Why no Bush support?

(Washington Times editorial)

For a sense of why President Bush has been unable to sway conservatives on his immigration policies, look no further than Stephen Dinan's front-page report in yesterday's editions: "The U.S. Border Patrol increased at a faster rate and apprehended more illegal aliens per year under President Clinton than under President Bush." Mr. Dinan goes on to report that the Clinton administration increased Border Patrol agents and pilots by 126 percent during his eight-year administration, which came to an average of 642 per year. In contrast, the six-year Bush administration has averaged 411 agents per year for a total increase of 22.3 percent, according to a Congressional Research Service report to the House Judiciary Committee.

Put plainly, when Mr. Bush talks tough on border security and enforcement, conservatives don't believe him, and they have the facts to back them up. Last week's address to the nation, during which Mr. Bush proposed adding 6,000 Border Patrol agents by 2007, wasn't the first time he's made such a promise. When one considers that it was just a couple of years ago when Mr. Bush promised to add 2,000 agents every year for the next five years, only to submit a 2006 budget calling for only 210, it's no wonder why conservatives remain wary.

Conservatives have taken the hint that the White House doesn't particularly care about border security. Although we rarely give credence to the left's tired shibboleth that Mr. Bush is beholden to Big Business, in the case of immigration, that's clearly been the case. As long as conservatives see him as such, the president will never win solid support for his immigration policies.

All of which is to say that Mr. Bush needs some bona fides on border security and enforcement. A recent CNN poll found that 66 percent of the public favors increasing penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Here's one instance where the administration can reverse its abysmal record on employer sanctions, which dropped from 417 who had been fined for hiring illegal aliens in 1999 to just three in 2004. Mr. Bush should call for stricter employer sanctions and for increasing the number of federal investigators looking into those cases.

more at http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060525-085628-3936r.htm

I like the way the writer refers to the obvious fact that Bush favors big business as "the left's tired shibboleth", then immediately acknowledges its truth. (This is by no means an isolated case, as we all know.)

In fact, he's against Government as a concept altogether. You see, Government gets in the way of Capitalism (read "piracy"), and Bush won't stand for that. He uses Government as a Big Stick to beat down his buddies' competition, and that's all he considers it good for!

business, rather than people.

But has it been good for business?

According to Counter Punch, lots of businesses have seen a reversal in fortune since Bush slithered up the steps to the White House. Especially in forein countries, our reputation has gotten so bad that we've seen an increase in bombings of KFC, for example. People have launched massive boycotts of American companies, like Pepsi (or was it Coke?).

As Bush has proceeded to destroy our reputation, we have lost out on many contracts, lots of negotiations, or trade agreements with foreign countries.

Bush has been good for A FEW companies like Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR and some others.