politics.

You get a ruling class that's completely alienated from the interests of the subservient public.

This country is starting to look more and more like 19th century Russia, or France after the Bourbon restoration.

Tell me again why-in an economy that demands ever more education with each year that elapses-our political class is demanding that we import and/or legalize millions of impoverished, semi-literate or illiterate and uneducated workers from south of the border...?

Posted by: Gerard at March 13, 2007 08:21 PM

If we're lucky, maybe President Bush will lie to the Mexicans the same way he lied to us.

Posted by: Ds at March 13, 2007 09:36 PM

I doubt it.

Just remember these two words, "Viva Che," and you'll be fine.

Throw in Trotsky just to be safe.

Posted by: Gerard at March 13, 2007 10:50 PM

Bush's loyalty is to corporations.

The only reason he is looking at immigration reform is to pander to corporations because they love the cheap labour, cheap labour that de-value's the worth of working Americans.

Posted by: Toowoozy at March 14, 2007 02:30 AM

Worst president ever....

Presidents make pledges to other countries all the time. It's diplomacy and foreign policy. Making pledges is no big deal.
If you disagree with the pledge that is different but just getting mad because presidents shouldn't be making pledges to foreigners is not realistic.

Posted by: PAUL at March 14, 2007 03:38 AM

Worst president ever....

Nope, not even the worst of my lifetime. Carter wins hands down, all day, every time.

Posted by: Karol at March 14, 2007 04:01 AM

Oil is a strategic concern. I guess that's why our military has pretty much been based out of Saudi Arabia, pre-revolutionary Iran and proto-Saddam Iraq. None of these were democratic, so I'm missing the Middle East democracy (and for that matter, strategic) connection, as the impetus. Each western society that gets involved in the middle east gets a terrorism problem (see Menachim Begin). The comments regarding Mexicans were truly enlightening. I see clearly where the commenters are coming from. Being an engineer and very much in the construction arena, my experience does not put them in the lowest rung or "hemorrhoid" category because they are quite skilled and get paid very well. This is NC however and not a border state.
If I were Jewish I would be very interested in the fate of Israel, perfectly understandable, but since I'm not it has to be put in real terms of day to day benefit. I'm a libertarian, so that's how it works. I would not expect an outside nation to participate in countering an invasion of NC (by whom? Bermuda? Or from Gerard's view I suppose Mexico) and I don't think Israel as an "only true ally" would give a rat's ass. Strategically, we have assisted the Russians in arming the middle east well enough to outstrip Israel's capabilities as a strategic partner unless we go nuclear. Iraq was and is a complete fiasco with expenditures and lives far outstripping the sacrifices required for our "hemmorhoid" neighbors to the south.

Posted by: Jody at March 14, 2007 07:39 AM

Ah, Gerard, the neocons will love you for naming I.Kritsol's hero Comrade Trotsky....

Well, I'm glad Karol has finally done what so many of us on the right have, namely turning her back on a president who has turned his back on real American conservatism way too many times over the years.

Not the worst president but probably in the bottom dozen, not as bad as Carter(Karol's right, easily the worst in my life time though I don't think he is the worst of all time, that's still Ten Cent Jimmy Buchanan) and Bush's fellow big government types that put American interests behind other nation's interest (namely LBJ and Woodrow Wilson).

As for Iraq and Israel, while important to Americans, in no case should the interests of those nations trump our own.

Posted by: Von Bek at March 14, 2007 09:59 AM

David, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East and its security is paramount to the US maintaining some level of control over the insane regimes of that region. It isn't very complicated.

I would argue that Israel and the US have a relationship of convenience, based on the fact that they want to buy (acquire is probably a better word. This is still an issue) our stuff that goes boom and we want to sell them our stuff that goes boom. If we stopped supplying, they would stop dealing with us, and start dealing with the Russians (maybe having the Russians build on spec from the plans they have 'acquired').

As far as exercising control over sovereign nations, I'm not sure that I am a big fan of that. Can you come up with a successful foreign policy doctrine that includes something like 'sit on the stoop and be menacing'. Mutually Assured Destruction made people crazy for thirty years, I'd guess that Be Assured of Your Destruction Abdul, isn't going to ease the fears about US hegemony and imperialism. So I would contest the position, Their stability means less war in the Middle East. I'm not a policy expert, and I'd be interested to hear a learned voice on this.

They are a strategic and military ally for us.

A beachhead in Israel gives us access to a military assault on the Sinai, Jordan, and Syria. Since we have good relations with Egypt and Jordan, they are not really big concerns militarily. An assault on Syria could be made directly from the coast or via Turkey, but moreover, Syria could be neutralized militarily with airpower. They are weak.

Israel is strategically important only in that its existence or nonexistence has high value to our opponents.

I hope that you don't view this as me being anti-Semitic. I have a similar ambivalence about Taiwan (actually I'm pretty much completely anti-defense-of-Taiwan for reasons I don't really want to go into in public, but will discuss if you email me).

As far as Mexicans and Guatemalans and all sorts of people who might come to the US via central American (ahem, Abdul cough). GW's speeches are counter to the current Strategic Plan of the Border Patrol.

Posted by: David at March 14, 2007 12:21 PM

Worst president ever....

Nope, not even the worst of my lifetime. Carter wins hands down, all day, every time.

Oh, no. It's Carter. Definitely Carter. I'm not a Clinton apologist either. I just don't think doing nothing and taking credit for anything good is worse than actively ruining the country.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at March 14, 2007 02:33 PM

Keep in mind, those Mexicans can vote for Bush for President in 2008 just as much as any of you can.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 14, 2007 03:12 PM

Not from my point of view, simply as an objective fact.

In case you haven't noticed-which based upon your comments you probably haven't-those Mexicans, and Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Costa Ricans-wading across the Rio Grande aren't carrying copies of Atlas Shrugged or The Road To Serfdom in their ruck sacks.

Posted by: Gerard at March 14, 2007 07:44 PM

No, no. Worst president ever is Buchanan. Look at the record. Influencing Dred Scott (and basically revealing this in his inagural), Lecompton and the various battles to set up a government against the majority of people in Kansas, the breakup of the Democractic Party, the worst use of patronage ever, a botched war against the Mormons, a botched naval expedition in the southern part of South America, the most ineffective and corrupt Cabinet in American history at that point in time due to the senility of Lewis Cass and the incompetence of Howell Cobb and the treachery of John Floyd (who was sending federal weapons down South), federal contracts given to cronies, the threat of a war with England over a few islands in the Pacific Northwest (all thanks to General Scott for clearing that up) and, oh yes, the breakup of the United States and executive dithering trying to play both sides. Carter was bad but Buchanan was the worse.

Posted by: Von Bek at March 15, 2007 08:01 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?