By now, everyone has seen Jeb Bush utter those fateful words about illegal immigrants committing an act of love. I think Bush is correct. I also believe he was correct in stating that 40% of our illegal immigrant problem is because of folks over-staying their visas. He is correct that our government should know about this as it is happening and that the problem should be dealt with then.
Bush, however, has not even decided if he is going to run for president. Most talking heads felt he was dip-sticking. From the Christian Scientist Monitor:
However, for all his studied indecision as to whether he’ll throw his heritage in the ring and try for a Bush three-peat, Bush did do something which could well reverberate throughout the GOP primary season. He repeated that he’s a strong defender of the nationalized Common Core education standards, and that he supports immigration reform over the objections of the conservative wing of the party.
“We need to elect candidates that have a vision that is bigger and broader, and candidates that are organized around winning the election, not making a point,” said Bush to a Fox News interviewer on stage at his dad’s presidential library. “Campaigns ought to be about listening and learning and getting better. I do think we’ve lost our way.”
What Bush is doing here is preemptively discussing his weaknesses within the GOP, write Chuck Todd and the rest of the NBC “First Read” gang this morning.
Both issues are so controversial among Republicans that, if he runs, some of his competitors will surely try to use his stances against him.
“These issues could be two Achilles’ heels for him in a competitive Republican primary, in part because they are such raw, emotional issues,” write Mr. Todd and his compatriots.
In particular, immigration reform has already tied the party’s elected members in knots, as conservatives who oppose any sort of “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants fight with establishment Republicans who believe that the GOP must deal with the reality of the problem and the growing importance of the Hispanic vote.
Republicans have to decide if they want to find a sensible solution for immigration or if they want to keep losing elections at the national level. What do our contributors think? I know a few who are going to blow up…both directions.
Clinton was very different … always scattered, always sounded like a defensive kid. He could have used some of Reagan’s forcefulness.
But in terms of actual governance, Clinton made America stronger. And Reagan did some things (Cold War) well, and others (national debt) terribly.
Clinton was actually the first baby boomer or post war president. I think that spoke volumes. I always liked his speeches. To me that makes him the first modern president. To me, everyone else was a parent. Clinton was actually one of us. JFK was sort of a neat younger uncle at the time but looking back, he, too, was a parent.
I worked in the Reagan Administration and, on occasion, spent time in a room with Dutch. On one such occasion in the East Room I watched him give an extremely engaging presentation on a fairly complicated piece of legislation that he was signing. One of his cabinet officials preceded him, knew the bill inside out, and was not nearly as compelling as the President. It dawned on me at the moment that the reason that Reagan was so much more engaging and animated on the subject (about which he knew far less) was his actor skills. He had quickly memorized his lines, knew them thoroughly, made contact with each of us and really “sold” his message. This was in early 1984. I realized then that the Dems didn’t have a chance in November unless they ran Henry Fonda or someone with as good an acting background as Mr. Reagan. Flash forward now to Bill Clinton’s first State of the Union Address.
I really did not like the Clintons. I thought they were a pair of snake oil salesmen. I still think that to a large extent. But when I saw Clinton’s first State of the Union, I was stunned that he had all the techniques and skills that I had observed in Reagan, without the acting background. It just came naturally to him. Moreover, he had an appetite for detail that Reagan never had and never professed to have. He was the whole package in terms of a media-genic pol.
Thanks for sharing that, Scout. I never heard Reagan in person but I did hear Clinton several times both before and after his election. One of those times included a State of the Union. Clinton had that unique ability to make everyone in the room thing he was talking directly to them. I always thought he was an extremely gifted speaker and politician. I actually liked him and still do.
OK, I am going to say it. He also had raw sex appeal. It crossed generations. 18 year olds found him a hottie the same as old ladies did. I don’t think my mother thought he was a hottie though. She always thought Reagan was an actor. My grandmother was over 100 when Clinton was elected and I don’t think he appealed to her either. Of course, she was blind and pretty deaf about that stage of the game.
As someone who was a big proponent of Clinton, and happy with nearly everything he did, I never liked his speeches. He always had a begging tone to what he was saying – please understand that I am right and they are wrong, for these 17 reasons, plus another 3, please please please. Oh, and here are another four reasons that I am right. I would have liked him to be more combative. After all, the economy had gone bad under Bush and he was in fact enabling it to grow to health. Things went demonstrably well. Stop begging – lay down some law.
His wife’s the combative one. We may yet see her approach to governing. Obama is similarly dismissive of his opponents. I don’t doubtb that he has taken some advice or lessons from Hillary.
“He also had raw sex appeal.”
Ewww. Really? Where was it? I just don’t see it.
As for Clinton’s speeches…..my first thought when listening to him was, “If he would only use those powers for good, we’d be saved.” But instead…. he would make stuff up. And lie. I remember one State of the Union speech where he proposed so many programs and spent so much money, that he was actually “spending” it faster than it could be printed.
And not one of those “promises” were real. Thank God. We’d have hit $1 trillion deficits MUCH earlier.
Goes to show…if I think this about our previous philanderer in chief and DIDN’T name him the worst…..
Clinton wasn’t known as a big spender. Yes, he used to have sex appeal. Nowadays, not so much but I am sure he would say the same thing about me. Not so much.
Let’s face it, Cargo, you aren’t going to like any Democrat. I bet you HATED Jocelyn Elders.
Very good comparison and contrast, Scout (#66). I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
To expand on comparative accomplishments of Reagan and Clinton:
Clinton:
Longest economic expansion in American history
More than 22 million new jobs
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI bill
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Raised education standards, increased school choice and doubled education and training investment
Passed Family and Medical Leave Act
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Deactivated 1700 nukes in the former Soviet Union
Paid off 360 billion of the national debt
Converted the largest deficit in American history (up to that time) to the biggest surplus
Lowest gov spending in 3 decades
Lowest fed income tax burden in 35 years
On the negative side, he couldn’t control his urges when a young temptress dangled her charms in front of him. And he was impeached for it.
Reagan:
Helped end the cold war
Initiated Reagonomics- lowered fed revenue by 737 billion over 5 years
Revitalized the GOP and the Conservative movement
Increased defense spending by 40%
Initiated Star Wars defensive missile program
Cut nuclear weapons under START treaty
Fired PATCO workers
Passed Anti-Drug Abuse Act that provided $1.7 billion funding and drastically increased penalties
On the negative side, Reagan illegally and unconstitutionally negotiated with terrorists and supplied weapons to other terrorists. He was NOT impeached.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. He lost his law license (Yeah, I know, like he really needed that) because of it.
“Clinton was impeached for lying under oath” in relation to a tawdry sexual escapade. Reagan was NOT impeached for lying in relation to a constitutional scandal. Historians will make the final decision on which offense should have been the impeachable one.
On Clinton : I have, as is sometimes the case, a contrarian opinion. But I think that if you examine this it’s incontrovertably true.
To me, the fact that Clinton lied under oath in a civil trial, while President, is an impeachable offense.
Failing to comment while under oath (to the Special Prosecutor) about that lie shouldn’t be impeachable. Witness tampering charges there is no proof of aren’t impeachable. The charges the House forwarded to the Senate are to do with those things.
The impeachment charge that he was caught red-handed on, that did cost him his law license – lying in the Paula Jones trial – the House deliberately did not forward to the Senate. Under Gingrich’s direction, just enough GOP members voted against forwarding that article of impeachment to the Senate. They forwarded the other 3, knowing they woudn’t be impachable.
Becuae they didn’t really want to see Clinton removed from office, and Gore made President. They preferred to put on a prolonged specacle that “dirtied him up”.
The impeachment of Clinton was as phony as the day is long. They did not want him removed from office, and quietly ensured that he would not be. Presumably Gingrich masterminded this strategy while boning his secretary over the desk in his office.
I have heard that about Newt also. He is a hypocrite of the rankest order though.
Bill Clinton shouldn’t have been asked. Those legal issues were disruptive and should have never taken place while he was in office. Afterwards, have at it but not during his presidency–unless it had to do with how he was running the county.
I feel the same about all sitting presidents.
Rick’s comment is worth focusing on. I had forgotten that there was controversy over the perjury count and that, in the end, it was not sent forward to the Senate. I don’t think I ever knew the reason, but what Rick states, as despicable as it sounds, may, in fact, be the reason. But, as far as I am concerned, a President who would perjure himself in a civil suit to prevent a citizen from gaining redress is as contemptible an office holder as can be and should be chucked out immediately, whatever his other merits. Perjury stabs at the very heart of our system of laws and liberties. I’d be interested in any other insights people may have as to why perjury was not the primary article of impeachment (assuming that to be correct).
One has to ask one’s self why the lady in question waited until Clinton was a sitting president to expose her grievance.
Good it be the Rutherford Foundation egging her on? That whole business was so politically motivated.
I don’t care if they had waited until he was finished his term and then sued the pants off of him. However, that isn’t what happened.
Most people lie or at least prevaricate about matters of infidelity. Not saying its a good thing. Just saying it is instinctual.
PS: at MM – what perjury did Reagan commit?
I didn’t say Reagan committed perjury- he wasn’t called to testify, so he didn’t have the chance to commit perjury, and that’s the point. He should have been. Reagan’s scandal was costitiutionally-based and therefore the more serious of the two.
It’s the truth – from wikipedia : “Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[16] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[17] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[18] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).”
It should also be remembered that it was a deliberate decision, headed by Gingrich, to suddenly publish the contents of the Starr Report to the internet. Ostensibly the report and Clinton’s videotape deposition were going to be kept private, seen only by the Grand Jury.
In a very real sense, the GOP were the ones rubbing our noses into Clinton’s sex life. For political gain.
But of course. Were the shoe on the other foot, I am sure the Democrats would have rubbed also. Although Democrats aren’t quite as eager to open that barn door in the first place. They don’t seek it. The GOP does. That’s why I always laugh when one of them gets caught, especially if that person has been a sanctimonious prick in the past.
The argument for the perjury to the Grand Jury was just that in the course of that videotaped testimony (which was later broadcast on television), he didn’t undo his perjury in the Jones trial. He was not asked those questions a second time – the legal argument is just that by not standing up in the middle of his testimony and saying that he had lied in the civil trial, that he was intrinsically committing perjury.
The fix was in.