Here’s part of an e-mail I sent someone yesterday after reading Joe Guzzardi’s piece in Vdare.com:

”[…] Bush’s only chance of winning [in 2004] is to wake up as quickly as possible, on [immigration] and other policies he pushes — left-wing policies — which, believe me, tons and tons and tons of white people out here are SICK OF.  But they’re not out in the streets demonstrating, because that’s not in their nature.  They’ll quietly make known their displeasure on Election Day (revenge is a dish best served cold, as Bush will learn):  he who would not listen to them when it was his turn to be in control will have no choice but to listen when it is their turn to be in control.  Too bad it has to be that way — but their vote keeps them from being utterly defenseless against the one who has only ever turned them a deaf ear — and they plan on using their weapon. Look at Guzzardi’s next to last sentence […] .  Bush is going down in 2004. […]”

How in hell does Bush expect to win when he keeps utterly alienating those who would normally be his strongest supporters, I’d like to know.

Unadorned asks: “How in hell does Bush expect to win when he keeps utterly alienating those who would normally be his strongest supporters, I’d like to know.”

Because the Republicans believe they can take the white vote for granted since they really have no other place to go. At least this is the case in regard to national politics; locally they know better, as Sam Francis points out:

http://www.vdare.com/francis/republican_strategy.htm

Then there’s the fact that the Democrats seem incapable of fielding an electable candidate, Gen. Clark notwithstanding — though we can still speculate about that traitor waiting in the wings.

Unadorned is right about the disinclination of right-thinking Americans to take to the streets in protest, but we shouldn’t pass up the opportunity. There’s still that ‘Million American March’ next Labor Day —> http://www.millionamericanmarch.com/ (Still wish I knew who the people were that are organizing this though.)

Trying to be realistic about this, I do not see George W. Bush being defeated for re-election over the immigration issue.

Mr. Auster is probably right, but I think that a third-party candidate using the issue could act as a real spoiler in the race. It is too big an elephant in the room for no one to wind up taking advantage of it. That does not mean 2004 is the year, but it will happen sooner or later.

If Bush’s people crafted a strategy that took immigration into account in the way Steve Sailer has detailed in scads of convincing articles going back years, he’d be unbeatable — simply impregnable. Steve shows that the GOP should pitch its appeal first and foremost to *white* voters and *their* concerns rather than doing all this non-white pandering which has now become standard for both parties, which only gets white voters mad or makes them yawn and either vote for someone else on some other issue, or not vote at all. Not only is Steve’s reasoning sound but his analyses of actual post election numbers keep looking flawless time after time. Were Bush to follow Steve’s recommendation you could stick a fork in the Dems right now to see if they were done because they’d already be toast without any hope whatever. Poll after poll has shown immigration reform to be what white Americans want by large margins and not just want, but want badly. Negroes certainly also want it badly by the way (as many immigration-watchers know but the left will never acknowledge, for obvious reasons — U.S. Negroes LOATHE innundating Mexican immigration and would LOVE for them all to be sent back), and I saw at least one reliable poll that registered just over half of Latino voters wanting it also — 51% or 52% it was. But the main thing is white voters, as Sailer has shown time and again. If Bush does not listen he and Rove will be in the process of committing political suicide.

Unadorned has it right in a way-white people aren’t inclined my nature to demonstrate in the streets. The trouble is that the modern US government pays attention to the loudly squeaking wheel. Thus, whining minorities get the attention from the American ruling establishment. It is probably going to take things like bloc voting by white voters and boycotts to change this situation.

Mr. Auster’s assertion that the immigration issue won’t defeat Bush in 2004 is true because no one will make it an issue. You can’t hear words that aren’t being spoken.

I talked to a couple of my liberal friends yesterday. They basically agree with us on the immigration problem. One is an environmentalist, or conservationist as he prefers to be called. “I wish the borders would be closed,” he admitted. I had reminded him that third-worlders don’t give a you-know-what about conservation. But like all loyal Democrats, they are eager to vote against Bush.

I can confirm Unadorned’s contention that Blacks loathe uncontrolled immigration. I have had them tell me that in conversation. This is one reason for their hostility to Bush. Steve Sailer pointed out a few years ago that Bush’s aggressive pro-Hispanic stance helped make Blacks go more heavily against Bush than any Republican since Goldwater in 1964. If the GOP actually took up immigration restriction, it could even give them a few black votes. Nothing else will.

David wrote: “It is probably going to take things like bloc voting by white voters and boycotts to change this situation.”

True enough, however the Feds are actively working on ways to circumvent a white voting block. Check out this article by Sam Francis — this is VERY serious:

http://www.vdare.com/francis/nodem.htm

Mr. LeFevre is right — that article by Sam Francis IS serious; in fact, shocking. (Though I read Vdare.com regularly, somehow I’d missed that one.) Reading it, one sees immediately the real meaning of the word “racism” nowadays — it means simply the act of being white or the simple existence of the white race. The proof is that all natural, normal, ordinary, meaning-no-harm-to-anyone manifestations of being white or of the white race are now to be stamped out. It’s going to be made against the law to be white (just as it’s become against the law to uphold and respect certain aspects of traditional morality, such as, in Canada, saying you’re against homosexuality and explaining why). And this is the Bush Justice Department doing this! How is this different from what Janet Reno would have done? I’d like that explained to me by Bush supporters.

David wrote,

“Mr. Auster’s assertion that the immigration issue won’t defeat Bush in 2004 is true because no one will make it an issue. You can’t hear words that aren’t being spoken.”

But don’t you see? It’s precisely in that “failure to bring it up at all” that — if he loses on other grounds — he’ll have lost “because of” immigration (i.e., if making an issue of it could have saved him, he’d have lost “because of” it though it wasn’t mentioned: he’d have lost precisely *because* it wasn’t mentioned).

Neglecting to do something makes you as culpable as doing a thing.

As if Dr. Francis’s article noted above weren’t bad enough, Phyllis Schlafly’s latest column shows how insane our apportionment policy is — using illegal immigrants to determine the degree of congressional representation: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/nov03/03-11-05.shtml

A few quick exerpts from Mrs. Schlafly:

“…it takes only 35,000 votes in a California district to win a House seat, while it takes 100,000 votes to win a House seat in Indiana, Michigan or Mississippi … As a result of the 2000 reapportionment, eight states gained at least one more House seat … Ten other states lost at least one seat … None of these states lost a seat because of a declining population. In fact, they all increased their populations.

“The persons who were counted in the 2000 census included seven million illegal aliens and twelve million other non-citizens … The non-citizens (hopefully) are non-voters. But their very presence gives enormous weight to the legitimate voters in those districts … the Democrats accomplished a change in the political landscape to benefit their candidates.”

“In 1979 and 1988, the courts refused to hear a challenge to the practice of including illegal aliens in the census count for purposes of reapportionment.

“The recent California recall election didn’t inflict us with the predicted post-election court challenges because, fortunately, the poll results were decisive. However, when we look at the famous red and blue map of the 2000 presidential election, we must assume that the 2004 election will be close, with the potential of producing legal wrangling.”