NYT: Simplistic Conservatives vs. 'Complex,' 'Nuanced' Supporters of Immigration Bill
New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg seemed to enjoy Bush's attack on conservative opposition to his immigration bill in Wednesday's "Bush Calls Attacks on Immigration Bill 'Empty Political Rhetoric.'"
"President Bush took on parts of his conservative base on Tuesday by accusing opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat its passage in Congress."
While Rutenberg slapped labels on Bush's "conservative" opposition, the other side were merely "advocates," not liberals.
“But like the president, business groups, advocates for immigrants, and religious and civil rights organizations urged Congress to keep working to shape a comprehensive immigration bill."
Rutenberg later fell back on an old liberal conceit -- that "conservatives" react to simplistic slogans, while "supporters" (who aren't called "liberals") are forced to make "nuanced" arguments.
"Mr. Bush and his allies have faced an important rhetorical disadvantage, particularly from the right. Conservative opponents can use one word, amnesty, against the bill.
"Supporters, the president included, are forced into the complex weeds of policy and the nuances of legislative language. Mr. Bush tried to offset the difference by discrediting the amnesty accusation."
For more New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.