bustardblog

Why I Think Peggy Noonan's Not Even Going to be Admitted to Purgatory

What's missing in the White House is an understanding "that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks."

"The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his ... bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America... Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?"

"For others ...[it] might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq."

The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate."

Please note that these quotes are not from the rant of some left-wing blogger, but from Saint Margaret Noonan, (aka Peggy), writing for the Wall Street Journal.  (h/t memeorandum)Saint Margaret is upset at the way Bush and Co are reacting to the right when discussing immigration. What is really shocking about the piece is not her rejection of Bush - the right must do that or be guaranteed losing to Democrats for the forseeable future.

What's astounding is that Saint Margaret has no problem when Bush behaves this way to Democrats; she is outraged only when he does it to "conservatives." Arguments made by Democrats deserve calls to "emotion," not serious debate. Democrats are clearly not "opponents who are concerned citizens" in the gospel according to Saint Margaret.

I went to look at the very loyal Captain's Quarters, a great admirer of Saint Margaret, who notes that this is nothing new in Bush's behavior,

"I see nothing all that unusual with the way the Bush administration has attacked its critics over immigration. If she was to honestly look at the last six years, she will see that this is the normal mode of operation for the White House"

Coveniently, her epiphany about Bush came in January 2005

"when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States
to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation."

Only after Bush's re-election does Saint Margaret see the light. Her dishonesty and the disdain for democracy implicit in her article are simply amazing. Watch out, Saint Margaret - Saint Jude will not answer all your prayers.

 

Maria Vasquez

  Maria-Vasquez 
  Originally uploaded by bbbustard.
Photo from the A.P.

This is a photo of Maria Vasquez at the funeral of her son, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, who was brutally murdered in Iraq.  My deepest sympathies go out to her.

She is a 50 year old single mother of two who is an immigrant from Mexico.  The funeral was conducted in both English and Spanish.  Apparently, Ms. Vasquez only speaks Spanish.

While she can lose her son for this country, Michelle Malkin thinks it's just great that she wouldn't be served a cheesesteak in Philadelphia.

Close family members of Pfc. Menchaca would not be allowed to attend his funeral, if the House immigration bill was the law of the land, as much of his family lives in Mexico.


Ms Coulter of course would like to see Ms. Vasquez deported. Writing about which immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S., She said:

Istead of choosing immigrants based on the longevity of their lawbreaking, another idea is to choose the immigrants we want, for example, those who speak English or have special skills. (And by "special skills" I don't mean giving birth to an anchor baby in a border-town emergency room.)

When right wing bloggers look back at what they wrote about Mexican immigrants in early May, and then look at this photo - do they feel any shame?

 

Bustard Reads

Barry R. Chistwick wrote an anti-immigrant in today's NY Times. I have had no training in economics, and would appreciate any comments that might help me understand his position better.  I am especially confused by these three issues:

1. He talks of the "goods that other countries can produce more efficiently", but he seems to really mean that 'they can produce more cheaply.' To an economist, are these terms synonymous?  A country that pays a child pennies for his labor, or even uses slave labor, will produce a T-Shirt more cheaply than we can in the U.S.? Is this "more efficient"?
2. He states that new immigrants are not evenly distributed in the U.S, and instead are concentrated in the "big six" - California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas. If you forget New Jersey, the remaining "big five" for immigrants are the "big five" for everyone else in this country. They are the five most populous states in the U.S. (New Jersey is #10.) What's the point?
3. He then takes it to the next level, and points out the unequal distribution of where the immigrants move to within those states: "while there are many in New York City"... "relatively few are in upstate New York." It might be news to Chiswick, but nobody is moving to upstate New York. It's population decreases each year. What is the significance of stating that immigrants are not moving to places that American workers are fleeing from

Chiswick seems to be one of a thankfully small group of academics whose opinions are supported by "facts" - facts which are utterly without relevance to the argument at hand.

The Highs and Lows of Dishonesty

The Op-Ed page of the NY Times publishes pundits with very different points of view. Normally, they carefully ignore each other. In the last two weeks a subtle spat has broken out between Paul Krugman and David Brooks.

• May 4, Brooks: "The Paranoid Style" made fun of the "conspiracy theories of Kevin Phillips, calling his work "intellectual dishonesty on stilts." He concluded that some Americans "are willing to believe any whacked-out theory, so long as it focuses hatred on Bush."
• May 8, Krugman:  "Who's Crazy Now?" agrees that conspiracy theorists indeed exist, and gives as examples Bill O'Reilly and Sen. James "The Hoax" Inhofe.  He goes on to explain that "many of the administration supporters can't handle the truth", and so "have consistently questioned the sanity of Bush critics. But now those harsh critics have been vindicated."  The real conspiracy theorists, on the right, will continue to blame every failure of this administration on others.
• May18, Brooks: "Sir Galahad of the G.O.P." discusses how the G.O.P. "base suddenly turn[ed] carnivorous and out for your flesh" when the issue is immigration. He wrote that "they lashed out in ways identical to the Bushophobic left." He ends on a note of hope that a new immigration reform constituency is growing based on the "overwhelmingly positive response to the President's speech."

The spat is sort of fun, but the height of intellectual dishonesty reached by Brooks has to be described as "stilts on steroids."

He continues to call critics of this administration Bush haters, and questions their sanity by using words like "Bushphobic." He forgets that the 'crazy hate filled left' wished so much for Bush's success that he was given the highest approval rating that any President has ever recorded the history of the Gallup organization. (Sept 24, 2001, 90% Approval) No phobia forced his poll numbers down to levels that may break another record: his performance did that. It wasn't the right who contributed to making the response to the speech "overwhelmingly positive:" it was the 'crazy, reflexive Bush hating whackos' of the left.

The truth is that Bush's party is a  party based on hatred and polarization.  Bush has done his share in continuing this legacy of hate, but he didn't start it. The Republicans have been doing it for decades - from the "Southern Strategy", to Nixon's dirty tricks; from Reagan's speech on States Rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi to Lee Atwater and H.W.'s Willy Horton ads; it is how the GOP wins elections. By cynically using 9/11 and the war as weapons with which to bludgeon political opponents, George and Karl have reached new depths, but it's not a new direction.

Brooks' duplicity reaches new heights because he well knows that it's a party built on anger and hatred. He has seen and written about what the conservatives did with Harriet Miers' nomination.  He also wrote how McCain's compromising to create the Gang of 14 was condemned as a "betrayal" and a "private surrender"  by the grand old party base.

In spite of Krugman's not so subtle request that the sanity of Bush critics not be questioned, Brooks went straight ahead and wrote of the left's Bushphobia even in a piece devoted to the anger of the right. So please Mr. Brooks, let's not have any more lectures on intellectual honesty, or civility - especially when you applaud the  entrance of Giuliani onto the national political scene, a man who is potentially even more divisive than Bush.

Traitors?

At times I find the land of the wing-nuts very confusing. You see, I don't have a map.

Frequently, there are posts and sites proclaiming that criticism of the Commander in Chief during a time of war is treasonous. And then the same wing-nuts go ahead and call the President an insane wimp, a profile in dementia and worse. It's beyond me.

When Al Gore criticized W's abuse at Guantanamo, Michelle Malkin called Al's speech a seditious act. (Feb,06)

But in another post she says that "Bush has lost touch with reality." And she isn't alone in doubting the sanity of the Leader of our Armed Forces now in Iraq. (a profile in dementia, is he insane?,)  Isn't this the kind of thing that is supposed to be bad for morale of our troops?

Many inhabitants of wing-nut land think the President (the Prez) is full of BullShit. (debbieschlussel, stoptheaclu )

Recently Donald Rumsfeld spoke about accusations of lying by this administration: "That charge is frequently leveled against the president for one reason or another, and it is so wrong, so unfair and so destructive of a free system" of government. On May 1st, Polipundit was blunt: "George Bush is a liar and a traitor who is selling out America to his big-money paymasters." Mrs. Malkin has a subsidiary 'immigration blog' which commented on Bush's speech with "In a gesture so mendacious that it gives a whole new meaning to the notion of transparency in government." View from the Right thought the speech full of "palpable lies", and called Bush's words "one of the biggest lies in American political history."

It would be cruel, but I could go on at length.

• Powerline "It strikes me that we are coming perilously close to 'more mush from the wimp' time.
• Polipundit "El Presidente is speaking now, and every word coming out of his mouth is a lie."
• "This is pure idiocy, and it has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetuated by any previous President." (here) (Levin of National Review)

I think you probably get the point.  But then, who is a traitor today?

A Cruddy Debacle

The impenetrabilty of Bush's Bubble will once again be demonstrated tonight when Bush speaks on immigration.  Underscoring their "see nothing, know nothing" mentality, Karl Rove  said that the only polls worth paying attention to are ones done by the Republican National Committee - you know, the ones that show how much we really do like Bush and want to have a beer with him, if only Iraq wasn't bumming us out a tad right now. Laura doesn't need to look at polls; she knows the nation reveres her man.
So it's really no wonder that Bush is implementing his plan to alienate the entire country within ten days. And he going to use aliens to do it. Last week he got the left and what's left of the old right leaping on the grave of his administration; hopping mad because of the illegal surveillance programs at the NSA. His only defenders were the rabid ones - the National Review/Michelle Malkin core of the Republican Party.  Tonight he will offend them. There is nothing he can do to please this group, short of announcing that he has the power to beam up 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and transport them to Mexico like a Scotty on Star Trek.(without the concern about their arriving in one piece) Plus he has to mention that the Star Wars program is ready to work - in a slightly altered form - one in which its missiles incinerate any foreigner within 3 miles of a U.S. border. (No, Congress never authorized this, but remember he added a note saying "or whatever" in his signing note on the budget.)
Mark Levin of The National Review made it clear that  if the National Guard is not authorized to shoot on sight, supposition, or just a whim, Bush's administration is doomed. Just patrolling the border is not enough for Mr. Levin.
In case you thought that there was a group out there not angry at the President, please read Paul Krugman's "D is for Debacle," where he describes the debacle of Medicare part D. If the horrible features of the program listed in Krugman's article aren't enough to infuriate you, there is another aspect of the plan that  I only learned about today. After you reach "dough-nut hole" status, when  you have to pay full price for every medication you take since you have already consumed $2,250.00 worth of medicine, you also must continue to pay insurance premiums. You must pay premiums while getting absolutely no benefit. When Krugman concludes that everything that this administration touches turns to crud, he is not overstating the case.

Tonight Bush will make sure that that assessment is unanimous - thus becoming the uniter, not divider, that we knew he could be.

On Being Demonstrative

Please double click to enlarge
Union Square 05-01-06, about 4:30 P.M.

The southern part of the Square is packed.

Anti-Malkin March

Please double click to Enlarge
Union Square May 1, 2006, 2:30 P.M.
Pro-Immigration Rally

Basket Gone; Now: A Flag

Please double Click to Enlarge
Union Square May 1, 2006
Pro-Immigration Rally
(All right - the flag is Puerto Rican)

Shame.

Not surprisingly, Right Wing Blogs  have been doing what they do best in response to the recent protests about propsed immigration law: they're spreading hate.

One blogger , referring to an immigrant from Latin America, writes how "he'll demand health care...,[and] become one-fifth of your prison population."

Another who attacks Ted Kennedy for his college record, and for Chappaquiddick, refers to the immigrants as "wet backs."

One more, recommended  by Michelle Malkin, argues that "another option is to simply give them parts of the U.S. that we really don't want anymore, like New Orleans or Detroit. Then wall off those areas and be done with it."

Michelle recommends lots of  other mongerers of hate, and posts picture of protests she says the Main Stream Media will not publish.

In that same spirit, I would like to list some names that Michelle will never publish:

Cpl. Roberto Abad 22 Weapons Company, Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Los Angeles,California

Cmdr. Joseph Acevedo, 46, Assigned to Commander, Logistics Force, Navy Central Command, Bronx,New York

Sgt. 1st Class Ramon A. Acevedoaponte 51 Headquarters Company, 3rd Forward Support Battalion, Division Support Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, Watertown. New York,

Spc. Genaro Acosta, 26, Battery, 1st Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 4th Infantry Division,Fair Oaks, California

Pfc. Steven Acosta, 19, Company C, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Calexico,California

Cpl. Andres Aguilar Jr., 21, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force, Victoria, Texas

Capt. Paul C. Alaniz, 32, Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 361, Marine Aircraft Group 16, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Corpus Christi, Texas

Cpl. Nicanor Alvarez, 22, Company B, 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force,San  Bernardino,California

Spc. Yoe M. Aneiros, 20, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division Newark,New Jersey

Spc. Edward J. Anguiano, 24, Company A, 3rd Combat Support Battalion Brownsville,Texas

Cpl. Carlos Arellano ,22, Company I, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Rosemead,California

Sgt. Roberto Arizola Jr., 31, Company B, 297th Military Intelligence Battalion, 513th Military Intelligence Brigade, Laredo, Texas

Lance Cpl. Alexander S. Arredondo, 20, Company A, Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Randolph,MA

Spc. Richard Arriaga 20 Headquarters Battery 4th Battalion, 42nd Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Ganado, Texas

All of those on this list have last name that begin with the letter "A." I could go on.

While Michelle and friends argue about whether to call them "Latinos", "Reconquistas", "Hispanics" or "wetbacks", we  recognize them as people who have died fighting for the U.S. in the war in Iraq.

Michelle and company need not worry about Roberto Arizola from Laredo, TX, nor about 19 year old Pfc Acosta from Calexico, CA, marching on the Mall in Washington ever again. They are dead.