A modest proposal

I take no position on the below. I post it for thought and discussion.

Mark G. writes:

We probably agree that Jorge The Moron must pay the price for his bad policies hurting America. Unfortunately, in this process the House will likely switch to the (traitorous) Dems.

If Dems will dare to come up with a full-amnesty-destroy-America immigration bill that Open-Borders in the Senate already voted on, the Moron will sign it. It will be an unmitigated disaster.

The Dems also will attempt to impeach Bush, not that I see anything wrong with this scenario. They will fail because virtually 100 percent Repubs and some Dems will vote against.

I propose that between now and the election good guys in the House, Tancredo team, should be lobbied to promise that if Bush signs Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty, the good guys will abstain in impeachment vote.

If 2-3 dozen hardline immigration restrictionists will abstain, Dems have a fighting chance to pass impeachment in the House. It will die in the Senate, but Bush forever will be designated as one of the worst presidents.

I would like to kick this idea around and then I will try to feed it to as many good guys media people as possible.

* * *

LA replies:

To take this position, the Republican “good guys” would have to kiss their careers in the GOP goodby.

Nor would the threat change Bush’s course, as he is a true believer. What then would it accomplish? It would raise the profile of the immigration issue. It would make it clear to the country that what Bush and his open-borders allies are doing is so terrible, so unacceptable, that it calls forth—and deserves—this terrible response.

Paul P. writes:

I have read your blog for some time and found it very useful and instructive. That is not to say I agree with everything you say evidently. In particular, I have had the impulse several times to add my voice to those who feel your continued attacks on Mark Steyn are way over the top and counterproductive, even to your own goals. But that is another matter.

I find your response to Mark G.’s comments (and the comments themselves of course) about an attempt to get Republican Congressmen to hold the threat of letting President Bush be impeached by an incoming Democratically controlled House to be disappointingly misguided.

Look, if the Democrats take control of the House and attempt to impeach Bush, it will be for reasons having nothing to do with immigration. In general, obviously, Democrats favor open borders, amnesty, etc. Impeachment would instead talk about war crimes, the invasion of Iraq, supposed torture, destruction of civil rights, and a range of similar fantasies which no conservative of any stripe should or could possibly take seriously.

If your disagreements with and animus toward President Bush has reached such a state that all you can say in response to Mark G.’s ravings was what you did, perhaps you need to step back and rethink it a bit. One of the admirable features about your blog is your willingness to post criticisms and to modify your positions when reflection shows you have erred.

To be precise, the deepest problem with Mark G.’s proposal is not that it would be futile or career harming for Republicans, as your response indicates, although these are no doubt correct. The problem is that it is deeply unprincipled and immoral. And also it is political nonsense. It would put supposed ‘good guys’ in the position of threatening to withdraw their opposition to craven Democratic attempts to impeach a president for, in effect, acting as his judgment dictated to defend the nation against external threats.

One does not have to agree with all aspects of the President’s response to the threat from Islam to see that those Democrats who are talking about impeachment and some of whom might try to act on it are appeasers and fools and part of the same movement which sabotaged the struggle in Vietnam,, middle America, etc. To take their side, even passively, in debased and constitutionally worthless impeachment would drag the Republican party even further away from where any sensible conservative should wish it to be.

One should remember the wisdom of Thomas Sowell. The reason to vote for Republicans is Democrats; bad as the former are, they can’t keep up with the latter.

LA replies:

Well, I entitled the entry “A modest proposal,” a phrase going back to Jonathan Swift’s satirical pamphlet by that name proposing that Irish parents sell their children to be slaughtered for meat, which he wrote as a protest against the cruelty of Irish landlords and the theories of economists that economic concerns are everything.

The phrase “a modest proposal” has come to mean a horrific idea that one is not really proposing at all, but rather is putting forth so to make a point. And I posted Mark G.’s idea, not because I endorse it (as I said), but because in going to such an extremity it expresses the way many people feel about Bush’s treasonous course on immigration.

Mark G. replies:

Paul P. wrote:

“The problem [with the proposal] is that it is deeply unprincipled and immoral.”

I will bet $1000 that Paul P. supported Clinton impeachment, as did a big majority of Repubs and right wingers. I supported it too, while regretting that it was not for the right reasons.

Clinton well deserved impeachment for his treasonous selling technology to Chicoms and for abusing government powers (IRS and FBI) for political purposes. Yet he was impeached for a rather minor by comparison offense.

Al Capone was convicted on tax fraud charges, rather than multiple murder charges. I doubt Paul P. has a problem with Capone conviction.

Bush should be impeached for his refusal to defend US borders in violation of his oath.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, US constitution does not allow impeachment for gross incompetence, even in times of war. If it did, incompetence would be a good reason. Does anyone thinks that FDR would not have been impeached if he conducted WWII as good as Jorge conducts Iraq war?

Since Dems will not impeach Bush for the right reasons, I will take the right result for the wrong reasons.

Thinking this over I know think that a more promising action would be to make Dem challengers in Repub districts to state publicly how they will vote if Bush-Kennedy amnesty comes up.

I should think that all vulnerable Repubs would be demanding the answer from their challengers.

Randy writes:

Re Paul P.’s comment, “The problem is that it is deeply unprincipled and immoral.”

If one considers that a Bush-Kennedy amnesty will be the end of America as we know it, do we have the luxury of entertaining principles or morality regarding the survival of the Republican Party or Bush? What loyalty, principles, or morality has Bush (and his neocon supporters) shown to either the Republican party or its conservative ideals. He could care less about traditional principles, the rule of law, or the Constitution. I doubt if he even knows what traditional, conservative principles are.

LA replies:

I don’t see why Randy brings up the neoconservatives in this discussion. This conversation is about President Bush and the Republican party.

Second, it’s one thing to say, let’s take off the gloves against a president who is indifferent to the rule of law and the Constitution. It’s another thing to say, let’s take off the gloves against a president who is indifferent to traditional conservatism.

Robert C. writes:

A little earlier this Sunday night, a Marine called in on the Drudge report. He asked Ann Coulter, should he send a message on amnesty and other issues, to the Republican party, by voting Democratic?

Ann Coulter’s response was contradictory, though she did not seem to realize it. She said, “No, definitely not, Losing is never a way of winning.” She added, “You can ask Rush.” But then, to my amazement, she followed with, “If the Republican party loses the House and Senate this year, it’s through, it is dead as a party. Whatever follows it would have to be a totally different party and totally transformed.” That’s pretty much word for word.

Because she is a neocon, she wants the prevailing order to continue. But for us nationalists, her prediction is that the only way that the Republican party would ever change—so that a new party could emerge from the ashes—is if it went down in decisive defeat this November.

As a nationalist, I consider Democrats to be, generally, traitors. But Republicans have become, generally, traitors and liars as well (Tom Tancredo and a few others excepted). My vote then, will be to every Democrat. May the Republican party go down in ashes of death, so that a new party, which represents the people, has a chance of emerging. In my view, as long as the existing Republican party prevails, nothing can change. This would not be a vote for the Democratic party. It would be a vote for the extinction of a party that supports the extinction of our nation as a land and people.

LA replies:

Can you tell me why you are particularly against the Republicans this year as compared with, say, 2004?

To my mind, there is an overwhelming reason to vote for the Republicans this year. It is to maintain the GOP’s majority in the House so as to prevent the open borders bill from passing next year. If the Dems win the House, we will inevitably have the open borders law passed.

I think the House GOP deserves great credit for having stopped the Bush immigration plan cold. Why aren’t they getting credit for this? Last spring everyone thought the open-borders bill was a shoo-in. It was stopped dead in its tracks, by the House GOP. I repeat, why aren’t you giving the House Republicans credit for this, and why do you seek their defeat, given that it would assure the passage of the most disastrous bill in U.S. history?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 22, 2006 03:07 PM | Send