The end of the affair?

Several readers have sent me news (here and here) of former First South-of-the-Border Presidential Pal Vicente Fox’s dissing of Jorge Busheron in Fox’s new autobiography. Nothing surprising about that. It was always evident that the tall Fox looked down on Busheron with his endless joshing and eager sucking-up that conveyed pathetic weakness and a craven desire to be liked. Furthermore, how could any man who believes in his own country, as Fox does, respect a man so eager to betray his country as Bush is? Imagine what Fox was thinking when Bush, standing by Fox’s side at a news conference, said that the Minutemen were vigilantes. “I’ll get whatever I can out of this gringo, but Dios am I glad this loser is on their side and not on our side.”

Also, one should not think that Fox’s put-downs of Busheron will alienate the latter. As I’ve said many times, Busheron’s m.o. is that he gives his enemy a back rub, the enemy stabs him in the back … and Busheron gives him another back rub.

Why? No mystery. Busheron is a liberal.

- end of initial entry -

David B. writes:

A few years ago, I sent you an email concerning the incongruity of the President of the United States practically begging the Mexican President to endorse him for reelection. I remember reading that Bush was really hoping that Fox would endorse him in 2004. Ironically, Fox wasn’t all that strong in Mexico.

I believe that Bush accepts the idea of Mexico taking back the SouthWestern United States, rather than a merger of the countries. Bush strikes me as a liberal of this type.

Stephen T. writes:

Bush is just the latest liberal to find out that catering to Mexicans, cringing before them, bending over for them, accommodating them at every turn does NOT inspire gratitude or good will from these people, as it might from, say, the Belgians or the Swiss. It inspires scorn, and a certain amount of bafflement. In their culture, complaisance and benevolence toward opponents or rivals are perceived as non-masculine signs of weakness. They engender barely-concealed disrespect—you can see it in Fox’s thin smile when photographed w/Bush—not any sort of reciprocity. What they are culturally programmed to esteem is unyielding power. Years ago a Mexican co-worker, who advocated open borders and denounced U.S. immigration policy, explained why he (somewhat paradoxically) supported the reelection of then-governor Pete Wilson … even though Wilson was a proponent of strict border control, an author of Prop 187, and an unapologetic foe of the reconquista agenda: “Because Pete Wilson is a STRONG MAN,” he told me sharply, driving his fist into his open palm for emphasis.

Tim W. writes:

You are correct that Bush will take the abuse heaped on him by Vincente Fox in stride. He does the same when Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Ted Kennedy flay him.

But he does fight back, even to the point of fighting dirty, when he’s attacked from the right. When conservatives objected to the silly nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the White House accused her opponents of “sexism.” This was ludicrous, given Miss Miers’ total lack of qualifications for the job. It was especially unfair given that many Miers opponents were championing other women (such as Judge Priscilla Owen) for the job. When conservatives objected to the Bush amnesty bill, charges of racism began to be heard, and the White House dealt quite ruthlessly with its critics.

So perhaps your characterization of Bush’s softness needs to be modified. He’s soft only when being bashed from the left. He’s quite a dirty fighter when challenged from the right.

LA replies:

You’re right, and I tried to make that modification when drafting the original entry, but it didn’t work in that brief entry. So your comment helps correct that.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 17, 2007 01:32 AM | Send