Agree. Bush needs to try and strike a balance between controlling legal immigration and homeland defense issues without alienating political groups heavily connected to immigration (i.e hispanics). Perhaps a few common sense or basic reforms (better documentation, no driver's licenses for illegals, etc) will satisfy the nativists without alienating the political groups.

OJ's point is valid - NRO and others rip into the Bush admin daily on immigration issues but never seem to address the huge manpower or finance issues it would cause.

As for Hillary, Tony Blankley is right - she is trying to get to Bush's right on this issue. She will probably use the same playbook Bill used against Bush I in '92 - get to the right on a few issues and ride a compliant press past the GOP nominee. As for addressing the cost/manpower issue Hillary is a strong enough pol that with cover from the MSM she will be able to get away with generic statements like the above without providing details.

AWW,

The ethnic lobbies won't let her get away with it and she needs them to get a nomination. She doesn't want a primary challenge, and there will be someone running against her. She can't handle anything other than a coronation.

I hope I remember to have the recordable DVD player running for the press conference in 2008 when Pat Buchanan endorses Hillary Clinton for president. Should be a laugh riot.

John:

That's less outlandish than it sounds--trade protectionism, anti-immigration, isolationism, and hostility to capitalism in general unite the Left and Far Right.

Buchanan is not a conservative, he is a fascist, not unlike Franco or Peron.

Protecting the borders is more important than Iraq. For what it's worth, I support the Iraq initiative; but a nuclear bomb smuggled easily from Mexico and detonated in Houston would, I am sure, prove the importance of the border protection that OJ et al. pooh-pooh so throatily.

Hell, if our boy Bush had considered Iraq's border protection 18 months ago, I daresay Iraq's democracy project would be an order of magnitude closer to realtiy than it is today.

Borders now matter; it's 9/10 thinking, not political savvy, that disregards border security.

Jim:

great, but you live in a country where people think minimal airline security too burdensome and expensive--now you think we'll close the borders down?

Bart:

Like Franco, but not Peron. He was part of the generation on the Right that saved America. His problem is that the Left has lost and a reliably conservative democracy has been restorted but he can't accept victory.

People who aren't slaves complain; think of it as echolocating their rights status. Complaining about airline security does not mean people don't want it. It's the elite who reject the need for profiling who, in fact, don't want airline security.

Americans would complain about cumbersome border crossings but relish the increase in safety. Let's don't hand this issue to Hillary on a silver platter.

Jim:

Ever been to the Canadian border? Ever been on a boat in the Atlantic or Pacific or St.Lawrence? Ever read about the volume of container shipping that comes into the U.S. and how little security it has?

No one is proposing border security, just stopping Mexicans.

Buchanan had nothing to do with saving America and was and is an agent of those who would destroy it. His vision of America, economically sclerotic, intolerant and priest-ridden, is more evil than Chomsky's.

Pat Buchanan was a staunch Cold and Culture Warrior while you were dribbling in your high chair. That he's subsequently lurched into dubious territory can't diminish his key role in the conservative revival.