Kinder, gentler Bush..

[sendero]

.... so Dubya is now willing to admit the grievous error of saying "Bring it on". It must have taken a herculean effort for him to admit ANY mistake, as far as I can remember it is the first time he has ever done so. And he chooses one of the most benign of his giant catalog of errors to express contrition about.

This looks like a sea change to me. I think this is the next phase in the desperate Republican playbook to try to make George look like a reasonable person. It's way too little and way too late, but then that pretty much a valid description for everything this administration does. Except for spying on Americans, where it is way too much.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Too lttle, too late you chimpanzee wannabe bastard.

Mr. Tough Guy feeling a little queezy today?

[Kierkegaard]

6. That boy is about as tough as cotton candy.

I don't want his pandering.
I don't want his weak, insincere apologies.
I don't want to see him, hear him or even be aware of his existence.

Basically, what I want is:
a) his resignation.
b) impeachment and/or imprisonment.

Preferably b.

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. Oh, please!

He's just making himself look dumber than he already looks - if that is even possible.

[Sapphire Blue]

3. He smirked after he said it.

[sendero]

4. All the more reason..

... to think he choked it out at the direction of those "advising" him :)

I mean, he's been smirking since day one, he knows that nothing he say bear any relation to the truth.

[blogslut]

5. He's been wearing that shade of lipstick

...for a couple of months now. Notice how's he had a few off-script moments lately? Last night he wore his new shade with a string of pearls. Sadly for him, his humble new image comes too late in the game.

All he ever had going for him was his unadorned stubborness, which many mistook for strength. Now, he's sporting a softer hue. He's still a pig and we've all seen him without his makeup.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. were his lips actually moving when he

said that? I've never seen him say something so Charlie Macarthyish- It was really odd.
Anyone else notice this?

[Ms. Toad]

8. I hope it's too little and way too late...but

he was very quick to take advantage of an issue that some of our side is actually joining in on - protecting ourselves from those d*mn illegals coming across our southern border and taking our jobs/threatening our security/driving down wages/etc.

The basic premise I start with is that everyone's citizenship is an accident of birth (for the most part) and should not determine where we have have a right to live and work. The seal the borders concern has always seemed to me like the kids in the family complaining that, because mom is about to give birth to another child, that there won't be enough love to go around. But, aside from my own personal bias, I am very concerned that our jumping on the bandwagon gives Bush a generally popular issue with which make up for being too little and way too late. He's certainly milking it for all it's worth.

[sendero]

9. Everyone's..

... financial status is also an accident of birth, but I cannot take robbing a bank as a remedy and expect society to accept that.

Outsourcing, insourcing - it's all the same thing. America has lost 90% of its manufacturing jobs, is about to lose its last big manufacturing industry, autos, and while I agree that some proportion of immigrants in fact take jobs that nobody wants to do, there is another large portion that nobody wants to do for $5 an hour.

This is a complex issue and simplistic answers are not going to work. All the Republicans care about is finding a way to act like they are doing something to stop immigration, while secretly promoting it, as cheap labor is their only goal. Dems should not assist them in pulling off that PR stunt, on that I'll agree.

[Ms. Toad]

11. Not a realistic analogy.

There are generally two kinds of criminal acts - those that are inherently criminal, and those that are only criminal only because we define them to be criminal. Robbing a bank, killing, or raping someone fall into the first category. No matter who commits the act, it is criminal. The latter category are things which are not inherently criminal - such as running away from home. Running away from home is not crime in general - it only becomes a crime based on the age of the individual doing the running. This is the category which includes making it illegal to live and work in a country of which you are not a citizen.

I am not suggesting committing a crime as a remedy to having the "wrong" citizenship. I am suggesting that citizenship(over which I have little control) should not be the determining factor in whether otherwise legal activities (living and working in a particular geographical region) are treated as crimes. It is that simple, as far as I am concerned. Making the multi-cultural nation that such a philosophical sea change would create a into a functional and healthy society is not necessarily simple, but issues such as ensuring everyone is fairly paid, creating an environment in which businesses choose to stay and manufacture goods here, and integrating multiple languages and religions into the fabric of the US have nothing to do with where the current residents of the country happened to have been born (or where your parents were born).

It disturbs me that the party that claims to be the compassionate party is limiting that compassion based on an artificial line in the sand. It appalls me that we have been vocal enough about our willingness to scapegoat "illegals" for all sorts of evils (stealing jobs, driving down labor costs low, etc.) that we have handed Bush an issue that is popular enough - even among people who are otherwise compassionate - that he may be able to salvage the November elections.

[sendero]

12. Well....

.... we disagree. You seem to be saying that a country has no right to decide who is allowed to become a resident and work there. That is indefensible and you should know it, please list the countries who allow that.

I'm not against all immigration. But as I said this is a complex issue and explaining my position would take 30 minutes of typing and nobody would read it anyway.

Fact is, I've worked in businesses what utilize illegal labor. I live in a city that has more illegals than you can count. I reject outright the idea that we should just allow anyone and everyone who wants to come here and work. Long term, it will not work, the most precious commodity in our economy will soon be jobs.

When you talk about compassion and an artificial line in the sand, I have to wonder. Are you one of those folks who think we could just raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and solve all of our economic problems? Because that is what you sound like. You sound as though you think there is no downside to Americans for allowing any number of immigrant workers in. That is also an indefensible position.

We should be working with Mexico to modernize their economy. It's a travesty - they'd had 100 years to get their stuff together and still their biggest export is slave labor.

[Ms. Toad]

13. I don't have a clue whether any country allows it or not

and whether any country allows it or not is irrelevant to whether the position is defensible or not. I am not saying that a country has no right to decide - I am saying I believe the choice this country has made to bar people from living and working here based solely on where they were born is fundamentally a bad one (putting aside other means of gaining citizenship or green cards for purposes of simplifying the discussion).

I cannot reconcile that choice with my core philosophy of valuing all people equally. It is what compelled me, as a member of the group legally responsible for the group's decisions, to send humanitarian aid to both North and South Vietnam at a time it was illegal to do so, and to openly refuse to comply with the I-9 (citizenship documentation) requirements. If I do not believe that people are less deserving just because they happen to have a different skin color or because they were born in another country - then I cannot place them at the back of the line for work and decent housing (or kick them out of the line entirely). Whatever the consequences of staying true to that principle are (and a strain on job resources may be one of them) need to be dealt with in a manner which does not violate the principle.

Working with Mexico to modernize their economy is an excellent way of doing that - but it doesn't require making citizenship (or other restricted legal statuses) a prerequisite for choosing to live and work in the US. If Mexico becomes a gentler place to live fewer Mexicans will choose to risk their lives to come to the US, and that will diminish the strain on job resources.

[Philosoraptor]

10. Yes he's so humble & introspective ain't he?

We all know he's pissed for having to even say those few pitiful words.

[lonestarnot]

14. hmmmf... only fools get fooled.