He appeared. He talked. And he didn’t quite conquer.
On talk radio shows listened to on a long drive from Northern CA to Southern CA President George W. Bush was being either lambasted or somewhat-guiltily-defended by callers and talk show hosts. Bush didn’t quite embrace the House’s hard line but he didn’t hurl kisses at the more conciliatory Senate bill either…although many felt that is the bill he clearly prefers.
In the end the questions remain: can an immigration package emerge from this Congress that doesn’t split the nation — and the Republican party? The New York Times:
President Bush proposed a plan on Monday to place 6,000 National Guard troops along the border with Mexico for at least a year, but urged Congress to find a balanced solution to illegal immigration that enforces the law and maintains the nation’s tradition of openness.
The first thing: this number is far less than many conservatives had wanted. It will likely be dismissed offhand as a drop in the bucket that won’t lead to authentic border control — but will be enough to offend immigrant rights groups. MORE:
Stepping into the middle of a debate raging within his own party and in cities and towns across the country, Mr. Bush offered a menu of proposals.
They were intended to salve conservatives who have demanded concrete steps to stem the flow of illegal workers across the border and to accommodate many members of both parties and business groups who are seeking new ways to acknowledge the presence of about 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
“America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone,” Mr. Bush said in the address, carried by all the major broadcast and cable news networks. “We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain.”
He combined a call for considerable increases in the number of Border Patrol agents and the number of beds in immigration detention centers with an endorsement of proposals that would give many illegal immigrants a chance to become legal and eventually gain citizenship.
He reiterated his proposal for a vast temporary worker program for illegal immigrants. But he also proposed to cut back on potential fraud by creating an identification card system for foreign workers that would include digitized fingerprints.
Independent thinking Americans on ALL sides of the issue need to ask themselves a question — no matter what their position is on immigration reform:
Why NOW? Six months before the mid-term elections, this issue has now become a hot-burner item that required a speech by the President from the Oval Office. Bush has probably (and perhaps unwisely) used the grandeur of the Oval Office for his speeches less than any President in recent times. Suddenly, immigration is an issue that must be addressed right now.
Overdue? Yes (this writer covered the Reagan administration’s immigration reform and amnesty as part of his job as staff reporter for the San Diego Union). But the political timing is patently obvious. The goal: to try and answer the clamor from Republicans irate that so little has been done on the issue. The dilemma: the GOP is split on this issue. So GWB aims for the middle ground — trying to take just enough of a position on each side to satisfy the whole.
You could see by just a quick look at the reactions how Bush could potentially find himself in a lose-lose situation (unless immigrants rights groups launch massive demonstrations that become unruly and spark a backlash among the general public).
John Hinderaker at the conservative blog Powerline writes:
He had his chance and he blew it. He should have given the speech I told him to. As soon as he started talking about guest worker programs and the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals, it was all over. President Bush keeps trying to find the middle ground, on this and many other issues. But sometimes, there isn’t a viable middle ground. This is one of those instances.
President Bush is being destroyed by vicious people who hate him. So far, he hasn’t seemed to notice. Apparently, he doesn’t think he needs any allies. He certainly didn’t win any with tonight’s speech.
In an editorial, the New York Times blasted Bush. Some excerpts 4 U:
President Bush’s speech from the Oval Office last night was not a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate….
….Rather than standing up for truth, Mr. Bush swiveled last night in the direction of those who see immigration, with delusional clarity, as entirely a problem of barricades and bad guys. His plan to deploy “up to 6,000” National Guard troops to free the Border Patrol to hunt illegal immigrants is a model of stark simplicity, one sure to hearten the Minuteman vigilantes, frightened conspiracy theorists, English-only Latinophobes, right-wing radio and TV personalities, and members of Congress who have no patience for sorting out the various and mixed blessings that surging immigration has given this country….
…It is still possible that a good bill will emerge this year, but only if Democrats and moderate Republicans hold firm to protect the fragile flame of good sense against the deter-and-deport crowd. This means sticking together to defeat destructive amendments on the Senate floor. It means overcoming this latest contribution from the ever-unhelpful president, who could have pointed the nation toward serious immigration reform last night, but instead struck a pose as Minuteman in chief.
The outlook: much will depend on how this is “spun” not just by official GOP spokespeople and talk show hosts, but by talk show callers and guests. Bush’s speech was clearly an Oval Office speech that was a valid address on a vital topic but it was essentially political damage control.
The question: will it control the damage of several years of little action on this issue? Or will his comments make it worse — by attracting opposition on all sides? (NOTE: Expect the most lockstep administration supporting commentators to immediately call the speech decisive and brilliant).
FOOTNOTE: One argument being made by a conservative talk show host in Northern CA today was that if Republicans don’t rally around and support their president and their party’s leader that the Republicans will lose in November. This host pointed to the Democrats, immigration activists, etc. and said they can’t be allowed to assume power.
So once again a nuts-and-bolts issue is being framed by some as one where support for a policy shouldn’t be based on whether it is sound, stringent or flexible enough, but on supporting the party line because that’s what it is.
Will it work this time? Or are the demands by some conservatives for a harder-line entailing mass deportations, a border fence and extensive militarization of the border going to be unmet?
Worst case scenario for George Bush: if in the eyes of many conservatives his border policy is the equivalent of his Dad’s broken “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge and they stay home in November. (But Congress will soon take up flag burning and gay marriage, largely to define the Democrats, so they may be shoved to the polls in November yet…)
UPDATE:
—Ed Morrissey’s interesting analysis:
Anyone paying attention to Bush’s immigration policies already knew he was a centrist on this issue. He may get some grudging respect from centrists and liberals for not caving to his base, but that won’t translate into support for a president they already consider the Second Coming of Richard Nixon. The only cause Bush helped tonight was the policy he has consistently put forth on immigration — which once again shows Bush as a man who follows his own lights and beckons people to follow.
He’s not Clinton. At one time, conservatives appreciated that. Will they still when his tenacity denies them the policies they seek? We shall see, but initially he’s going to take a beating on the right…
…So much for border security. Two possibilities exist. Either Bush doesn’t care about border security, or the White House couldn’t coordinate its policy spokespeople to stay on message, or perhaps both. None of these options build confidence in this administration.
–Migrants in Mexico are already saying the Guard won’t stop them from trying to come over to the U.S.
—This collection of quotes suggests that Bush speech may have been a statement of intent more than a speech that led to people to switch their positions. If he intended to convince, it seems as if he fell far short — on both sides of the issue.
–Read what The Gun Toting Liberal predicted Bush would say and what TGTL says now.
—Liberty & Justice has an extensive roundup and concludes:”In the end it is obvious to everyone that Bush tried to find the middle-ground….What the results of this will be, will have to be seen; either both are dissatisfied, or both will be able to live with this plan from the President. …I guess I could leave it at this: most conservatives seem to be outspokenly negative about Bush’s speech, while it seems to be acceptable to liberal Americans.”
—GET THE SANDALS OUT DEPARTMENT: Majority Leader Bill Frist flip-flops again (and again, and again…)
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.