WS>>Bush's Mexican agenda has cost him hundreds of thousands of loyal

carl william spitzer iv cwsiv_2nd at JUNO.COM
Sat Nov 15 20:00:38 MST 2003

Should we reelect him as a reward for this????

          By Sam Francis

          With  the  revival of amnesty for  illegal  aliens  and
     support  for  giving  food stamps to legal  ones,  the  Bush
     administration is transparently returning to its  brainstorm
     of  winning the Hispanic voteywhich in the last election  it
     conspicuously  failed to do and almost lost the election  by
     trying. But never let it be said that the grand  strategists
     for  the  Bush White House are neglecting their  base  among
     mainly white religious conservatives.

          Recently,  Karl Rove, who planned the Bush campaign  in
     2000,  unbosomed his thoughts about that year's election  to
     Brian  Mitchell of Investors Business Daily.  [December  18,
     2001]  What  he disclosed was not that the  Republicans  are
     ignoring  white religious and social conservatives but  that
     they hope merely to exploit them.

          The  big discrepancy," said Mr. Rove, speaking  of  the
     voters the Bush campaign failed to win in the last election,
     "is  among self-identified white,  evangelical  Protestants,
     Pentecostals  and fundamentalists. If you look at the  elec-
     toral  model,  there should have been 19  million  of  them.
     Instead,  there was [sic] 15 million.... We may have  failed
     to  mobilize them." [VDARE.COM NOTE: You got it, Karl! {  as
     Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein have pointed out!]

          Mr.  Rove's  no fool. Since Mr. Bush lost  the  popular
     vote  to  Al Gore and won the election at all  only  because
     Green Party candidate Ralph Nader took votes from the  Demo-
     crat, it follows that some voters who should have  supported
     the  Republican candidate really voted for  someone  elseyor
     didn't vote at all. So why didn't they?

          Mr.  Rove  has a ready explanation.  All  those  white,
     evangelical voters are probably just too bigoted to  support
     someone  as enlightened as George W. Bush and  his  "compas-
     sionate conservatism."

          "Rove  said," the newspaper reported,  "the  campaign's
     message  of inclusion might have turned off  some  Christian
     conservatives,  whom  he described as  'xenophobic'  in  the
     past.  He said the GOP would have to work hard to keep  them
     and otherwise 'make up the deficit some place else.'"

          Mr.  Rove doesn't seem to be able to make up  his  mind
     whether  all the white Christian "xenophobes"  deserted  the
     GOP  because  they  couldn't stand its efforts  to  rope  in
     blacks,  Hispanics, homosexuals and women, or  whether  this
     electoral  bloc  is  simply vanishing. "I think  we  may  be
     seeing to some degree ... a return to the sidelines of  some
     of these previously politically involved religious conserva-
     tives," he said.

          The  latter  explanation may in fact be  close  to  the
     truth,  though not in the way Mr. Rove meant it. Not  a  few
     religious  conservatives, seeing that after decades of  sup-
     porting  Republican  candidates, they've gained  nothing  in
     terms  of changes in abortion law, prayer in school or  pan-
     dering to the lavender lobby, are just packing it in. What's
     the point of political involvement if all you get, even when
     you win, is the same stale rhetoric from office holders  who
     have no intention of keeping their commitments?

          As  for  the "xenophobes," Mr.  Rove  presumably  means
     those opposed to mass immigration and such anti-white racial
     policies as affirmative action, hate crimes laws and banning
     the  Confederate flag. There's an overlap between  conserva-
     tives who care about such issues and those identifying  with
     the religious right. Given the Bush campaign's positions, or
     lack  thereof, on these matters, and the  Republicans'  gro-
     tesque  pandering to both blacks and Hispanics, it  wouldn't
     be  too surprising if a lot of  rank-and-file  conservatives
     just took a walk in 2000.

          Of  course, back during the campaign  the  conventional
     wisdom among grand strategists like Mr. Rove was that either
     the party no longer needed such voters or could easily fetch
     in new voting blocs to take their place. At least today,  to
     judge  from what he's saying now, Mr. Rove has  figured  out
     that maybe the party does need the white middle class Chris-
     tian voters after all.

          The  party  needs its old voting base  for  the  simple
     reason that, despite all the pandering to blacks and Hispan-
     ics and all the avoidance of issues that might have alienat-
     ed  them, it still couldn't win their votes. Mr.  Bush  lost
     the  black  vote in 2000 by a larger margin than  any  other
     Republican  since Barry Goldwater. For all the hoopla  about
     how Mr. Bush and only Mr. Bush could win the Hispanic  vote,
     he won a measly 31 percent.

          But  what Mr. Rove betrays in his interview is  not  so
     much  the  chastened wisdom of a strategist who  knows  he's
     blundered as the smarmy smartness of a Beltway spin  wizard.
     "Working  hard to keep" the GOP base doesn't mean the  party
     or  the candidate will change their positions and  approach,
     but merely that they'll be a bit more cunning to try to rope
     conservatives into supporting them next time.

          It never dawns on him, or the breed he represents, that
     that's  exactly why the grassroots right defected  from  the
     Stupid Party in the last electionyand probably has no  plans
     to come back in the next one.

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list