The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
Donald Trump

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

The NYT and FiveThirtyEight forecasts have split, with NYT thinking a Trump victory is highly likely, but 538 has gone back to giving Hillary a small lead in the chances of winning. But in case the NYT model turns out to be right …

From iSteve back in February:

Harry Baldwin has put together a Trumpified version of the headlines that supposedly appeared in the French government’s official newspaper Le Moniteur in March 1815 when Napoleon Bonaparte escaped Elba and astonished Europe by retaking the throne via courage and charisma, setting off his 100 Days that ended with his own personal Waterloo:

March 9, 1815 : The Monster has escaped from his place of banishment.

March 10: The Corsican Ogre has landed at Cape Juan

March 11: The Tiger has shown himself at Gap. The Troops are advancing on all sides to arrest his progress. He will conclude his miserable adventure by becoming a wanderer among the mountains.

March 12: The Monster has actually advanced as far as Grenoble

March 13: The Tyrant is now at Lyon. Fear and Terror seized all at his appearance.

March 18: The Usurper has ventured to approach to within 60 hours’ march of the capital.

March 19: Bonaparte is advancing by forced marches, but it is impossible he can reach Paris.

March 20: Napoleon will arrive under the walls of Paris tomorrow.

March 21: The Emperor Napoleon is at Fountainbleu

March 22: Yesterday evening His Majesty the Emperor made his public entry and arrived at the Tuileries. Nothing can exceed the universal joy.

Note: I’ve read these a million times, but I can’t vouch they’re really real.

Commenter Harry Baldwin writes:

February 24, 2016 at 3:06 am GMT • 300 Words (Edit-1334638)

If been thinking about a “Trump Marches on Washington” version of the “Napoleon Marches on Paris” piece Steve runs occasionally. Insulting names for Trump courtesy of Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, John Sununu, Rich Lowry, and Fred Barnes.

April 2015: The Complete Idiot announces he’s seriously considering running for the Republican presidential nomination. On Fox News, George Will looked forward to watching him crash and burn.

June 2015: The Al Sharpton of the Republican Party declared his candidacy in a rambling speech full of racist attacks on Mexican immigrants intended to rile up the teabaggers.

June 2015: The Bloviating Ignoramus has taken a lead in the polls, but it’s still the silly season. Voters haven’t yet taken a look at the more plausible candidates.

July 2015: The Bane of Humanity has insulted the war hero John McCain. He’s gotten away with his gaffes, insults and vulgarity so far, but this time he’s gone too far.

August 2015: The Clown described our champion as “a low-energy person.” Rather than join Trump in the gutter, Jeb understands voters will quickly tire of Trump’s childish banter.

August 2015: The Dancing Bear draws a crowd of 30,000 in Alabama.

September 2015: The Most Fabulous Whiner in All of American Politics continues to hold his lead in the polls. Fox New analysts are confident that Republican voters will soon get serious.

February 2016: The One-Man Wedge Issue said that George W. Bush lied to get us into Iraq. He’s done it now. Veterans, who revere the former president, are a major bloc in South Carolina.

February 2016: Trump wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, but if all candidates but Rubio drop out and he gets their votes, Trump can be stopped.

November 2016: Donald J. Trump has won the election. National Review publishes a special issues congratulating President Trump, featuring highlights of brilliant campaign. Fox All Stars offer him their counsel and assistance in instituting a true conservative agenda.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, American Media, Donald Trump 
🔊 Listen RSS

From Talking Points Memo:

Trump’s Blood Libel & Press Failure


Published SEPTEMBER 2, 2016, 12:07 AM EDT

Even now, after all that’s happened, most political reporters find themselves either unwilling or unable to identify Donald Trump’s tirades as hate speech. … This is hate speech.

We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’. Most often we assume that it’s a matter of using particular words … Hate speech is rants meant to inflame, inspire fear or rage or violence against a particular class of people. The precise vocabulary is not the heart of the matter. There’s no question that what Trump’s Wednesday night speech was was hate speech, a tirade filled with yelling, a snarling voice, air chopped to bits with slashing hands and through it all a story of American victims helpless before a looming threat from dangerous, predatory outsiders.

I’ve discussed the matter a few times in these pages. But I’m stunned at how little reaction or discussion we see of how sick and dangerous it is to parade these victimized families around like props.

It’s striking how blatant double-standards are.

Mothers of the Movement at the DNC

It doesn’t seem to occur to Josh Marshall that Hillary trots out her black “Mothers of the Movement” all the time, putting nine on stage at the Democratic convention, even after the Black Lives Matter-inspired murders of eight cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge. And Hillary doesn’t seem to show much judgment in whom she selects to feature, such as the mother of attempted cop killer Michael Brown of Ferguson. From

Michael Brown’s mother appears at Democratic National Convention, prompting police ire

By Chuck Raasch and Christine Byers St. Louis Post-Dispatch Jul 27, 2016 (775)

Lezley McSpadden, the mother of slain Ferguson teen Michael Brown, appeared at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday as part of the group “Mothers of the Movement” — women who have lost their children in encounters with police or to gun violence.

On the other hand, the concept of putting the loved ones of victims of public policy onstage makes sense. The mother of Eric Garner, the fat guy who died of a heart attack after a jerk NYPD cop choked him, for example, is a pretty articulate individual and it’s worthwhile to hear her perspective on an unfortunate incident.

Similarly, it’s useful to put a human face on the toll from immigration policy.

Back to Josh Marshall:

These families have suffered horribly but no more than the families of victims of American murderers and Americans who committed DUI fatalities.

Okay, but with all the world to choose from, why is it acceptable that we get so many low quality immigrants? Shouldn’t our goal be zero defective immigrants? We can’t get all the way to our goal, but we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.

If we went out and found victims who’d suffered grievously at the hands of Jews or blacks and paraded them around the country before angry crowds the wrongness and danger of doing so would be obvious.

In contrast, Hillary puts black victims of whites on stage at her convention, even after eight cops died because of this kind of agitation. But seven of the eight dead cops were white, so that’s okay.

Now, you might say, that’s not fair. American Jews and African-Americans are citizens, with as much right to be here as anyone else. But that’s just a dodge. There’s no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than documented or naturalized immigrants.

Actually there is. Legal immigrants who got in because they married a GI or have a graduate degree or whatever don’t commit a lot of homicides and rapes. As they should. Why let in drunk drivers? Does Harvard let in a lot of criminals? Why not have high standards for immigrants?

Indeed, there is solid evidence that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native born. Simple logic tells us that undocumented immigrants face greater consequences for being apprehended by police and thus likely are more careful to avoid it. They’re likely more apt to avoid contact with authorities than the rest of us.

What drives American crime rates so high is having 40 million African-Americans, who are world famous for their tendencies toward gangsta behavior. According to the Obama Administration, a majority of the homicides in America are committed by the 13% of the population that is black. We could let in just about anybody in the world and do better than that.

Marshall puts up this graph to prove his point:


The first generation of immigrants is somewhat intimidated and/or disappears over the border when wanted for arrest, but the second generation is much worse. And there are more and more of them. Why does anyone think this is a good thing?

Okay, let me explain why some think this is a great idea. If you live in New York City or Washington DC or a similar supercity, letting in a bunch of Hondurans who will grow up to have homicide rate X, but who will push out African-Americans with homicide rate 3X, is good for property values.

On the other hand, if you live in one of the loser cities where the African-Americans will move to, too bad. Moreover, people in the media will call you a racist for not wanting to take their surplus African-Americans off their hands. You do not get a say in this matter. Your betters have decided that you deserve some Diversity, good and hard. They’ve had enough Diversity, so they’ve decided to share the Diversity with you, you racists.

… This is simply a way of whipping up irrational fear and hatred. …It is simply blood libel and incitement.

Indeed, my hypothetical about Jews and African-Americans is no hypothetical. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany and the centuries of anti-Semitism that preceded it will tell you that the celebration and valorization of victims was always a central part of sustaining bigotry, fear and oppression. … The valorization of victims was and is a way of provoking vicarious horror, rage, hate and finally violence whether specific individuals were guilty or not.

You know, “the celebration and valorization of victims” is not wholly a sin of Republicans …

… But there’s no excuse for those who have themselves suffered nothing but exploit this suffering to propagate hate. That fact that we’ve become inured to this, that we now find it normal to see these cattle calls of grief and incitement as part of a political campaign is shocking and sickening. There’s no other word for this but incitement and blood libel.

Another term for it is “Who? Whom?”

Watch Trump’s speeches, with the yelling, the reddened face, the demand for vengeance and you see there’s little to distinguish them from what we see at Aryan Nations or other white hate rallies that we all immediately recognize as reprehensible, wrong and frankly terrifying. This isn’t ‘rough’ language or ‘hard edged’ rhetoric. It’s hate speech. Precisely what policy solution Trump is calling for is almost beside the point. Indeed, it wouldn’t be hate speech any less if Trump specified no policy solution at all.

This isn’t normal. It was normal in the Jim Crow South, as it was in Eastern Europe for centuries.

Nothing has gotten me in more trouble over the years than pointing out that many Jews in the media are not very self-aware of their own prejudices. Josh Marshall, for example, is a 47 year old with a Ph.D. in history who simply doesn’t notice his own bigotry and ethnic animus.

Because we’re the world’s greatest victims, we can denounce anybody else for appealing to victimist thinking with a straight face.

And why should Marshall self-aware? Who would dare point it out to him?

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

A striking thing about Donald Trump’s campaign is that The Establishment’s hostility to him proposing immigration restrictions is costing him serious money, but unlike so many others, he has yet to flinch.

The term “The Establishment” was a 1960s hippie phrase, but it now seems to be mostly used today on the dissident right. Who exactly is “The Establishment” is debatable, but it seems fair to include The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, the ruling body of golf outside the U.S., within any definition of The Establishment.

From The Independent:

Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf club to no longer host The Open tournament amid anger over controversial remarks

The more offensive he is, the more popular he is – but not in Scotland, and not with golf’s ruling class
James Cusick Political Correspondent @indyvoices Sunday 13 December 201575 comments

The Turnberry golf course, which has hosted the Open Championship on numerous occasions, is one of two famous golf courses Donald Trump owns in Scotland

When Donald Trump bought the famous Turnberry golf club in Ayrshire last year, he believed his name would soon be cemented alongside the legends of the game.

But his dream of handing over the trophy at The Open is in tatters, The Independent on Sunday can reveal, after golf’s governing body, headquartered in Scotland, privately decided that his reputation is now so toxic that the newly renamed Trump Turnberry can no longer host the game’s most prestigious tournament.

Controversial remarks made by Mr Trump in his campaign for the Republican nomination – about Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese and women, among others – have given him a near-pariah status in the global game, raising the risk of a boycott by sponsors and international players.

Previously, the new chief executive of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, Martin Slumbers, had been expected to endorse Turnberry as a venue for the 2020 Open. …

But his call for a “total and complete shutdown” of US borders to all Muslims, until, as he claimed, “our country’s representatives figure out what’s going on”, appears to have been the final straw for the R&A.

One member, close to the championship committee, told the IoS about recent discussions: “One word was thrown around: Enough.”

The property tycoon bought the Turnberry resort in April last year from the subsidiary owned by the Dubai investment group chaired by Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum. It was renamed Trump Turnberry and a £200m upgrade was promised.

And that gives me a chance to talk about golf courses …

Turnberry has the most spectacular site of any of the British Open courses, the Scottish equivalent of Pebble Beach. But its current golf architecture doesn’t take much advantage of its ocean clifftop location.

Fortunately, Trump has announced a host of revisions that would fully exploit the potential of the location, such as this new par 5 10th hole, which would one-up the 18th at Pebble Beach by constructing tees on the rocks by the lighthouse, offering a chance at eagle for those long enough and daring enough to risk the cliffs on both their tee shots and long iron approach shots.

Trump’s taste in golf architecture tended toward artificial waterfalls in the past, but it has improved over the decades, and his plans for Turnberry appear to be outstanding.

The purchase appeared to give the billionaire the near-guarantee that when the Open came to his place, he would be centre-stage at the winner’s presentation party on the 18th green, along with Mr Slumbers and other dignitaries, a ceremony shown to millions around the world.

Trump took time out from campaigning last summer to host the Women’s British Open at Turnberry.

Although the R&A is stuffed full of establishment figures, Turnberry with Trump is now seen as a risk they will not take. Another insider said: “2020 will not happen here. Turnberry will be back. But perhaps not Trump Turnberry.”

Even after his remarks about Muslims, Mr Trump still leads current polls of Republican voters with about 35 per cent, double his nearest rival, Ted Cruz.

However, while he may dream of handing over the Claret Jug having jetted into Scotland from the White House, the R&A doesn’t see it that way. Middle East sovereign wealth is a key element of European Tour golf sponsorship. Leading sponsors include DP World, the Dubai-based marine terminal company chaired by Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem.

Jumeirah Golf Estates and the Emirates airline are also leading sponsors of the big-money finale to the European tour. The Damac real estate company in Dubai, currently building a multi-million-dollar golf complex marketed with the Trump signature, this week stripped his name from the project.

I’m always struck by how Trump haters assume that listing other Trump haters, such as Persian Gulf oil princes, will rally the average voter to hate Trump too.

Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal called Mr Trump “a disgrace to all America”, saying he should withdraw from the US presidential race.

Mr Trump’s reply indicated his disregard for any consequences. He called the prince “dopey”, saying that he wouldn’t be allowed to control US politicians when he became president.

We can’t have that: it’s unthinkable that US politicians wouldn’t be controlled by Arab oil princes.

Organisations that represent tour players in the United States and Europe, have so far said nothing official in response to Mr Trump’s racist comments. But that is not expected to last much longer….

Perhaps. But touring pros are not all that Democratic. Tom Watson was the only tour pro to vote Democratic in 1972 and he soon became a fervent Republican. Scott Simpson was the only pro to publicly express Democratic leanings in, I think, 2000.

Mr Trump himself has filed estimates which say his golf-related business is worth $1.5bn (£1bn) of his estimated $10bn fortune, though experts claim his golf assets are over-valued.

Trump has bought a bunch of top golf courses in the teeth of what may be a permanent golf recession. Does he know something everybody else doesn’t know? Or does the entrepreneur, whose mother was born in the Hebrides, just really like golf?

• Tags: Donald Trump, Golf 
🔊 Listen RSS

With Jeb Bush and Donald Trump arguing over whether George W. Bush failed to stop 9/11, it’s worth going to the videotape (47:28) of the second Presidential debate of 2000. On 10/11/2000, the Texas governor denounced heightened scrutiny of Arab airline passengers by airport security. Bush said on national TV:

Secondly, there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what is called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we have to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn’t just an issue at local police forces. It’s an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we’re going to have to deal with it more and more. I believe, though — I believe, as sure as I’m sitting here, that most Americans really care. They’re tolerant people. They’re good, tolerant people. It’s the very few that create most of the crises, and we just have to find them and deal with them.

Note that when the future President said “we just have to find them and deal with them,” the “them” he was referring to as having to be dealt with were not Arab skyjackers but airline and airport employees worried about stopping Arab skyjackers.

In accordance with this statement, Bush appointed Democrat Norman Mineta Secretary of Transportation and directed him to root out profiling of Arabs at the airport.

In 2005, airport counter clerk Michael Tuohey told Oprah Winfrey of his encounter early on 9/11/2001 with the leader of the terrorists:

“I got an instant chill when I looked at [Atta]. I got this grip in my stomach and then, of course, I gave myself a political correct slap…I thought, ‘My God, Michael, these are just a couple of Arab businessmen.’”

By the way, on a personal note, this may have been when I started to realize I was the world’s least viral journalist. I’m not sure if the word “viral” had that meaning on 9/11/2001, but if it did, I was sure that the President’s 11-month-old denunciation of anti-terrorism efforts would soon go viral. I vividly recalled watching Bush say this to a huge television audience less than a year before. Back then you couldn’t post video, but it was easy to find a transcript. So I stayed up late that night writing up “Bush had called for laxer airport security” so I wouldn’t get scooped too badly by all the other pundits.

In all the rush, it didn’t get published for about a week. Yet by then, nobody else had brought it up. When my piece didn’t get any attention, well, lots of stuff was happening.

Every few years since then, I’ve brought up Bush’s statement, but it never seems to register on anybody other than my core readers. It’s an interesting example of the Sapir-Whorf effect in action. We are given categories to file facts away in: e.g., Republicans Are Racist; Bush Protected Us from Terrorism, etc. It’s very hard to remember anything that doesn’t fit in the right slots.

This is the first time I’ve posted video of Bush saying this. We’ll see if this makes any difference in the impact, although by now, after 14 years, I doubt it.

Similarly, the big Bush Push of 2002-2004 to ease traditional credit standards, such as down payments and documentation, that have disparate impact on black and Hispanic mortgage-seekers is practically impossible for most people to remember because it doesn’t fit in the categories: Republicans Are Racist; Bush Protected Us from Liberalism, etc.

Here’s a video of Bush telling his federal regulators that down payment requirements are keeping minorities from achieving the American Dream:

But I’ve posted this before with negligible impact.

🔊 Listen RSS

The first 2016 general election poll of September is also the first poll to show Trump beating Hillary. From May through July, Hillary was up by anywhere from 12 to 24 points over Trump. He’s now up by five points, continuing a trend in Trump’s direction in August:

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Spread
RCP Average 8/11 – 9/3 45.8 43.4 Clinton +2.4
SurveyUSA 9/2 – 9/3 900 RV 3.3 40 45 Trump +5
PPP (D) 8/28 – 8/30 1254 RV 2.8 46 44 Clinton +2
Quinnipiac 8/20 – 8/25 1563 RV 2.5 45 41 Clinton +4
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 897 RV 3.5 51 45 Clinton +6
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 1008 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5

The demographics in this new SurveyUSA poll are interesting, although the sample sizes are small.

They are pretty much the opposite of the conventional wisdom. Relative to traditional Republican candidates, Trump is doing very well among blacks (down only 25-59) and Asians (leading 41-39) and doing reasonably well among Hispanics (down 31-50). Among whites, however, Trump is leading Hillary only 51-34, which might be a little under what would be expected for a Republican up 5 points.

Trump is winning heavily (54-36) among those who say they pay a lot of attention to politics, and is winning 48-40 among college graduates.

Trump’s strongest region is the Midwest, where he is up 49-31.

The news that Trump, who tends to strike hip-hop fans as having the kind of style that they’d want to have if they were a rich old white guy and whose positions on immigration and trade sound more likely to help black Americans earn a living than just about anybody else’s, is on track to win, say, 30% of the black vote will likely start to panic Democratic strategists, especially if it holds up in additional polls.

Expect to see a concerted effort to demonize Trump among blacks. Obama carried the Great Lakes Rust Belt (outside of Indiana) in 2012 by running up huge margins among blacks while the Romney-Ryan ticket kept whites in the region depressed and divided. A Republican who is strong in the upper Midwest is an Electoral College nightmare for the Democrats.

One thing that’s going on is that Trump is benefiting from the Revolt of the Comedians. Awhile ago, beloved elder statesman Jerry Seinfeld spoke up against comedy-killing campus conformity, citing his friend Chris Rock as support. Some people wondered why I wrote a Taki column recently quoting at length the somewhat obscure comedian Colin Quinn. But he’s an old friend of Seinfeld, Rock, and some other well-known comedy names, and I suspect Quinn articulates in public how a lot of comedians feel in private.

Trump is not himself hugely funny (except in a meta sense, in which he’s hilarious), but he exemplifies an American value that we feel slipping away: liberty. Americans used to say, “Well, it’s a free country.” They don’t anymore. The Statue of Liberty once stood for an American’s right to say what he felt was true. Now the Statue of Liberty has been repurposed as an icon of how Americans had better shut up about immigration and diversity.

Donald J. Trump is the living embodiment of the First Amendment.

On the other hand, there are a lot of foreign policy issues on which the President really shouldn’t mouth off. For example, the official stance of the United States government since February 1972 has been that China and Taiwan are one country that should be under one government; we just won’t say which one.

Granted, that’s ridiculous, but, at least so far it has worked. And therefore the President shouldn’t say it’s ridiculous even though everybody knows it is.

A low energy guy like Obama, who more or less was raised to be some kind of Foreign Service diplomat, is probably not going to tell an interviewer that of course China and Taiwan are separate countries: everybody knows that. But a President Trump might.

In contrast, domestic policy (e.g., immigration policy) should be far more of a free for all than it is under the current rules of what’s respectable. Obama’s diplomatic Blank Screen approach where nobody is supposed to get the joke about why we elected this guy President has been a slow-moving disaster. I suspect that deep down Obama feels bad about how his Administration has, in effect, agitated blacks to murder each other, all in the name of #BlackLivesMatter. But “personnel is policy” and a lot of Obama’s appointees, such as Eric Holder, have been too dim to figure out what they are doing to America.

When it comes to domestic policy, Congress and the courts have huge says, so the President using his bully pulpit is a good thing: the embodiment of democracy.

But much of foreign policy, perhaps too much, is handed over to the President under the guise of the National Security state. So the President has less freedom to spout off his opinion about whatever comes to his attention, such as, say, the division of Cyprus into Greek and Turkish spheres. Trump the Dealmaker might just be able to spitball aloud some wacky Cyprus innovation he dreamed up that actually improves that less-than-optimal but 4-decade long stable situation. But Trump the President could also destabilize it by sounding off about how everybody on the island would be better off if only they’d work out a deal and the U.S. wants change.

Did, say, Obama blow up the Arab world (with the present dire consequences) by going to Cairo in 2009 and making an ambiguous speech? Perhaps.

Trump has a little under a year and a half to grow into the job. It’s a challenge, but not impossible. Mostly, he needs to get across that he’s not going to upset settled foreign policy just for fun.

There are two sides to Trump:

- The no-publicity-is-bad-publicity-as-long-as-they-spell-”Trump”-right TV time hound

- The expert negotiator who plays his cards close to the vest

The good news is that Trump likely doesn’t care much about foreign policy, especially areas like Taiwan and Cyprus where sleeping dogs can probably be let lie a few years longer. Moreover as President, Trump would hardly be in pressing need of more publicity by stirring up unneeded foreign policy controversies beyond the ones in which he has a carefully decided upon strategy for making a deal on his terms.

🔊 Listen RSS

In the Washington Post, Greg Sargent writes:

This morning on ABC News, Jeb Bush unleashed what may be his most full-throated response yet to the rise of Donald Trump. The quote that will drive the headlines is that Bush said Trump wants to “insult his way to the presidency.”

But that’s not the most important part of Bush’s remarkable monologue. The more significant part of it was the challenge it represents to GOP primary voters.

To recap, Trump had mocked Bush for speaking in Spanish, claiming that he “should really set the example by speaking English while in the United States.” Apparently it’s self-evidently ludicrous for a Republican presidential candidate to try to appeal to Latino voters by speaking their language. Bush’s response is worth quoting at length:

“Donald Trump is trying to insult his way to the presidency. It’s not gonna work. People want an uplifting, hopeful message. People come to this country to pursue their dreams. Sometimes they start without speaking English. But they learn English. And they add vitality to our country.

“To say you can only speak English is kind of ridiculous, if you think about it….This is a diverse country. We should celebrate that diversity and embrace a set of shared values. Mr. Trump doesn’t believe in those shared values. He wants to tear us down. He doesn’t believe in tolerance. He doesn’t believe in the things that have created the greatness of this country.”

What this shows, I think, is that Jeb Bush’s claim last year that illegal immigration is an “act of love” continues to be a seminal moment that perfectly captured the split among Republicans over the issue.


Jeb assures us:

Sometimes they start without speaking English. But they learn English.

Okay, but has Columba Bush learned to speak English yet? Has the Presidential candidate’s wife learned English well enough in her 40 years of marriage to be interviewed in English without pre-arranged questions?

I, personally, have never found video of the former First Lady of Florida being interviewed in English. I have found video of her uncomfortably reading a two-minute speech in English. But that’s all I’ve found so far.

It’s often said of Columba in the media that she’s a very shy person, and that’s why she avoids giving interviews in English. Yet, I’ve found video of her being charming in a Spanish-language interview. I’ve found video of her giving a speech on national television on the floor of the Republican National Convention … in Spanish. I’ve found video of her doing a TV commercial with her father-in-law, with her speaking Spanish.

I would hope she’s learned English well enough to converse in it in her 40+ years of marriage to Jeb. But I just don’t have evidence of that yet.

UPDATE: After a couple of months of asking, one commenter and one emailer, who might represent the same person or two separate sources, write to say they have conversed with Columba in English.

The most fundamental issue in politics is “Whose side are you on?” Jeb, who is not a particularly slippery individual, has given us much evidence that primarily he’s on the side of Mexicans, not Americans.

That strikes me as an honorable position, just not one I’d want in my President.

Look, Jeb has been reasonably straightforward about the fact that, emotionally, he prefers Mexicans to Americans. If we Americans are too dumb to figure out the implications of what’s Jeb’s been repeatedly hinting at, well, I guess we deserve what we have coming from a third Bush Administration.

You won’t be able to say Jeb didn’t warn us.

Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?