Is Beck providing too many talking points?

Paul Henri writes:

Roy Beck’s numerous arguments are counterproductive. Staffers are uninterested in nuance. They want to know whether or not you are opposed and, secondarily, why. Briefly.

I can’t imagine why Beck is hitting his thumb with a hammer. I have called 22 senators today, and I pointed out that Bush and the other president’s since Eisenhower have failed to enforce immigration law. I said, therefore, there is no reason to believe President Bush would enforce the law in the future. This is powerful stuff that anyone can master.

—end of initial entry—

Paul K. writes:

I had the same reaction as did Paul Henri to the Beck article. All these points would be useful in trying to persuade friends or family, but Republican politicians know this stuff and just don’t care. They’re making their decisions based on considerations such as party loyalty, the influence of big donors, political quid pro quo, etc. I wrote to the 19 swing senators and told them that this is a make-or-break issue for me. I will vote for anyone of any party who opposes this bill, including third party candidates who have not a prayer of winning. I will not vote for anyone who supports it. I don’t know what else there is to say.

On another point, it was remarkable that Beck wrote that, “When Pres. Bush came to their lunch Tuesday, people in the room said his body language and facial expressions showed genuine surprise at the number of Senators who told him that it isn’t just the ‘immigration crazies’ who are objecting to the bill.”

Has there even been a president who has gone through two terms in such a continuous state of surprise as President Bush? Of course, you have correctly identified that as the normal mode of the liberal.

Josh writes:

Paul Henri wrote: “I have called 22 senators today, and I pointed out that Bush and the other president’s since Eisenhower have failed to enforce immigration law. I said, therefore, there is no reason to believe President Bush would enforce the law in the future. This is powerful stuff that anyone can master.”

This situation would seem to stem from the loss of the idea that Americans have the right (and the duty) to deport illegal aliens at will. When pundits spread the idea that mass deportation is an “impossible” solution and therefore off the table, they reject our most potent enforcement tool. It’s like telling a robber that you are not armed or a deadly enemy that you will not fight him. How can we win this battle when we’ve told our adversaries and supposed allies that we won’t do all we can do to win even if it means nothing more than exerting our fundamental American rights?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 15, 2007 09:13 PM | Send