At last, the Sunday Main Event. Former Nixon and Reagan insider, Pat Buchanan-the last of the Thomas Dewey Republicans vs. Dem. Congressman Luis “”Kid” Gutierrez (Illinois). Russert opened by confronting Buchanan with the substantial security improvements that are contained in the compromise Immigration Bill. Twice Pat ducked that question and reiterated his concern that the United States is being subjected to an invasion of illegals. Pat does a good job of expressing the magnitude of the migration from south of the border. After that, Russert just stepped aside and let Buchanan pound Gutierrez into the mat, only speaking again to stop the fight at 10:22.
Gutierrez made it clear that he supports the Democrats’ open border agenda. Rather than justify the compromise bill on its own merits Gutierrez went right for the pity constituency and declared Buchanan’s fact based approach to previous anti-immigrant sentiment like the 19th “Century restrictions on Chinese migration. Buchanan pounced with statistics showing how much larger is the current Hispanic migration than previous national migrations to the Untied States.
In classic liberal fashion, the Gutierrez response was the language of pure victimology; accusing Buchanan of giving a harsh “tone and tenor” to the debate. Gutierrez played another emotional card and proffered the image of some secret immigration police that would search the country breaking up families. Buchanan rightly presented the many alternatives, primarily attrition, to such a draconian policy of mass deportation.
Gutierrez offered the need for migrant labor to fill the labor market. Buchanan argued that legal immigrants and American youth would fill much of the gap. Although labor demographics would not support that proposition, at least not at current legal immigration quotas, but Gutierrez didn’t come up with that response. Instead, the “Kid” almost wept and talked about children playing together. When referring the illegal immigrants Guiterrez frequently used personal pronouns like “we” and “us”. Such a rhetorical device shamefully equates Americans of Hispanic ancestry and lawful immigrants with individuals who were willing to criminally do what all of us immigrants and their descendents were not willing to do, break the laws of their new nation-the United States-as their first act as a resident of the United States. Few things could prioritize the importance of the color of the skin over the content of the character better than a willingness to overlook a criminal act (illegal entry into the United States) based on ethnic affinity.
Gutierrez’s only responsive argument was to describe the only alternative as a mass “Planet of the Apes” type round up followed by mass deportations in which families would be severed like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Old debate dog that he is, Buchanan simply slapped aside the false specter of the “immigration Gestapo”. Pat argued that many unlawful immigrants would return to their countries of origin if the jobs dried up-a fact that Gutierrez ignored. Gutierrez also ignored the fact of the legal requirement that illegal immigrant children go to public schools. Rather than discuss fact Gutierrez emoted that opposition to the bill was only xenophobic racism and those in opposition as acting from malevolence alone. At that point the bell rang, Gutierrez staggerd to his corner, blinded from the Buchanan head shots, and the towel soon fluttered into the Buchanan corner.
The panel, in varying stages of enthusiastic rapture (which is admittedly hard to detect in David Broder) described the political genius of Hillary Clinton. Gwen Eifel was visibly ecstatic over Evita’s political skills. John Harwood (CNBC) has her in the White House, with only Evita’s own mistakes standing between her and a return to absolute power. Roger Simon’s rapture had him using the same dichotomy of “competence vs. likeability” that worked for President Dukakis. Yes, maybe a couple of actual conservatives or supporters of the Republican Party would be an interesting addition to the NBC panel.
To give Russert a little credit, he did remind the viewer that Michael Bloomberg was a Democrat until he ran for mayor, changing parties for political expediency. The NBC panel gave Bloomberg’s Presidential aspirations more credibility than did the Fox and ABC panels. See preceding paragraph as a possible explanation.
Gutierrez made it clear that he supports the Democrats’ open border agenda. Rather than justify the compromise bill on its own merits Gutierrez went right for the pity constituency and declared Buchanan’s fact based approach to previous anti-immigrant sentiment like the 19th “Century restrictions on Chinese migration. Buchanan pounced with statistics showing how much larger is the current Hispanic migration than previous national migrations to the Untied States.
In classic liberal fashion, the Gutierrez response was the language of pure victimology; accusing Buchanan of giving a harsh “tone and tenor” to the debate. Gutierrez played another emotional card and proffered the image of some secret immigration police that would search the country breaking up families. Buchanan rightly presented the many alternatives, primarily attrition, to such a draconian policy of mass deportation.
Gutierrez offered the need for migrant labor to fill the labor market. Buchanan argued that legal immigrants and American youth would fill much of the gap. Although labor demographics would not support that proposition, at least not at current legal immigration quotas, but Gutierrez didn’t come up with that response. Instead, the “Kid” almost wept and talked about children playing together. When referring the illegal immigrants Guiterrez frequently used personal pronouns like “we” and “us”. Such a rhetorical device shamefully equates Americans of Hispanic ancestry and lawful immigrants with individuals who were willing to criminally do what all of us immigrants and their descendents were not willing to do, break the laws of their new nation-the United States-as their first act as a resident of the United States. Few things could prioritize the importance of the color of the skin over the content of the character better than a willingness to overlook a criminal act (illegal entry into the United States) based on ethnic affinity.
Gutierrez’s only responsive argument was to describe the only alternative as a mass “Planet of the Apes” type round up followed by mass deportations in which families would be severed like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Old debate dog that he is, Buchanan simply slapped aside the false specter of the “immigration Gestapo”. Pat argued that many unlawful immigrants would return to their countries of origin if the jobs dried up-a fact that Gutierrez ignored. Gutierrez also ignored the fact of the legal requirement that illegal immigrant children go to public schools. Rather than discuss fact Gutierrez emoted that opposition to the bill was only xenophobic racism and those in opposition as acting from malevolence alone. At that point the bell rang, Gutierrez staggerd to his corner, blinded from the Buchanan head shots, and the towel soon fluttered into the Buchanan corner.
The panel, in varying stages of enthusiastic rapture (which is admittedly hard to detect in David Broder) described the political genius of Hillary Clinton. Gwen Eifel was visibly ecstatic over Evita’s political skills. John Harwood (CNBC) has her in the White House, with only Evita’s own mistakes standing between her and a return to absolute power. Roger Simon’s rapture had him using the same dichotomy of “competence vs. likeability” that worked for President Dukakis. Yes, maybe a couple of actual conservatives or supporters of the Republican Party would be an interesting addition to the NBC panel.
To give Russert a little credit, he did remind the viewer that Michael Bloomberg was a Democrat until he ran for mayor, changing parties for political expediency. The NBC panel gave Bloomberg’s Presidential aspirations more credibility than did the Fox and ABC panels. See preceding paragraph as a possible explanation.
3 comments:
Ted Kennedy was using the phrase "bumper sticker" again. Seems to me the only people using "bumper sticker" phrases to discuss the War on Islamofascism are the democrats. Truthfully, their position can truly be summed up in a bumper sticker.
They only have two words in the entirety of their position on the War on Islamofascism. Can any one guess?
Impeach Bush! I've seen those bumper stickers everywhere.
I used to have one of those bumper stickers. Isn’t it telling that you see so many of those? People are truly po’d. And for a good reason. Another one of my favorites and possibly more accurate about my personal feelings is this sticker you see a lot too: “If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention.”
Personally, I decided a while back that I need to move on, so I took off my sticker. The W disaster has been so monumental that it really no longer needs to be even said. It’s a given. Also, a purely anti-W political message is not a productive one. But I admit, it’s hard to move on. Especially when the die-hards on the R side keep defending the indefensible.
If you are unhappy with how much the D’s are elaborating about the war or WOT, you must really be dismayed by R politicians and prez hopefuls. “We’ll stay on the offensive” or “stay the course” cannot surely be enough detail to meet your expectations.
Post a Comment