Sailer on Bush’s self-undoing
grasp of numbers
is clearly superior to that of our president and his strategic wizard:
[If the Karl Rove Amnesty Plan] costs Bush two percentage points of the white vote, he’d have to win an additional 30 percentage points more of the Hispanic vote to break even.
Sailer also notes that “History is likely to record the Bush Administrationís turning point as January 7, 2004, when Bush needlessly plunged his administration into a malaise [by announcing his insane amnesty plan].”
Truly, it looks as if Bush made our day.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 02, 2004 11:40 AM | Send
Also at VDARE is an article by Jon Dougherty giving a general overview of the numerous incusions by the Mexican military and police into the United States.
Bush should be impeached for allowing this to go on. He is deliberately allowing foreign military units to invade United States territory - an act of treason.
And just as a reminder of the basis for Carl’s charge:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion …”
Art. IV, Sec. 4; Constitution of the United States
I wanted to thank Joel LeFevre for his very informative chat on VFR’s Jan. 8/9 thread. I never would have known about Mrs. Schlafly’s piece against amnesty.
I too checked out The Constitution Party recently. After input from others at here and elsewhere, I felt that VFR is a good alternative unless I “write in” Tancredo or someone else. I am not at all convinced, however, that Mr. Phillips’ party is strong enough against illegal immigration (ie their Platform). Howard Phillips’ photo/leadership is strangely missing from their homepage. I am wondering if that was a tactical decision.
I found out some other things, other chats on the VFR thread and elsewhere. Namely, that as wonderful as Rep. Tancredo is, he is NOT the man to lead a Third Party for a number of reasons:
1) He is a poor public speaker
2) He is hardly “charismatic”, a quality needed in today’s leaders for success
3) He’s running for re-election and wants to stay in the GOP
4) The old adage, and a true one, that “nice men finish last”
I accept these and, as others here and elsewhere, am trying to think of someone else. Were Charleton Heston younger and without alcoholism and Alzheimer’s, he would be my choice. That indicates the difficulty we (as we search for a Third Party leader) are facing— when a person’s “other side” is not always visible to many who see them publicly. Then again, no one is an angel.
Thanks again for those tips/links, Mr. LeFevre!
Thanks to Mr. Levin for his kind words.
To clarify one point about the Constitution Party’s exclusion of info on Mr. Phillips — he is not their party’s candidate this year. Apparently, they are very slow in updating their site, (www.constitutionparty.org), which is most unfortunate.
Their presidential candidate for this year is Michael Peroutka, who has a very clear statement on immigration and the amnesty issue on his web site. But his site is not yet linked from the party’s main URL. In fact, I learned about his candidacy the first time thanks to Mr. Auster:
My apologies for some terrible typos! I meant, in my reply thanking Mr. LeFevre, that The Constitution Party—NOT VFR—was “a good alternative”. One other “error” I made was not to mention that Ronald Reagan was THE exception to the rule of “nice men finish last”.
Yes, I too found out about Mr. Peroutka from Mr. Auster. I think if this party (The Constitution Party) is really serious about this year’s election, they should have their site updated and have ALL important issues to constitutional conservatives and others of like mind be out front on the homepage or at the very least, “nearby”. I would use VFR’s superb-yet-simple homepage format—with columns on topics nicely delineated and archived—as an example!
“History is likely to record the Bush Administration’s turning point as January 7, 2004….”
Unfortunately, History is highly unlikely to record it. What academic will admit, or even perceive, that Bush was brought down not by the war in Iraq or “conservative” policies, but his support for mass immigration? Any such maverick would be forced to admit that 1) Bush is *not* conservative; 2) the “people” hate immigration; 3) he is himself part of the pampered, privileged, out-of-touch elite, in the same camp as the Bushes. And all of this is unthinkable.
Shrewsbury is delineating one of the horrible aspects of the process of civilizational extinction that has been unleashed by mass immigration. It’s not just that everything that we have and everything that we are is threatened with destruction, it’s that there will be no people like us in the future to know or care about what happened to us.
Sailer is right about the greater importance to Bush of maximizing white voters coming out for him than making inroads into the hispanic vote. However, Bush’s plan is not likely to go anywhere in Congress, and there is an old saying that you can’t get hurt supporting something that doesn’t pass, or opposing something that does. The plan, though nugatory, will completely sabotage the democrats’ efforts to inflame and maximize democrat turnout among hispanics, and democrats simply can’t afford this. They must have it to be competitive. The real problem continues to be that neither party is coming up with a realistic principled approach to the immigration problem.