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.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Of course, this site, like
May 31, 2007 - 09:51 ET by ThoughtPoliceOf course, this site, like always, attacks the messenger and not the message. Why? Because the message is from the Prez himself, or as I like to call him, "The Decider."
Another piece of bad legislation and we have to worry about what some NYT guy says about it...give me a break MRC...
How's this for attacking the "messenger", TP?
May 31, 2007 - 09:58 ET by RJ1) How's this for attacking the "messenger", TP? Your post is lame, as usual, and misses (or ignores, in your need to attack the site) the point made by Waters.
2) Explain how this site is attacking the President and not his message.
3) As for what "some NYT guy says"....well, that's the purpose of this site, you dope.
Message not the Messenger?
May 31, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Cool ArrowI'd say this site has a very real problem with the President's garage sale attitude towards our safety in this matter.
He's trying to import slaves. Pure and simple.
Clear enough for you?
Gore lied. Nobody fried
President Bush
May 31, 2007 - 10:12 ET by iveseenitallThis legislation is wrong for America. That's the truth. To say that President Bush is wrong on this is not to attack him; it's just to tell the truth. And to imply that liberals are somehow more "intellectual" than conservatives is old and, as always, laughable. The most ignorant, stupid, uneducated people I know are liberals. They are all about complicating simple things and, in the end, creating a grand mess. Witness the Congress of the U.S., the educational system, the IRS, etc. I will give them this, however, they seem always to get the mess they want in the end. This immigration legislation will be no different.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I totally agree that the draf
May 31, 2007 - 11:18 ET by GalvanicI totally agree that the draft legislation is wrong, but what's wrong with attacking the President for supporting it? Afterall, he impugned my patriotism when he declared that those who don't get onboard with him somehow don't want what's best for America.
Bush and the Republican Congress began destroying their own political base with their undisciplined Federal spending. Now the President --- acting like a true lame duck at this point --- is going to damage our national security before he leaves office with a complex, unenforceable immigration 'reform' bill to remedy his abject failure to tighten border security during his tenure.
I've been supportive of the war and other Bush initiatives, but his latest scolding of conservatives over the reform bill leaves me cold. No, let me rephrase that: it infuriates me. Since the '06 election, Bush has rolled over and played dead on everything but the war.
"The most ignorant,stupi
May 31, 2007 - 11:46 ET by MikeB"The most ignorant,stupid, uneducated people I know are liberals." Ive, you are belaboring the obvious. By the way, today's liberals are not liberals in the classic sense of the term. They are socialists, at best, and Marxists, at worst. Neither socialism nor Marxism has ever worked where ever they were tried. As E. O. Wilson said about Marxism: "Great theory, wrong species." Marxism works great for ants and bees, but it is a miserable failure for human beings. That socialism does not work for humans has been proven time and again, yet the liberals insist that it will work this time.
Human nature has not changed throughout human history. Socialism rewards sloth and punishes productivity, and always leads to the destruction of the nation. Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different outcome each time." Therefore, liberals, besides being stupid, are insane. Unfortunately, the inmates are running the asylum from Washington D.C.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
agree
May 31, 2007 - 12:04 ET by iveseenitallI agree with Galv and Mike. I, too, am infuriated by the President's remarks and I certianly believe that modern "liberalism" is not liberal at all. It is, IMHO, Communism. I don't often use that word but I am well versed in the subject and know that what we call liberalism today follows the Communist Manifesto to the letter. And I am disgusted that so many in America don't ( or rufuse to) see it. They are voluntarily going to the gallows.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
MikeB etal--An analogy, if I may--
May 31, 2007 - 15:45 ET by misterbillMikeB etal--An analogy, if I may--
MikeB , you say socialists and possibly Marxists--I totally agree. There are many people in favor of this amnesty who are good-hearted, but in the same way as a neighbor who sees a stray dog, is overwhelmed with sympathy and calls the Animal Rescue League. THAT IS THE END OF MR DOGOOD'S INVOLVEMENT. He/she has done a good deed because it cost only a phone call. Now the same Mr Dogood wants to open the door of amnesty to the less fortunate. A very noble thought and deed. After the door is open, he will walk away again and once again, the community, county, state or Federal government will do the work and all of us will pay for it. Mr Dogood's heart is inthe right place in his sympathy for the less fortunate, but clearly in the wrong place for the well being of his fellow citizens. I hope all NBers have watched Roy Beck's NUMBERS presentation.
another
May 31, 2007 - 15:52 ET by LionKingHow about Mr Dogood removing the door to his house so that the needy can come and go as they please?...use his kitchen and bathroom and laundry room at no cost to them?
Exactly, and what is it calle
May 31, 2007 - 16:15 ET by dscottExactly, and what is it called when a person takes in every happless stray to the point they have 30 cats and the house stinks because they can't keep up with the both feeding and pet care?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
"Simplistic," eh?
May 31, 2007 - 10:17 ET by sarcasmo"Simplistic," eh? So that's why they're so into that stupid, pointless "let's debate it" thing instead of just calling names and talking over eachother!!
JMR
I'm confused
May 31, 2007 - 10:20 ET by the mad poleWhat is it with this "comprehensive" term that the president is stuck on? What focus group came up with that one, and why? This may seem trivial but the word is grating on me. Why can't he comprehend the law?
Comprehensive
May 31, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Cool ArrowIt means he can't comprehend how we would rather he seal the borders first and then we'll talk about that spigot.
Gore lied. Nobody fried
comprehend this
May 31, 2007 - 10:35 ET by the mad poleFrom this point forward I will substitute the word ASININE for comprehensive. The truth will set me free
Comprehensive asininity
May 31, 2007 - 10:38 ET by Cool ArrowI applaud your grasp of the English language. The terms shall henceforth be synonymous.
Gore lied. Nobody fried
Just Think
May 31, 2007 - 12:13 ET by PAPA LJust think if Mr Jorge signs bill instantly we will be the only country in the world with no illegal aliens, until the next day, why doesn't he just declare the constitution and his oath of office null and void.
Jorge, please go back and reread your oath of office, it says to defend and protect against all enemy's forign and domestic,
For this Immigration bill if past will surley make us the best of all the third class countries.
Funny how they claim Conserva
May 31, 2007 - 10:42 ET by mattmFunny how they claim Conservatives are the simple ones yet almost every Liberal issue can fit on a bumper sticker...
Last night a conservative talk radio host challenged the "no amnesty" crowd to come up with a better alternative...
It really is "simple" - just enforce the existing law! You don't have to round up illegals, simply penalize their employers and the jobs will dry up, and all the illegals will go back home on their own... The solution doesn't have to be difficult, does it?
BTW I thought NAFTA was supposed to boost the Mexican economy so they wouldn't have to come here to work...
A better bumper sticker
May 31, 2007 - 10:46 ET by Cool ArrowInstead of "no amnesty", how about NO AMNESTY
I prefer simple to nuanced.
Gore lied. Nobody fried
I'll confess, I haven't fol
May 31, 2007 - 10:55 ET by sarcasmoI'll confess, I haven't followed the shouting matches between lots of NB conservatives & Tumbler on immigration too-closely, so I don't know whether he's been asked this question already, but...Isn't it a fact that Mexico has much stricter immigration laws for say, illegal Guatemalans than the USA has for Mexicans?? What if the USA were to simply adopt (and begin actually enforcing...) a word for word translation of all Mexican laws on the issue and scrap our own laws? How would advocates like him feel about this policy? (For the record, I'm for "a tall fence but a wide gate," IOW, if they're legal I'm fine with lots of 'em, but if they're illegal they're a national security issue IMO.)
JMR
"How would advocates l
May 31, 2007 - 11:14 ET by ckc1227"How would advocates like him feel about this policy?"
I'll tell you what he would say, only I'll use fewer words. Basically, he would say we should enforce the laws against illegal immigration, as long as it doesn't involve enforcing the laws against illegal immigration.
Immigration Laws
May 31, 2007 - 11:17 ET by Cool ArrowAnd absolutely don't enforce immigration laws against Mexicans.
Gore lied. Nobody fried
Aha. So the proposed policy
May 31, 2007 - 11:21 ET by sarcasmoAha. So the proposed policy would give us stricter laws to not-enforce. Needless to say, I think immigration has been a constant bipartisan scandal since at least 1986, and really before that. One would think, with all the taxpayers spend on defense, that we'd be halfway able to defend something as basic as our own borders...
JMR
Ted Kennedy has been the driv
May 31, 2007 - 11:37 ET by mattmTed Kennedy has been the driving force behind immigration policy since the 60's and he seems to be getting his way again...that can't be good.
ckc, you left off that tumble
May 31, 2007 - 11:51 ET by MikeBckc, you left off that tumbler would call him a racist, bigotted, white supremacist Nazi bozo. It doesn't matter how many times you tell him "legal immigration is fine and they are welcome, but illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminal", he will start on his ad hominem rant.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
sarcasmo Says: What if the
May 31, 2007 - 11:36 ET by DontFeedTheTrollssarcasmo Says: What if the USA were to simply adopt (and begin actually enforcing...)
a word for word translation of all Mexican laws on the issue and scrap
our own laws? How would advocates like him feel about this policy?
The simple answer is he would call you a racist (didn't know Mexican or illegal alien was a race) if you advocated any enforcement of immigration laws.
Sad.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Maybe he'll come tell us hi
May 31, 2007 - 11:47 ET by sarcasmoMaybe he'll come tell us himself? I hope calling me a racist doesn't make sense, as I really do like Mexicans a lot, so it would be kinda weird. I'm even tolerant of young, Islamic males from nations besides Mexico, as long as they don't want to kill me, but I count "entering the USA illegally via Canada or Mexico" as a sign that said Islamic males just might wish to kill me or others.
JMR
just enforce the existing law
May 31, 2007 - 10:47 ET by dahliatraversjust enforce the existing law!
Yes. Thank you, mattm.
simple
May 31, 2007 - 10:56 ET by iveseenitallIt's so simple, even a caveman could do it---but our government can't. God help us; our government surely won't.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
LOL m1xram
May 31, 2007 - 13:45 ET by m1xramLOL
m1xram
"It really is "
May 31, 2007 - 11:09 ET by ckc1227"It really is "simple" - just enforce the existing law!"
I heard one of the pro-amnesty crowd talking heads the other day state that we are incapable of enforcing immigration law, therefore we need NEW immigration laws. So, if I understood him correctly, we are able to enforce every other law of this country for the 300 million who live here, but we are unable to enforce immigration law for 12-20 million illegals.
Hogwash. Unwillingness to enforce the law doesn't equal unable to enforce the law. And if you can't enforce current law, how can you enforce new law?
And frankly, that's what bothers people. They know any new legislation won't be enforced, at least not the penalty/security portion. Allegedly, we can't round up the illegals who are here now, but somehow we'll be able to round up the 90% who won't come forward, won't pay the $5,000, won't go home for a year, and won't comply with any of the other requirements. Do they think we're stupid? Plus, reducing the length of the wall from 700 miles to 300 miles on our 2,000 mile border doesn't exactly prove your serious about border security.
This legislation is a joke, and finally...FINALLY, some Americans are taking notice.
We can't enforce the old law,
May 31, 2007 - 13:42 ET by mattmWe can't enforce the old law, so the obvious solution is to make a new law...
I guess that's what they mean by "nuance"...
Amazing that an article could
May 31, 2007 - 10:54 ET by dahliatraversAmazing that an article could be completely wrong from start to finish.
This is not a liberal vs conservative issue. There are as many Democrats and independents angry about our open borders as Republicans.
This bill is not just amnesty, it's "Step right up, we have amnesty programs tailored for every need".
This is not complex. It is simple. Simply enforce the existing laws.
It only gets complex when you want to continue exploiting vulnerable workers and keep wages artificially depressed to benefit corporations (remember, the eeeeevil corporations?), grossly disrespect the millions who immigrated here legally and make us a borderless country without even a facade of security ... while pretending that you are upholding your oath of office, glossing over the fact that you created the problem with EXACTLY the "solution" you are proposing for the third time and telling yourself and anyone who will listen that what you are doing really is for the good of the country and the illegal immigrants themselves.
Give it up. You're only fooling yourselves.
Even if they tossed the amnes
May 31, 2007 - 12:48 ET by dscottEven if they tossed the amnesty provisions, the bill still would be bad. The reason is there has been no discussion about population increase or the consequences of it. Immigration and the first generation born to them constitutes virtually all of the 50 million increase since 1990!!! Every year they let in 1 million (1990 to 2006 that's 16 million), that's on top of the 12 million or so that came illegally, then most of these people are having children with automatic citizenship (anchor baby).
There is no rational immigration policy in this country, in order to be rational you must consider and account for the increased cost of services and demands placed upon society for every new person. None of the consequences have been budgeted, whether it be Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Just as energy consumption increases with population, so does government costs. The sole rationale for immigration is that it's always been that way! They have disconnected the purpose of immigration from the needs of society to the emotional nostalgia written on the Statue of Liberty. They totally forgot or chose to ignore the reason for Ellis Island, sending back those who would be a burden on our society. Immigration was never altruistic, it had rational concrete reasons.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
rational immigration
May 31, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Cool ArrowWhen they're through building that wall, they can come back and talk about opening a door in it.
Gore lied. Nobody fried
dear dscott:
May 31, 2007 - 13:57 ET by tumblerYou may have reason to beef; but not all of it is based on fact.
Of the possible 12 million existing illegally over the past years, a cautious guess is, 5 million are sure to return to Mexico in time. They follow a nomadic course, the border is just there to cross.
Yes, it's an ignorant way of life. Yes, all of them live here illegally even when it's temporary. But take it from one who has known many from the Mexican side; they love their homeland. With time the homesickness takes them back. They come here for a stake. Mexico isn't far.
There are Americans everywhere who are oblivious of these things. They do in fact think we were just invaded. There's no reflection by such people, on the consequences and the actual motives behind illegal immigration.
Of course many of these folks put down roots and remain. Some marry into our society and raise families. When they do, they add to our taxpayer rolls, just as you did after you became an adult. They sustain part of the economy, whether you want to believe it or not. You're painting this all either black or white. Nothing is ever going to destroy our social or economic culture. This economy's booming ! If the result of illegal immigration is all destructive and demoralizing, why is this country the richest one on earth ? Do you ever wonder ?
The economy is doing as well
May 31, 2007 - 14:18 ET by dscottThe economy is doing as well as it is not because of immigration, legal or otherwise. The economy is doing well due to capitalism inspite of the meddling incompetent efforts of politicians. What about the 6.8 million unemployed people in this country, what consideration do you have for them? Isn't it rude to take some else's job? If jobs are a source of the problem in Mexico or other Latin countries, isn't it the responsibility of their leaders to create jobs for their citizens? Why should we allow them excuses not to do better by sending their unemployed here?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
you have to reflect deeply
May 31, 2007 - 14:41 ET by tumblerdscott,
Things are NOT black or white. Nothing is; we need more understanding. Those jobs you think are being "taken away" from the American unemployed have to be scrutinized, as well as the jobless. You have to ask why they're jobless.
You speak of 6 and change percent unemplyment as if this were centralized, all in one place. Or as if the jobs were all at the reach of those 6 millions.
But they're scattered over 50 states. Some are self-employed. They still pay taxes. The unemplyment rate is calculated on lines of unemplyment insurance applications. They rise and fall.
In one city there may be more or not many jobless applications. Spread over 50 states and you can see easily some jobs go begging. -- A jobless eligible might be 500 miles away from that jobsite. Maybe 1,000 miles and not job-hunting where it's available.
An illegal who applies is hired, it stands to reason. Does this mean he stole the job from a guy who didn't even apply ?
Calculate this over time. Not only do fewer Americans (than illegal aliens) apply at ranches and farms. Or to dig ditches. The 6m jobless you cite may be over-qualified; so the illegal alien has a better chance at those menial jobs.
There are always variables. Not every jobless guy cares. Some refuse to work; but they'll take unemplyment benefits for as long as they last, then quit. They'll hang around liquor stores. In the meantime, some peon from Mexico cuts lawns, or picks fruit. He or she didn't come here to quit. They came to work. Why doesn't anybody on the Right understand that ?
There are always variables. N
May 31, 2007 - 15:15 ET by dscottThere are always variables. Not every jobless guy cares. Some refuse to work; but they'll take unemplyment benefits for as long as they last, then quit. They'll hang around liquor stores. In the meantime, some peon from Mexico cuts lawns, or picks fruit. He or she didn't come here to quit. They came to work. Why doesn't anybody on the Right understand that ?
That we understand Tumber, it's called laziness and we normally attribute this to Welfare recipients and panhandlers and reasonably we can assume some unemployed. However, the idea of illegals doing what Americans won't do is false. The majority of ranch hands and farm workers who pick our crops are Americans not illegals, though their (illegal) percentage is rising. The idea that they don't take jobs from the unemployed is also false as we saw with Swift & Company hiring 950 people to replace all the illegals that were rounded up. So my contention stands, they are taking jobs from those who are entitled to work them. They by their presence are costing us the taxpayer money to pay the unemployment checks and hence we are subsidizing the incompetence of foreign governments to create jobs for their own people.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
The 6m jobless you cite may b
May 31, 2007 - 15:19 ET by dscottThe 6m jobless you cite may be over-qualified; so the illegal alien has a better chance at those menial jobs.
I find the notion of a menial labor class inherently racist. I don't want it here.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
A jobless eligible might be 5
May 31, 2007 - 15:21 ET by dscottA jobless eligible might be 500 miles away from that jobsite. Maybe 1,000 miles and not job-hunting where it's available.
Irrelevant - Since foreigners are traveling further than people from Mississippi or Michigan which are high unemployment states.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
An illegal who applies is hir
May 31, 2007 - 15:29 ET by vrwc13An illegal who applies is hired, it stands to reason. Does this mean he stole the job from a guy who didn't even apply?
Key word here is illegal. Tumbler, what would happen to me if I illegally entered Mexico, applied for a job, got hired, and got caught by the Mexican authorities? What would they do with me? What would they do with someone from Costa Rica doing the same?
vrwc...how about Canada?
May 31, 2007 - 15:33 ET by LionKingI think the analogy might work better to use Canada's border as example. I think the libs are so infatuated with socialized medicine, they might actually sneak into Canada. What do you think? ;-)
I actually went to work in Ca
May 31, 2007 - 15:41 ET by vrwc13I actually went to work in Canada for a few months a few years ago. They are extremely strict about entering their country to work. My company and I had to prove to them the need for me to be there and why a Canadian could not have done the work.
Only because it was "after the sale" work and that I was uniquely qualified (including proof of my college degree) would they agree.
My question prior was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as most any other country would either throw you out, put you in jail or both put you in jail for awhile then throw you out.
begging the question
May 31, 2007 - 15:48 ET by LionKingOf course, then it begs the question, why should the US have to follow a different standard than every other sovereign nation?
Politics and power. Althoug
May 31, 2007 - 16:08 ET by vrwc13Politics and power. Although the two may be the same. Most illegal immigrants will be persuaded to join the democrats because of their liberal/social programs - why work when welfare pays the same. Look at the USA today maps of 2000 and 2004 voting by county. Other than major metropolitan areas the other "bluest" areas are on our southern borders, and Indian reservations (sadly enough). The more low-income immigrants you get the more democratic voters. ted kennedy knew this back in the 1960's.
btw: the "new blue" areas are along the Mississippi River - all the gambling allowed counties.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
Thank you.
May 31, 2007 - 21:05 ET by dahliatraversThank you.
"The economy is doing well due to capitalism"
May 31, 2007 - 15:55 ET by misterbill"The economy is doing well due to capitalism". When the downturn comes, and it always does, who will keep what job? Will we let American citizens sit idle because they can collect unemployment for a while? We have 7 million people unemployed. We have employment agencies in every city. If the government offered reimbursable moving and living expenses to our own citizens and contact with these agencies, we would have fewer unemployed and more of our citizens with an improved life. A great number of the urban population are born into poverty and can never afford to break the bonds. A great number of those are our black citizens. They deserve a boost from Senor Bush and company long before anyone who stole into our country.
A brief example is the refugee population from New Orleans. A goodly number of them have put down roots in other cities after they were forced to move by Katrina. The cable TV employee who came to resolve a problem at my house was one of those refugees.
I read something in the Jou
May 31, 2007 - 13:44 ET by JDWI read something in the Journal today predicting the economic failures expected as a result of the illegals.The dems want to import 15 plus million of them, we will at least triple the rate of chain migration. Just like dealing with terrorism here after cutting and running, what is the plan to deal with the illegal influx?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
I read something in the Journ
May 31, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Darth DutchI read something in the Journal today predicting the economic failures expected as a result of the illegals
I love how our economy, which is the strongest and biggest in th world (or at least, historically has been) could come to a grinding halt if we don't have illegal aliens around. America has always been an innovative nation and I have a feeling that even if such a halt were to happen we would find a way around it very soon.
Dutch
nuances of legislative language
May 31, 2007 - 13:55 ET by m1xramnuances of legislative language
How do we translate that, as "BS"? A coworker once told me, "It's not that you don't understand, it's just that they don't make any sense."
Close the border and then we can talk about other issues. (That's what Mexico does on their southern border.) After the hemorrhaging has stopped people may feel more inclined toward some form of AMNESTY. Maybe not, but close the d*mn border.
m1xram