Sailer on Bush’s self-undoing
Steve Sailer’s 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 Administration’s 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.
Comments
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. http://www.vdare.com/misc/dougherty_invasion.htm 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. Posted by: Carl on February 2, 2004 12:33 AMAnd 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 Posted by: Joel LeFevre on February 2, 2004 1:29 AMI 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. 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! Posted by: David Levin on February 2, 2004 5:16 AMI used to like Front Page magazine but more and more they have followed the usual neo-con path. Given that some are seeing through Bush’s antics…Please check out this website and discussion board. www.bushrevealed.com and http://www.repentamerica.com/forums/index.php Speaking of Mexican foreign units invading America, read this article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36880 I am voting Constitution Party and all third party across the board, Im done with the Republicans and Democrats. Posted by: Victoria on February 2, 2004 9:55 AM“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. Posted by: Shrewsbury on February 2, 2004 8:26 PMShrewsbury 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. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on February 2, 2004 9:28 PMSailer 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. Posted by: thucydides on February 3, 2004 6:45 PMComment ca va? Posted by: MingLee on November 8, 2004 2:08 PM |