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
George W. Bush

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

Almost a decade ago, President Bush and Senator Kennedy got together and pushed through the No Child Left Behind act, which mandated that every single child in America would score “Proficient” or “Advanced” on reading and writing by 2013-2014, and told the states to concoct, administer, and grade their own tests to demonstrate this (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Some states got the hint, such as Mississippi, which soon reported that, even with a couple of years left on its Five Year Plan for Educational Awesomeness, 89% of Mississippi 4th grade readers were already Proficient/Advanced. Whether the governor of Mississippi also invited President Bush and Senator Kennedy to float in state down the Mississippi and see all the thriving new schools that he had erected on the banks of that mighty river is lost in the mists of history.

Unfortunately, while Bush and Kennedy were at it, they forgot to abolish the federal National Assessment of Education Progress test, which has gone on reporting that reading test scores have just kept on keeping on. From today’s Washington Post:

Reading scores stalled under ‘no child’ law, report finds

… progress nationwide has stalled despite huge instructional efforts launched under the No Child Left Behind law.

The 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that fourth-grade scores for the nation’s public schools stagnated after the law took effect in 2002, rose modestly in 2007, then flatlined. …

The national picture for eighth-grade reading was largely the same: a slight uptick in performance since 2007 but no gain in the seven years when President George W. Bush’s program for school reform was in high gear. …

When Bush signed the law, hopes were high for a revolution in reading. Billions of dollars were spent, especially in early grades, to build fluency, decoding skills, vocabulary, comprehension and a love of books that would propel students in all subjects. The goal was to eliminate racial and ethnic achievement gaps. But Wednesday’s report showed no great leaps for the nation and stubborn disparities in performance between white and black students, among others.

Another way to look at it is that we’re actually doing pretty good. With demographic riptide running in the wrong direction, just staying in the same place is a tribute to a lot of hard work.

Other notes: the white-black gap in 4th grade reading scores is by far the largest in the most liberal jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. Nationwide, it’s 25 points, but in DC it’s 60 points. The next biggest white-black gaps for 4th graders are in Minnesota (35 points) and Wisconsin (35). The smallest white-black gaps are in West Virginia (12 points — dumb whites), New Hampshire and Vermont (few blacks), and Pentagon-run schools (need a 92 IQ to enlist).

Indeed, DC has by far the highest scoring white kids (15 points ahead of Massachusetts). It’s black students are no longer the lowest scoring, being four points ahead of Wisconsin. (The worst scoring black 4th graders are in the socially liberal Old Northwest: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. This is probably due in part to high welfare payments and easy eligibility requirements in the 1960s attracting the most feckless Southern blacks.)

Unfortunately, there aren’t enough white 8th graders in DC public schools for the NAEP to come up with an adequate sample size of white 8th graders in DC.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

[See also What Was Karl Rove Thinking? Some Clues From His Autobiography]

Journalists always like to say they write “the first draft of history,” but, really, there are three drafts. And it’s the middle one, in between Breaking News and History, where the worst distortions creep in. Between the raw feed and the history books, journalists quickly simplify the immense complexity of events into stock clichés that can go unchallenged for decades. For example, by 1992 the press had rewritten the 1988 election around WillieHorton.

Likewise, it will probably take one to two generations before historians can cut through the rewrites to understand the fundamental dynamics of the last decade. Why did the Bush Administration waste eight years on Immigration, Invasion, and Indebtedness? Why did it encourage Mexicans to illegally immigrate to America by calling for amnesty? What was Karl Rove thinking when he tried and failed in four different years (2001, 2004, 2006, and 2007) to shove through amnesty and guest worker legislation?

With Rove’s boss, George W. Bush, the question is less of a puzzle. I suspect that minimizing the border between Mexico and America was Bush’s personal passion, while Rove just thought they were being clever.

Striking a deal with Mexico was traditional Bush family business, going back at least to 1960 when George H. W. Bush’s Zapata Off-Shore oil company formed a partnership with Jorge Diaz Serrano to sneak around Mexico’s ban on foreign involvement in its oil industry. (Diaz Serrano later became head of Pemex, the Mexican oil monopoly, and then went to prison for corruption.)

Further integration of the U.S. and Mexican economies was naturally attractive for the Bushes. The senior Bush negotiated NAFTA and encouraged Mexican president Carlos Salinas to turn public monopolies such as the phone system into private monopolies (a policy which has made Carlos Slim the richest man in the world). Yet, in NAFTA, Mexicowithheld from privatization its crown jewel monopoly, Pemex.

Business and immigration all blended together for the younger Bush, which is why his 2001 plan was to have his Secretary of State negotiate an immigration deal with Vicente Fox’s Foreign Minister. In his 1995 New York Times op-ed, No Cheap Shots at Mexico, Please, then-Governor Bush warned Republicans off from the immigration issue by holding forth on the profits to be made from furtherintegration with Latin America:

“Mexico is proving to be a strong economic friend. Our economic bond with Mexico carries with it some very positive long-term results. An isolated United States will not be able to compete successfully in a world economywhere Europe and Asia are united into common-market partnerships. The trade agreement wisely affords our country the opportunity to join forces with Canada and our neighbors to the south—first Mexico, then Chile, then other emerging capitalist countries in Latin America.”

On the personal side, George and Barbara Bush employed a live-in Mexican maid, Paula Rendon, of whom W. has said, “I have come to love her like a second mother.” He went on to employ anotherMexican immigrant, Maria Galvan, to raise his two daughters. Younger brother Jeb married a Mexican girl, Columba Garnica, who had spent some years as an illegal immigrant in California.

Jeb and Columba’s son, George P. Bush, was such a natural politician and heir to the Bush dynasty that W., who nicknamed his father “41″(for being the 41st President) and himself “43,” called his nephew 44.”

So, from 43′s dynastic perspective, electing a new people in order to keep electing Bushes to the White House all made a certain grandiose, demented sense.

Yet, for Rove, who was supposed to be the brains of the operation, the motivations are murkier —other than sheer submissiveness toward his willful boss.

Let’s run through the possibilities:

Ineptitude? Never ascribe to rationality that which can beexplained by incompetence.

A Republican Party insider explained to me last week the fate of the Bush Administrations peculiarly ill-timed 2006election year push for the Kennedy-McCain bill:

“The way it was stopped in its tracks until after the [2006] election was by me pointing out to Karl on a conference call in early Junethat all the polling clearly indicated that 25% of our base was opposed to any form of amnesty, and would revolt against our party. The likely result would be a suppression of the turnout, a point Karl quickly grasped from the data. In what was going to be a tough election year, we needed every vote we could muster. So it goes in politics. “

[ note: Readers might feel public opposition also had a role!]Rove had been publicly backing more immigration since February 2001. Why didn’t he comprehend the polls during the previous half decade?

And then he tried it again in 2007!

Drive a wedge between blacks and Hispanics? In his autobiography Courage and Consequence, Rove casts some of the blame (although I would call it credit) for failing to pass an amnesty bill in 2007 on the lack of enthusiasm of the Congressional Black Caucus. He writes on p. 468 of a 2007 Democratic confab to which he and Bush were invited:

“After the president spoke, Congressman Luis Gutierrez made an impassioned plea formoving forward on immigration. He received spotty applause. I was sitting off to the side: between Gutierrez and me was a table of senior African-American members, including the new Judiciary chairman, John Conyers, and the new Ways and Means chairman,Charlie Rangel. Few at this table applauded and some shook their heads “no” as Gutierrez talked.”

Rove acts shocked that the black leaders were concerned about the effect on their black followers of millions more Hispanics outcompeting them for jobs. But what if this was all part of Rove’s Master Plan to break up the heart of the Democratic coalition?

Of course, you know and I know that there’s no evidence in the Congressional Black Caucus’s voting records that they ever act upon those immigration worries. Conyers, Rangel, and Co. know that whileimmigration might not be good for blacks, it is good for black Democratic politicians.

Bipartisanship? Rove’s latest spin is that the Bush Administration should have pushed immigration up to 2005 to build a Spirit ofBipartisanship. As he writes on p. 409:

“In retrospect, it was a mistake to lead the second term by pressing for Social Security reform. If we had led with immigration reform—another issue the president cared about deeply—we would almost certainly have gotten it passed because Democrats said they would work with Bush on it. That successmight have produced enough bipartisan confidence to tackle Social Security.”

Pretty flat learning curve on this here Boy Genius.

The Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill failed in 2006 because the public felt the elites were teaming up against them. Rove’s considered view in 2010 is that the elites’ big mistake was in not teaming up against us earlier.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is now following in this tradition of bipartisanship, recently visiting President Obama in the company of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to promote yet another “comprehensive” immigration bill. It’s the kind of self-promotion that gets Lindsey declared “Presidential Timberin the press.

Of course, if most Democratic politicians think amnesty would be good for them politically, isn’t it possible that amnesty would be good for them politically? Granted, they aren’t infallible savants like Karl Rove, so what do they know about their self-interest?

Win praise from the liberal media? Indeed, pushing for more immigration did get Rove some nice press. Yet, how much good did it actually do him? The press still tried for years to put him in prison over the Valerie Plame brouhaha .

Bust the unions? As a GOP election warrior, Rove is, not unreasonably, strongly anti-union: “If I learned anything from Goldwater, it was not to trust union bosses,” Rove writes on p. 10. Organized labor provides money, votes, and volunteers for the Democrats. Flooding the country with more “temporary workers” would make the union business less lucrative, thus undermining Democrats.

Yet, does this make any sense as 21st Century politics? Private sector unions are already mostly gone. In 2009, only 7.2 percent of the private sector’s workforce belonged to a union. A majority of union members now have government jobs. Unions for civil servants, such as the National Education Association, are a more important asset to the Democratic Party today. And government jobs tend to have literacy and/or citizenship requirements. So, it all seems irrelevant. I’m not saying that this idea didn’t play a role in Rove’s thinking, just that it was a pretty stupid one.

Hispanic consultantitis? Rove, who mostly grew up in Nevada and Utah in the 1950s and 1960s doesn’t seem to have much personal experience with Latinos. Most of the Hispanics whom Rove mentions in his memoir are political professionals. In other words, they are people whose careers depend at least in part on being Hispanic. Of course,they want more Hispanics for themselves to be the putative leaders of.

Impress nice white people? In 1985, Rove sent a memo to a GOP politician client, former Texas Governor Bill Clements, about how to soften his hard-nosed image:

“The purpose of saying you gave teachers a record pay increase is to reassure suburban voters with kids, not to win the votes of teachers. Similarly, emphasizing your appointments of women and minorities will not win you the support of feminists and the leaders of the minority community; but it will bolster your support among Republican primary voters and urban independents.”

There’s always the possibility that the whole “Hispanic realignment”assertion was just a front. Rove won in 2002 and 2004 by getting out the vote among the Republican base. But Hispanics gave him a cool-sounding talking point with which to baffle innumerate reporters.

Out-of-Touchness: In a 2007 NY Times article by Jim Rutenberg,Texas Town, Now Divided, Forged Bush’s Stand on Immigration, Rove more or less admitted that he was out of touch with changing sentiments in Texas:

“… Governor Bush found Texas to be largely receptive to his push to provide a bilingual education program for the children of Hispanic immigrants. In the current climate, that seems like a distant memory, a casualty of what Mr.Bush’s longtime political adviser, Karl Rove, a Texan, said reflected how “the feelings about immigration have waxed and waned over theyears ” in Texas. In the 1990s, Mr. Rove said, Texans felt as if the immigration problem was relatively under control …”

The back-story is that Texas’s oil boom of 1973-1981 coincided with an oil boom in Mexico. Then, both economies crashed in 1982. As illegal immigration from depressed Mexico ramped up in the 1980s and 1990s, it flowed more to prosperous California than overbuilt Texas. The result was that affordable family formation, the foundation of success for Republican family values candidates, remained achievable in Texas while it was under siege in California.

Thus, Bush and Rove could denounce California Governor Pete Wilson for calling for immigration restriction in his successful 1996 re-election campaign because they smugly lacked comprehension of the problems California faced. Indeed, judging from Rove’s memoir, he has almost no clue about the nation’s largest state.

The sheer gall of special interests? Employers like low wages and many donate to candidates who try to keep wages down. The trouble, however, is less cynical sell-outs than that a huge fraction of Washington insiders have persuaded themselves that low wages are what made America great. Of course, those who have actually thought hard about the question, starting with Ben Franklin in 1751, have come to the opposite conclusion: that the relatively happy lives of Americans rest upon a foundation of a small supply of labor and a large supply of land.

Turn Hispanic voters into Republicans? This is the rationalization that Rove always gave the press. But there was never any evidence thatamnesty was a winner among to Hispanic voters. Hispanic voters are much more ambivalent about it than are their self-proclaimed leaders.

A recent Zogby immigration poll, which was unusual in providing actual facts to respondents, elicited overwhelming majorities among Latino likely voters for immigration restriction by reminding them how immigration depresses wages. For example, 65 percent of likely Hispanic voters agreed, “There are plenty of Americans already here to do these jobs, ifemployers can’t find workers they should pay more and treat workers better” versus only 15 percent agreeing with the Beltway line that “We need to allow more immigrants into the country to fill these jobs because there aren’t enough Americans willing or able to do them.”

Questions that are phrased differently, however, can get Hispanics to stop answering as working class Americans and start responding as aggrieved ethnics.

But how could Republicans out-compete Democrats in a contest to appeal to Hispanic ethnocentrism? As long as Democrats are officially for affirmative action for Hispanics while most Republican voters are against, it’s a no-win proposition for the GOP.

This isn’t rocket science. The effects of immigration arenot really that hard to understand. But Rove never did.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative.

His website features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: George W. Bush 
🔊 Listen RSS’s skepticism about George W. Bush made us awfully unpopular in some quarters. But since the President unveiled his immigration plan on January 7th, our doubts about Bush have become common among Republicans. And, paradoxically, that’s good news for the GOP and even for the President.

Going back all the way to the 2000 campaign, we’d documented that the Administration’s obsession with amnesty for illegal aliens and cheap guest workers for employers would turn out to be bad for theRepublican Party and bad for the citizens of this nation. Worse, we argued that the White House’s continuing obsession raised serious questions about the judgment of Bush and his electoral consigliere Karl Rove.

In contrast, on much of the Right, a strange Bush Cult was growing—even before the trauma of 9-11 created a psychological need tobelieve that the President was all-knowing and all-wise. Countless pundits rushed to fill the demand of the faithful for reassuring rationalizations that the President really did know what he was doing.

Years of press cheerleading and conservative groupthink about Bush’s wonderfulness have not been good for the President.

The man is by no means bereft of talents—decisiveness and the ability to inspire and enforce loyalty are valuable qualities in a leader. But he’s obviously one of the more modestly gifted men to reach the Oval Office.

Harry Truman showed that such a man can accomplish much … if he works hard and learns enough on his own to evaluate the quality of the advice he’s getting. But Bush is also one of the lazier Presidents. Perhaps he saw his father campaign weakly for re-election after wearing himself out during the first Gulf war and has vowed to pacehimself so he’ll have lots of energy left for the most important business of his first term: campaigning for a second term.

Or, judging from his entire life story, perhaps the reason is that Bush simply doesn’t like learning facts.

But facts are stubborn things. We on the Realistic Right were denounced as heretics by the True Believer Right because we didn’t understand that reality had become obsolete, that Bush had shownthat new, improved realities could be conjured up through a sheer will to believe.

In the end, however, reality catches up, which it has with a vengeance in 2004.

Lately, the Administration seems even to have lost its PR touch. What genius persuaded the President to appear on Meet the Press? He would have done far better as, say, Barbara Walters’ farewell guest on 20/20 or some other primetime show where his semi-cluelessness could appeal directly to the poorly informed general public.

But it was foolish to put him on a Sunday morning show watched only by public affairs aficionados, who naturally are contemptuous of Bush for knowing no more than they do about his job.

To paraphrase Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons, their reaction was,

Last Sunday’s Meet the Press was, without a doubt, theworst interview ever. Rest assured, I was on the Internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.”

The unquestioning loyalty and inordinate approbation Bush was receiving from Republicans seems to have created in him and his staff a sense of arrogance. This kind of hubris has led Bush into numerous blunders that have sent his chances of re-election dropping despite the business cycle working in his favor (finally).

They assumed they didn’t have to listen to what the nuclear bomb designers at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore were saying about Saddam’s incapacity to make nukes because those were just a bunchof physics and engineering geeks.

They didn’t have to sweat the details about, say, how to prevent looting in Baghdad or what to do with hundreds of thousands of potentially rebellious Iraqi soldiers, because they were on the side of Democracy and the American Way.

They believed they could run up huge deficits because that’s all just fuzzy math.

They didn’t have to think hard about immigration because the President would bend the world to his mighty will.

There’s still time for Bush to pull out of his electoral death spiral. But the first step is to stop believing his yes-men in the EstablishmentConservative press.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: George W. Bush 
🔊 Listen RSS

There’s no more dreaded term in Presidential politics than “malaise.”Twenty-five years ago, Jimmy Carter went to the mountaintop todiscover why his chances of re-election were slipping away. Eventually, he came down to inform America that we, the people, were suffering a malaise.

The fault lay not with him, but with us.

Of course, we quickly decided the opposite. Ever since then,“malaise” has summed up the Carter Administration in its death-spiral.

It’s hard to remember now, but just one month ago on New Year’s Day, George W. Bush was on top of the world. Saddam had been captured and stocks were high. Re-election seemed like a shoo-in.

Today, Saddam’s still in the pokey and the Dow’s well over 10,000. But January turned out to be a terrible month for the White House.

The Administration spent the summer hyping how chief weapons inspector David Kay was going to prove there were indeed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. On Wednesday, though, he told the Senate,“We were almost all


Bush’s Iraq Attaq, once supposedly the centerpiece of the War on Terror, will go down in history as the War in Error.

Republicans were already uneasy about Bush’s huge deficit and spendthrift ways. Then, we learned last week that the White House had misled the public about its huge new entitlement. Amy Goldstein

reported in the Washington Post [Higher Medicare Costs Suspected for Months, January 31, 2004]:

“Bush administration officials had indications for months that the new Medicare prescription drug law might cost considerably more than the $400 billion advertised by the White House and Congress, according to internal documents and sources familiar with the issue. The president’s top health advisers gathered such evidence and shared it with select lawmakers, congressional and other sources said, long before the White House disclosed Thursday that it believes the program will cost $534 billion over the next decade… “

Is Bush dishonest? Or is he simply so lazy that he’s invincibly ignorant? It’s a fascinating debate—but not one that Bush can win.

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 the Karl Rove Amnesty Plan (a.k.a. KRAP).

I explained back in 2001 why Bush’s immigration trial balloon would

never fly.

Interestingly, some of the new features reflect Rove’s attempts to solve problems we at had thoughtfully identified for him.

For example, immigrants who become citizens vote for Democrats by landslide margins, so Congressional Republicans don’t want more immigrants. KRAP, therefore, denies citizenship to guest workers, leaving them a disenfranchised caste of unassimilated


But Bush’s new Machiavellianism automatically cedes the rhetorical high ground to the Democrats, who are already pushing for earnedlegalization (i.e., giving illegals the vote). Bush is left contradictorily sputtering about how wonderful immigrants are and how we don’t want them to become our fellow citizens.

Rove has spent three years telling the press what a brilliant political ploy amnesty would be, so his initial spin was: what a cynical politicalploy!

But to anyone less innumerate than the average reporter (and I’m starting to wonder seriously if that includes Rove), chasing Hispanics atthe expense of annoying others makes no quantitative sense at all. According to the huge Census Bureau survey of voters immediately following the 2000 election, non-Hispanic whites outnumber Latinos by

15 to 1. Thus, if KRAP 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.

And, as I predicted, even Hispanics voters aren’t krazy for KRAP. A

poll of 800 Hispanics by the James Irvine Foundation found that immigration is only the fourth most important issue to Hispanics, following traditional Democratic strong suits “jobs and the economy,” education,” and health care.”

It’s important to note that illegal immigration is highly popular among Hispanic leaders and activists because their careers soar as the number of Hispanics rises. But Latino voters as a whole have rationally mixed feelings about it. They suffer the most direct consequences of lower wages and lousier schools.

Among Hispanics who are registered voters (and thus are not illegal immigrants), interest in Bush’s immigration plan was strikingly low. Two weeks after Bush’s speech, a plurality of Hispanic registered voters (41 percent) either hadn’t heard of the proposal or had no opinion of it, followed by 35 percent who supported it and 24 percent who opposed it.

Worse, when given more information on the plan—such as that it required guest workers to go home i.e., be deported— a plurality disapproved (47-42).

Among all Hispanics, the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus’“earn citizenship” plan was favored over Bush’s “temporary legal status” plan by a crushing 75-16 margin.

Bush’s approval rating among Hispanics is decent, but there’s little evidence that will translate into more votes in November. Hispanic registered voters favored a generic Democratic Presidential candidate over Bush by a 51-30 edge.

The Irvine pollsters summed up:

“Bush’s approval rating among Latinos and the percentage of Latinos intending to cast votes for him in 2004 did not show improvement over figures from recent national surveys completed before the immigration proposal was announced.”

What can Bush do?

Bush almost never fires anybody for incompetence. But he can start with Karl Rove.

Then, Bush can backtrack on immigration. He doesn’t have to admit he’s dumping the immigration plan—I guess—but he should announce, quite reasonably, that his plan requires prerequisites, most notably getting control of the border.

This would be wildly popular with the public.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: George W. Bush 
🔊 Listen RSS

The more you study the details of the new White House immigration plan, the more the question resounds: What is Bush thinking?

Forget the amnesty for a moment. Just consider Bush’s temporaryworker” program. Judging from the three White House statements this week, as I wrote in a UPI article, anybody on the face of the Earth(not just Mexicans) will get the right to move to America country for an indefinite number of years, with their families, as long as they have a job offer paying the minimum wage of $10,712 per year.

That would mark the end of the American people’s traditional patrimony of relatively high wages and low land prices. Indeed, it would rapidly mean the end of America as a coherent community i.e. a nation.

The ramifications of the plan are ridiculous. For example, an immigrant businessman could immediately import his entire extended family by offering them all jobs in the family operation.

Quite obviously, nobody in the White House has thought this topic through at all.

Even on a political level, Bush’s plan to drive a wedge issue into the heart of his own party seems bizarre. Orange County Congressman Dana Rohrabacher told me,

“I can’t see that it would play well at the polls. I personally don’t see this as good for GOP. The proposal being made will keep wages down and that won’t be popular with the American voters.”

[Conservatives question Bush immigrant plan By Steve Sailer,UPI, January 8, 2004]

What is Bush Thinking? Two Answers

So what is Bush thinking? Let me give two answers, one personal and the other dynastic.

  • Answer # 1, three years into his term, now seems obvious:


Mr. Bush simply does not like to think.

That’s one of the two main lessons in the first and probably most objective biography of the man, First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty by reporter Bill Minutaglio. He interviewed 300 people who had known George W. So far as I can tell, he couldn’t find a single one who remembered the future President ever saying anything interesting.

I’ve often wondered why Bush rarely fires any of his advisors, no matter how incompetent they prove. This weekend the reason became clear when one of the few important figures he’s dumpedwent public. Jonathan Weisman reported in the Washington Post on Saturday:

“President Bush showed little interest in policy discussions in his first two years in the White House, leading Cabinet meetings ‘like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people,’ former Treasury secretary Paul H. O’Neill says in an upcoming book on the Bush White House … Bush was soinscrutable that administration officials had to deviseWhite House policy on ‘little more than hunches aboutwhat the president might think.’”

Discussing complex matters of state with the President was like talking to a blank wall:

“In the 60 Minutes interview, O’Neill described his first Cabinet meeting with the president: ‘I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him]on. And as the book said, I was surprised that it turned out to be me talking and the president just listening . . . As I recall it was mostly a monologue.’”

This is why Bush doesn’t want to fire anybody: He is reluctant to let anybody go who has been intimately exposed to his vacuity. He cancount on his current minions to keep up the charade. But, if he fires them, they might, like O’Neill, reveal to the world what a zero the President is.

Bush isn’t stupid, but he is extraordinarily intellectually lazy. Minutaglio’s book documents that the only topics that have ever engaged his interest for long are baseball and the study of how to organize and manipulate people.

He has spent his life in a long series of seemingly interesting jobs arranged by his father and father’s friends—all of which have rapidly paled on him.

For example, to avoid the risk of being drafted and sent to Vietnam, he was handed a coveted Air National Guard gig. You might think that being given the ultimate toy, a supersonic fighter jet, would have held his attention. But Bush eventually just stopped showing up.

You might think that George W. would find being President to be a mentally stimulating occupation. Yet not only does he take less interest in his job than millions of people take in their own jobs … he shows less interest in his job than millions of citizens show in his job!

  • Answer # 2 to the question of what Bush is thinking, or feeling:


One thing you can say for sure is that the Bush-Walker family is truly a self-conscious dynasty, operating at the highest levels of Americansociety for four generations. Mario Puzo, author of The Godfather,noted, “Any family—nuclear or otherwise—that wants to learn how the game is really played should study the Bush dynasty.”

(For an outraged history of the Bush family, see Kevin Phillips’ new bestseller

American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. A more upbeat account can be found in Richard Ben Cramer’s What It Takes. My bemused essay on the return ofdynasticism to world affairs, “Revolutionary Nepotism,” can be found in the Winter issue of The National Interest.)

The Bushes have always been ultra-ambitious and ultra-competitive, including with each other in their nonstop sports. Constant competition comes with costs, though. The great psychological burden of George W. Bush’s life has been his consciousness of his inferiority compared to his father.

The former President is not a great man, but he’s a fairly superiorindividual. When he arrived at Yale in 1945, he had already been the youngest pilot in the wartime Navy. He proceeded to graduate Phi Beta Kappa in only two and half years, yet he had time to also captain the Yale baseball team, be tapped for the ultra-elite Skull and Bones fraternity, and father his first son, George W.

In many ways, the current President reacted to his father in the same ways his hard-drinking twin daughters are now doing to him. The Times of London reported on Friday:

“The US President, once a party animal himself, has littlesuccess in reining in their wild behavior, which hasincluded arrests for underage drinking…

The Perfect Wife, by Washington Post reporter Ann Gerhart, claims … ‘These girls have all the noblesse, and none of theoblige,’ she writes. ‘They are rich, blessed with intelligence, good looks, trust funds, loving parents, boundless opportunities, freedom from many of life’s daily vexing challenges, yet they persist in seeing themselves as victims of Daddy’s job.’”

Still, despite the sizable chip on his shoulder George W. has carried over his inadequacy relative to Poppy Bush, the two men have had an ultimately positive dynastic relationship.

The father repeatedly stuck with his often sullen son, finding him new jobs to play at. And the son was there for his dad, helping him in his campaigns. Most notably, on January 1, 1987, George W. stopped drinking to avoid embarrassing his father during his 1988 run for thePresidency.

So it’s likely that the dynastic urge burns as brightly in George W. as in the previous generations of Bushes. Unfortunately, his decadent daughters appear to be worthless. In the next generation of Bushes, the one kid who appears to have the good looks, the confidence, and the fire in the belly is his nephew, George P. Bush, the son of Florida governor Jeb Bush.

Indeed, George W., who calls himself “43″ and his father “41,” has labeled George P. 44.”

At only 27 years old, George P. is too young under the Constitution to become the 44th President. But he could be ready to run in another 20 years or so, by which time his uncle’s policy of “electing a new people” has altered the voting population in ways favorable to him.

You see, what’s distinctive about George P. is that he’s Mexican onhis mother’s side. His father, Jeb, was an Andover student who went on to get a degree in Latin American studies. He spent a semester in central Mexico and fell in love with Columba Garnica Gallo, the daughter of a modest mestizo family.

George P. campaigned in Spanish for his uncle in 2000 like this:

“’This is a President who represents the diversity of our society, who we can count on to change the Republican Party to represent our views.’” … He told the rally his mother had instilled him the values of Cesar Chavez, the Chicano activist who fought for the rights of migrant farmworkers in the United States. ‘She told me we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us,’ he said in fluent Spanish.’

Reuters, August 2, 2000.

Dubya has loudly proclaimed that his close ties to Mexican-Americansshows that he is a new kind of Republican.

Confirming this, his nephew George P. Bush told reporters, “Our biggest challenge will be to separate my uncle from the rest ofthe Republican Party.”

This, then, could be why George W. has spent so much effort promoting a wedge issue that can only split his own party. He thinks the long-run fate of his dynasty demands a new, improved Republican Party —and a new, debased America.

With friends like these, does Bush need Americans?

George W.’s plan to break down the border between the U.S. and Mexico is not at all out of character for the Bush dynasty. The decades-old connections between the Bush family and Mexico’s rulingclass and its Texas offshoots have not elicited much attention in the United States. Yet they are highly relevant to understanding both the new President’s attitude toward Mexico and exactly what he means when he talks about his outreach to the Hispanic community.

Bill Clinton notoriously had his “FOBs” (Friends of Bill). It’s finally time to review some of the “AOtGs” (Amigos of the Georges).

The Bushes are an extremely friendly family. To a remarkable extent, that’s the source of their power. They’ve been acquiring pals for decades.

Needless to say, most of the Bush family outreach toward Mexicans has been directed toward that nation’s largely hereditary overclass. Since 1960, the Bushes have become friends with many rich and powerful Mexican oligarchs and their Texan kin and business associates.

When referring to the Mexican overclass, the words “rich” and “powerful” are synonymous. As former New York Timescorrespondent Alan Riding wrote in his 1984 bestseller Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans, “[P ]ublic life could be defined as the abuse of power to achieve wealth and the abuse of wealth to achieve power.”

And the Bushes have apparently felt right at home with the life-style of the Mexican rich and famous.

There is, of course, a certain problem with the Bushes’ transnational amiability: A significant number of the dynasty’s friends south of the border appear to be crooks.

This doesn’t necessarily reflect badly on the Bushes—particularly. After all, a large percentage of anybody who is anybody in Mexico is acrook. Still, some of the First Dynasty’s favorites have been criminals on a scale so extravagant as to scandalize even the long-suffering citizenry of Mexico.

Take Jorge Diaz Serrano. Jonathan Kwitny reported in a long exposé in Barron’s (“The Mexican Connection of George Bush,”

September 19, 1988, requires Dow Jones’ subscription to access):

“Without breathing a word to shareholders in his Houston oil-drilling company, Zapata Off-Shore Co., George Bush in 1960 helped set up another drilling operation employing Mexican front men and seemingly circumventing Mexican law. And he did so in association with Jorge Diaz Serrano, a now-convicted felon who has become a symbol of political corruption in a country with noshortage of contestants for that dubious distinction. In helping to launch … Permargo, Bush and his associates at Zapata teamed up with Diaz Serrano and a Mexican associate in camouflaging the 50% American ownership of Permargo.”

George H.W. stood by his old partner:

“‘I have high regard for Jorge,’ Bush was quoted as saying in People magazine in 1981. ‘I consider him a friend.’”

Diaz went on to bigger, if not better, things.

“Eventually, Diaz Serrano would take control of Permargo, before moving on to head Pemex, Mexico’s government oil monopoly. Shortly after his five-year stint at Pemex, he would begin a five-year stint in jail, having defrauded the Mexican government of $58 million it is still trying to get back…”

Yet, today, Serrano seems like a quaint figure from Mexico’s more innocent past. He was a public servant who merely feathered his own nest. Worse was to come.

All this and drugs too

The big difference between the nice clean corruption of the 1970s and today is the new pervasiveness of drug money, and its accompanyingviolence, among the Mexican elite.

“The problem with Mexico is you don’t know who the bad guys are,” said Robert Stutman, former head of the federal DrugEnforcement Agency office in New York, in an interview with PBS’Frontline.

Stutman elaborated:

“Both Colombia and Mexico are basically controlled by narcotics traffickers … They got there by very different means. And therefore I look at the countries very differently. I think basically, for years, the Colombian government and Colombian officials have tried to fight the cocaine war. They are simply out-gunned, and out-manned. I look at that country very differently than I look at Mexico, which has been bought off.”

One of the few American periodicals to pay much attention these days to the Bushes’ amigos is El Andar, a brave little bilingual quarterlybased in Santa Cruz, CA. Because most Latino-American publications are preoccupied with either celebrities or ethnic cheerleading, El Andarhas the fertile field of cross-border muckraking largely to itself.

And what a vast and odiferous field it is!

The Bush family’s most important Mexican friendship was with the Salinas family, whose scion Carlos ruled Mexico from 1988 and 1994, before fleeing to exile in Ireland to avoid being lynched by his furious countrymen. (For the lurid details on this depraved brood, see my article “Mexico’s Corrupt White Elite.”)

El Andar noted, “Bush Sr. met Carlos Salinas’s father, Raúl Salinas Lozano, back when the latter was Mexico’s commerce secretary. The families’ friendship has continued through the years. Raúl Salinas, the president’s brother, has told investigators that Jeb and Columba Bush joined him three times for vacations at his hacienda Las Mendocinas.”

Jeb’s host Raul is currently serving 27 years in the slammer for the assassination of PRI chairman Francisco Ruiz Massieu, his ex-brother-in-law.

Dubya’s amigos in Texas, however, are not exactly migrant farm workers. As Julie Reynolds, assisted by Victor Almazán and Ana Leonor Rojo, wrote in El Andar:

“It was during those campaign years [of Bush the Elder]that George Junior bonded with many of his Latino alliesin the state [of Texas] and made the friends he would later lean on when his political ambitions got into gear. By and large, the Latino alliances Bush touts so loudly these days are not social workers or school teachers, and they are certainly not working-class. Like most in W’s circle, they are Texas heavy-hitters who got rich from their astuteblending of business and politics.”

In a long, complex El Andar article entitled “LOS AMIGOS DE BUSH: The disturbing ties of some of George W. Bush’s Latino advisors,” Reynolds amassed evidence to back her allegation that two of Bush’s top Mexican-American backers in Texas are palsy-walsy withindividuals linked to Mexico’s feared Gulf narco cartel.

As George W. said numerous times in response to questions aboutillegal aliens, “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.”(America, of course, does.) Here’s one touching example of his assisting an undocumented worker in his struggle with the uncaring INS, as reported by in El Andar by Reynolds and Eduardo Valle of Mexico City’s El Universal newspaper:

“In the fall of 1991, George W. Bush asked his father, the President, to ‘help out’ on behalf of Enrique Fuentes León. … Fuentes León was living in the United States on a tourist visa that was about to expire.”

What “family values” had brought this lawyer north of the Rio Grande?

“He had fled Mexico in 1989, after a highly-publicized case in which he was charged with bribing two judges in order to free a wealthy Acapulco businessman convicted of the rape and murder of a young child…”

“He remained free in the U.S. for three more years on anexpired tourist visa, even though the Mexican government made an official extradition request on October 21, 1991. … By 1994, he had purchased more than $6 million in San Antonio real estate, and together with Texas publisher Tino Durán made moves to purchase the now-defunct San Antonio Lightnewspaper…”

When the INS was pestering Fuentes Leon in the early 90s, Duran, who calls himself “a friend and supporter of the Bush family,” set up a meeting between the notorious fugitive and the future Presidentof the United States to get him to intercede with the current President of the United States. Duran said:

“‘I had sent him [George W.] a letter so he would know what it was all about, so he could decide if he wanted to help,” Durán said. ‘And he called me and said, ‘Sure, come on down and let’s talk about it.’ ‘Enrique and I went down to his office and he called the President.” George W. Bush asked President Bush if he could help Durán and ‘his friend here.’ Durán says President Bush then asked Durán to send him a letter and said he would direct the information to the State Department.”

What happened next?

“Fuentes León … was finally extradited to Mexico after a 1994 arrest for allegedly attempting to bribe an INS agent with $30,000… A courthouse employee said that Fuentes León showed up every day in a $200,000 car, followed by ‘around 25′ other vehicles…”

How could he afford that? Fuentes León is alleged by El Andar to be the “consigliero” of the Gulf narco cartel.

“Today, Fuentes León is again imprisoned in Mexico. This time it’s for a case in which he is charged in relation to the kidnapping and death of Nellie Campobello, 85, a famous former ballerina whose 13 year-old grave was found last year. The title to Campobello’s house has mysteriously appeared under the name of Fuentes León’s wife.”


Conclusion: a special relationship for whom?

Reynolds ended her article, written before the last Presidential election,with these thought-provoking inquiries:

“But the question has to be asked: if some of us far outside of the Bush camp know about those connections, how come Bush didn’t? George W. Bush has made his lust for the Latino vote clear. ‘If you say a million, I want you to spend two million. If you say you need four million, I want you to spend eight,‘ W told Lionel Sosa, head of the Bush Latino media campaigns.

“What is not clear is whom Bush will be willing to consort with to earn that vote. And, if he wins the presidency, what is the true nature of the special relationship he will forge between our two nations, the US and Mexico, in the coming years?”

Last week, we started to find out what Bush thinks (or feels) that special relationship between the U.S. and Mexico should be—and, perhaps, the role that his family might play.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: George W. Bush, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

George W. Bush’s strenuous efforts at “minority outreach” were rewarded by the lowest fraction of the black vote since Barry Goldwater. Depending on which exit poll you consult, Dubya carried between 8% and 10% of African-American voters. Since Election Day, the Democrats and the press have gleefully been asking Republicans: “How are you going to stop doing so shamefully badly among blacks?” For them, it’s as much fun as asking: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Strikingly, Republicans seem to agree that there is something illegitimate about their victories unless a larger fraction of the “black community” gives its blessing. Consider the January 10th Wall Street Journal column hyping the Martin Luther King Day wingding at the Heritage Institute on “How the new administration can reach out to black America.” Gerald F. Seib gave a revealing example of what he sees as the GOP’s need to win more black votes:

“In three states — Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana — more than half of Al Gore’s total votes came from blacks. Yet he lost all three because the white vote went heavily for Mr. Bush.”

Hmmhmmh … Maybe I’m missing something, Mr. Seib, but wouldn’t the Republican sweep of those three states be a problem for Democrats, not Republicans?

Republicans have been furiously scratching their heads over how to draw more black votes. For example, when I started reading the Free Republic responses to my VDARE article (GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote), I presumed that many of the attacks on my thesis would center on the alleged inevitability of immigration population. Yet, most respondents seemed bored with thinking about immigrants. What everybody wanted to talk about was why blacks didn’t vote Republican.

  • First thing to remember: despite all the moral glamour that our society invests in “civil rights leaders” like Jesse Jackson, African-Americans are neither a fast-growing group nor even a terribly large one. No pundit should be allowed to expound on election strategy without first proving he knows the answer to this simple question:

Q. Which would have increased Bush’s popular vote total more?

1. Tripling his share of the black vote from 10% to 30%.

2. Increasing his share of the white vote from 54% to merely 57%.

A. #2. This seemingly tiny gain among whites would have done Bush more good. Because African-Americans make up 10% of voters, tripling his share would have netted him 2.0 percentage points more votes. In contrast, whites cast 81% of the vote, so 3% of 81% would represent 2.43 percentage points more votes.

  • Second thing to remember: blacks have perfectly good reasons for voting Democratic. Republicans seem to assume that they could get their laissez-faire messages across to blacks if they just keep repeating it very loudly and slowly. The funniest example of this came from Seib’s column. In it, he endorses a black Republican who suggested that “working-class minorities are deeply concerned about building retirement savings and passing on assets to their children, meaning that Bush appeals to eliminate the estate tax and reform Social Security should resonate with them.”

“Eliminate the estate tax”?

Double Hmmhmmh …So, Mr. Seib, why exactly didn’t Dubya’s plan to eliminate the inheritance tax “resonate” with blacks on Nov. 7? Could it possibly be that African-Americans, on average, have a rational reason for voting for Democrats who want to keep the inheritance tax? Is it possible that on average blacks tend to have slightly smaller estates than the subscribers to The Wall Street Journal?

  • Third thing to remember: even though the reasons most blacks don’t vote Republican are perfectly obvious, it is definitely worth investigating in detail why Dubya did worse than his GOP predecessors.

Republicans can’t understand why this happened. After all, didn’t Dubya outreach to minorities like crazy? For example,

  • Didn’t Dubya speak Spanish all the time?
  • Didn’t he boast about how many Mexican-American votes he got in Texas?
  • Didn’t he talk about how “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande”?
  • Didn’t he send his half-Mexican nephew George P. Bush out to campaign for him?
  • Didn’t “P” tell a Spanish-speaking audience at the Republican convention about how his Mexican-born mother, the wife of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, instilled in him the values of Cesar Chavez and “told me we have to fight for our race …”

“Gosh,” Republicans keep asking themselves, “How come African-Americans didn’t appreciate all these pro-minority gestures?”

Well … because African-Americans aren’t Mexicans. They aren’t Central Americans. They aren’t Cubans. And they sure aren’t immigrants.

Blacks and Hispanics have radically different interests. Immigrants drive blacks out of blue-collar jobs and drive down wages in general. They are shoving blacks from political power across Southern California. Amusingly, Democratic Congressgorgon Maxine Waters now represents a district that has a Hispanic majority. African-Americans have been fleeing L.A. and Cuban-run Miami for black-run Atlanta.

Riots provide an acid test of assumptions about minority solidarity.

  • Miami’s African-Americans repeatedly rioted against the city’s Hispanic-dominated police force during the Eighties.
  • The 1991 riot in Washington D.C.’s Mt. Pleasant district began when drunken Salvadoran men resisted the dishonor of being arrested by a black woman police officer. Although the immigrants began the rioting, African-American youth quickly poured into the neighborhood and looted immigrant stores. Mayor Marion Barry’s black-run police force showed up, but largely sat in their cruisers, enjoying the spectacle of black kids destroying a Hispanic neighborhood.
  • During the L.A. riot of 1992, Mexican criminal gangs patrolled the streets of East L.A. to prevent black rioters from looting their neighborhood.
  • Dubya chose first and foremost to pander to Hispanics, not blacks. In turn, African-Americans punished him for being biased toward their rivals. In the states where Dubya’s Hispanic strategy worked best — Florida and Texas — his share of the black vote was abysmal. Here are the data from the Voter News Service exit polls:
  • Dubya won 49% of the Hispanic vote (and 57% of the white vote) in Jeb’s Florida, but a crummy 7% of the black vote.
  • Less publicized is the remarkable fact that in Dubya’s home state of Texas — where he pulled in 43% of the Hispanic vote (and a tremendous 73% of the white vote) — Dubya garnered a truly stinking 5% from blacks.

It’s instructive to compare conservative Texas to liberal California. There, according to local media legends, former Republican governor Pete Wilson conducted human sacrifices of illegal aliens or something like that. In the Golden State, Dubya took only 29% of the Hispanic vote (and a lousy 48% of the white vote). Yet, he did more than twice as well among blacks (11%) as in his home state.

In other words, in Texas, where the Republican Party is reputed to be pro-Mexican, Dubya did only about 1/15th as well among blacks as among whites. But in California, where the GOP has a reputation as anti-Mexican, Dubya did almost a whole 1/4th as well among blacks as among whites.

So, here’s the Republican dilemma regarding minorities:

  • The only clear way for Republicans to do better with African-Americans is to campaign against Hispanic immigration.
  • Dubya ran an almost state-of-the-art campaign of multiculturalist identity politics campaign aimed at Hispanics. Yet, he still did worse among Hispanics by pandering to them than Ronald Reagan did by talking to them about patriotism. Dubya’s mediocre showing with Hispanics in Texas is just about all the GOP has to show for their minority outreach program.

Perhaps Mexican-Americans in the rest of the country will come to tolerate President Dubya to the same degree as those in Texas got along with Governor Dubya.

On the other hand, it’s possible that Texas’ Mexican-Americans differ culturally and even racially from California’s Mexican-Americans. The Texans tend to be from the same Northeastern Mexico culture that provides the main constituency of Vincente Fox’s GOP-like PAN party. In contrast, California’s immigrants increasingly come from the center of Mexico, where the corrupt PRI and the leftist PRD dominate, and the far South, where Subcommandante Marcos’ Marxist guerillas control part of Chiapas.

Mexican immigrants are increasingly coming from the impoverished South. So the future for the GOP looks bleak.

As we’ve seen since Nov. 7, the Republicans have gained next to no kudos from winning 35% of the Hispanic vote. And winning it cost them a sizable fraction of even the few black votes they’d normally get. In America’s game of moral one-upmanship, Hispanic support is far less sexy than black support. (Although it’s more glamorous than Asian support.) For better or worse, African-Americans remain lodged in the public imagination as America’s “real minority.”

In short, Dubya’s “diversity” strategy has proven to be – at best – a zero sum game.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Blacks, George W. Bush 
No Items Found
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 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?