If you missed President Bush's speech tonight on immigration, you can read it here. Ian Schwartz also has a video of the speech here. I haven't had the chance to read/watch it yet (I didn't get off work until 8), but you can probably expect analysis from one of us (or all of us) to come forth at some point tonight.
Judging from early blogosphere reaction, it seems that the speech went over fairly well. Pajamas Media has a big round-up. Jeff Goldstein has some thoughts. Lou Dobbs gave the speech a thumbs-up. Joe Malchow notes: "This is the best offer American sovereigntists—which is to say almost everyone, whether they realize it or not—will have for a long time." Jonah Goldberg observes: "My guess is he sounded pretty reasonable to most Americans not already deeply committed on the issue of immigration. That means he didn't lose may base conservatives not already lost and he didn't lose many Democrats not already passionately opposed to him (if there were any left in the first place)." California Conservative offers a rebuttal to the President's address.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt calls the speech "a very good start."
UPDATE: More reactions. Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Delivery feels a bit more Mr. Rogers than commander-in-chief. I mean we have an emergency—our borders are out of control and during a time of war. You don’t get that sense. Get me Jack Bauer." Glenn Reynolds: "Bush is right to stress assimilation. That should have been the cornerstone of the speech." Echoing Hewitt, Bill O'Reilly observed "it's a start." Michelle Malkin, however, says it was "too little, too late." RedState has a long discussion taking place.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has some thoughts, as well as some more reactions. The guys at Powerline are also weighing in.
UPDATE: The AP is reporting on our lawmakers' reactions. Excerpt:
Both of South Dakota's senators say they approve of the White House plan to temporarily send National Guard troops to the nation's borders.
...
"I applaud the president for taking steps to stop the flow of unidentified individuals who are coming across our border illegally," Republican Sen. John Thune said in a statement Monday. "The temporary deployment of our National Guard is a good first step as we work to permanently secure our border."The state's other senator, Democrat Tim Johnson, was slightly less enthusiastic.
"I am open to it," he said. "But I think it needs to be a short-term stopgap and not a long-term strategy."
A spokesman for Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota's only House member, said Monday that she looks forward to hearing more about the proposal but is wary of using the Guard for more missions.
...South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said he hasn't seen the president's plan and is not aware of the details.
"If the president calls the Guard up on a federal basis, there's nothing we can do about it. We would hope it would be only for a short period of time as part of an overall strategy with more than one agency involved," he said.
If South Dakota Guard members are needed, Rounds said those just back from Iraq should not be used.
National Guard troops from South Dakota patrolled the U.S-Mexico border in 1916 when Pancho Villa "was out and about," Rounds said.
"So it wouldn't be unprecedented to do it," he said.
Recent Comments