Even K-Lo can’t stand Bush
Among the NRO-cons who are outraged at President Bush for his refusal to take seriously his duty to protect the U.S. from invasion—and even more for his cheap demonizing of those who expect him to take that duty seriously—is NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez. In a May 31 article her upset with Busheron comes through loud and clear:
On the day a deal between Senate leaders and the White House was announced, President Bush said that the bill will be without “animosity.” He aimed that at this Lopez—a critic. Supposedly, the attitude goes, if you’re not with Jorge Arbusto, you’re filled with anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant “animosity.” Earlier this week he dismissed all those who use the word “amnesty” in reference to the bill. “If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens.”As shocking as Bush’s demogaguery may be, there is no reason to be surprised at it. As I have pointed out over and over, Bush’s position on immigration has been consistent from the start. In an August 2000 speech candidate Bush laid out his view of the matter with unmistakeable clarity: that there are the good people, who “welcome” the transformation of America into a culturally Hispanic country, and there are the bad people, who “resent” it. That which leads to the displacement of America’s Anglo-European culture is good. That which that stands in the way of such displacement is evil. Open borders is good. Opposition to open borders is evil. Everything Bush has said on the immigration issue since that speech has been simply a repetition or elaboration of these basic leftist motifs. If the NRO-cons could understand this, they would see that Bush is not just someone who has let them down or betrayed them; they would see that he is and always has been a committed enemy of this country as a distinctive historical entity.
Here’s an excerpt from my article that quotes and discusses Bush’s seminal August 2000 speech:
On the matter of national identity, W. delivered in Miami on Aug. 25 a major address on U.S.-Latin American relations, in which he unveiled a startling—at least for a Republican—view of America. We should pay close attention to his words:
Yesterday I heard a professor from Hofstra University on the radio who said that what we most had to consider with this immigration bill is what is best for “humanity.” He then said that since we’re “a nation of immigrants” letting in all these immigrants will make us more of what we really are.LA replies:
> He then said that since we’re “a nation of immigrants” letting in all these immigrants will make us more of what we really are.Roger writes:
President Bush’s main political characteristic is now clearly more than hostility towards his own base. He obviously feels contempt for anyone who opposes this immigration bill which means that he feels contempt for the majority of the American people. And what this really means is that this president of the United States feels contempt for anyone who truly cares about the United States.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 31, 2007 09:34 PM | Send