The Red Pill

This is rich.

Hollywood executives are opening declaring that they will blacklist Mel Gibson because of his movie, "The Passion of the Christ". Talk about intolerance. From no less than the New York Times

Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men.

The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of "The Passion of the Christ" and the star's remarks surrounding its release.

Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do."

The chairman said he was angry not just because of what he had read about the film and its portrayal of Jews in relation to the death of Jesus, but because of Mr. Gibson's remarks defending his father, Hutton Gibson.

So they didn't even WATCH the movie. Just based on what they HEARD about it and the statements from Gibson's father.

Hmmm ... Remember when Michael Moore stood up on stage with Wesely Clark and called President Bush a "deserter"? Remember how Clark refused to repudiate those remarks? And the fallout of that was ... what? Nothing. Can't hold Clark responsible for something that someone else says, even if you are on stage with them and they are supporting your candidacy.

On the otherhand, it is apparently shocking that ClearChannel would take Howard Stern off of six (yes, just 6) of it's stations. ClearChannel has only been an affiliate of the show, it does not own, produce, syndicate, or distribute it - that would be Infinity.

So how does free speech work again? Putting out a religious movie gets you blacklisted and putting out smut that is dropped from a few stations makes you a martyr?

AP News reports on Howard Stern.

The point is this. If ClearChannel as a broadcaster (affiliate) decides not to carry Howard Stern any longer causes such a stir, then shouldn't the outright blacklisting of Mel Gibson also evoke similar outrage?! Ultimately aren't they both first amendment issues? Don't forget - Mel Gibson had problems getting a distributer to carry his movie and he had to spend his own money to make the movie in the first place. Howard Stern still enjoys an employer (Infinity) that not only produces, but distributes his show itself.

Commentary by RCP

Wednesday, February 25 2004
GAY MARRIAGE: The issue of gay marriage boils down to the question of whether homosexuality should be on an equal moral and legal footing with heterosexuality. The core of the gay rights agenda is to enshrine in law, as sanctioned by the state, the full and total equality of homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Gay and lesbian activists want government policy from nursery schools to nursing homes to force homosexuality to be treated as totally equal to heterosexuality in everything.

The problem with this is the vast majority of Americans don't see homosexuality on par with heterosexuality. And guess what? That doesn't make them bigots or homophobes.

The truth is that even though most Americans are perfectly tolerant of gays and lesbians, that doesn't mean they want their third or fourth graders being taught that there is absolutely no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's not surprising that many people are uncomfortable at seeing homosexuality actively promoted in schools, glorified by the media, and now sanctioned by the state.

In fact, most Americans want the government out of the business of casting moral judgments and would be fine with the government remaining agnostic on the issue of homosexuality. That means the state should not punish or discriminate against gays and lesbians, nor should the government cede special rights to them.

Like most Americans, most gays and lesbians are good and decent people. They are entitled to enjoy all the rights, freedoms and privileges granted to every individual in this county. But they aren't entitled to have the government proactively endorse their lifestyle as on an equal footing with heterosexuality - unless a majority of the public's elected representatives in Congress decide it's the correct thing to do. And that's the rub.

The truly intolerant in this debate are not the mean and evil "religious right," but rather the activist left that demands the rest of the country accept their view. Contrary to what some may say, the President didn't seek this out as an issue, activists judges in Massachusetts and leftist politicians in San Francisco thrust their minority views in the country's face.

Consequences of gay marriage from a piece in the WSJ

BY MARY ANN GLENDON
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:01 a.m.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality and preserving democratic decision-making. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience," he explained, "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."
Those judges are here in Massachusetts, of course, where the state is cutting back on programs to aid the elderly, the disabled, and children in poor families. Yet a four-judge majority has ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households, most of which have two earners and are not raising children. What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children. Now, in the wake of the Massachusetts case, local officials in other parts of the nation have begun to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of state law.

A common initial reaction to these local measures has been: "Why should I care whether same-sex couples can get married?" "How will that affect me or my family?" "Why not just live and let live?" But as people began to take stock of the implications of granting special treatment to one group of citizens, the need for a federal marriage amendment has become increasingly clear. As President Bush said yesterday, "The voice of the people must be heard."

Indeed, the American people should have the opportunity to deliberate the economic and social costs of this radical social experiment. Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums.

The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?

If these social experiments go forward, moreover, the rights of children will be impaired. Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together. It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law. That philosophy of marriage, moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school. They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse. In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

Finally, there is the flagrant disregard shown by judges and local officials for the rights of citizens to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work and raise our children. Many Americans--however they feel about same-sex marriage--are rightly alarmed that local officials are defying state law, and that four judges in one state took it upon themselves to make the kind of decision that our Constitution says belongs to us, the people, and to our elected representatives. As one State House wag in Massachusetts put it, "We used to have government of the people, by the people and for the people, now we're getting government by four people!"
Whether one is for, against or undecided about same-sex marriage, a decision this important ought to be made in the ordinary democratic way--through full public deliberation in the light of day, not by four people behind closed doors. That deliberation can and must be conducted, as President Bush stated, "in a manner worthy of our country--without bitterness or anger."

Ms. Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer pens another great column.

Friday, February 20, 2004; Page A25


As the Democrats enter the final stages of their primary race, the emerging story is how the Republicans are preparing to go negative in the general election with a campaign of singular viciousness against John Kerry.

Kerry's spokesmen have already sounded the alarm, warning darkly that "the right-wing smear machine" is gearing up and declaring amusingly that "it's time for George W. Bush to call off his right-wing slime machine."

When exactly was it called on? No matter. A CNN anchor dutifully picks up the theme, noting "how ugly this is turning so early on."

Republicans turning ugly?

You are an average citizen following the election campaign so far. What have you gleaned from the wall-to-wall cable news coverage of the candidates' debates, rallies and victory/concession speeches?

First, that President Bush has "deceived" (Al Sharpton), "misled" (Kerry, Howard Dean) and, indeed, outright "lied" (Dennis Kucinich) us into a pointless and ruinous war that, as Kerry's chief campaign surrogate, Edward Kennedy, thunders, was "made up in Texas" for pure political advantage. Hence, Bush's hands are dripping with the blood of 500 brave soldiers who died for a lying president seeking better poll numbers.

Second, that his own personal military service was dishonorable: AWOL from the Air National Guard, declares Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe; perhaps even a "deserter," the charge that Wesley Clark repeatedly refused to repudiate.

And these are just Bush's depredations abroad. At home, as John Edwards tells it at every campaign stop, there are little girls from the "other America" crying into the night because their dads, now with the blank stare of hopelessness on their faces, have lost their jobs. Why? So that "Ken Lay and the boys" (Dean) and other "Benedict Arnold" friends (Kerry) of this president could make obscene profits from their companies' outsourcing. And that's while Bush was at the same time despoiling the water, polluting the air and, by God, trying to kill the Arctic caribou to please his parasitic oil industry pals and fatten up Halliburton.

Vote him out? Given all that, shouldn't the man be drawn and quartered? Rarely has there been a political assault more concentrated, more unrelenting, more unrebutted -- all occurring not as political advertising but on free media as campaign "coverage."

Part of this is serendipity. After Dean and Richard Gephardt destroyed each other with mutually negative ads in Iowa, the other candidates became terrified of saying anything even mildly negative about their opponents. They directed all of their fire not inside the corral, as is usual in a primary battle, but outside -- at the president. As the intra-Democratic campaign turned kid-glove, the main competition among the candidates consisted of who could be more hyperbolic in delineating the crimes of George W. Bush.

Part of this, too, is the candidates' exploitation of media conventions. The cable channels all covered the Tuesday night victory and concession speeches, which the candidates invariably turned into opportunities to deliver their stump speeches to a national audience. Dean's Iowa scream is the counterexample that makes the case. The rule is: Forget the crowd, face the camera and denounce the president.

And now, after six weeks of carpet-bombing Bush, the Democrats are shocked -- shocked! -- that the Republicans might answer back with "negativity."

What, in fact, have the Republicans mustered? A single Internet ad about Kerry, the Senate's king of special-interest money, denouncing special interests. And one speech by the Republican National Committee chairman on Kerry's conventional liberal (i.e. budget-cutting) positions on defense and intelligence.

The Republicans have yet to go after Kerry on his most critical vulnerability, his breathtaking penchant for reversing course for political convenience:

• Votes against the Persian Gulf War, which he now says he favored.

• Votes for the Iraq war, which he now says he opposed.

• Votes against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors troop support and Iraqi reconstruction.

• Votes for the No Child Left Behind Act, which he now attacks incessantly.

• Votes for NAFTA; he now rails against the unfairness of free trade.

• Votes for the Patriot Act; he now decries the assault on civil liberties.

Which is why Kerry prefers to preempt any examination of his record by warning in advance of a coming Republican "smear campaign."

It would be a clever attempt at political insulation were it not so transparent. Instead, coming after weeks of unrelenting anti-Bush calumny, it is an impressive display of chutzpah. Kerry may or may not win the presidency, but he has already won the 2004 Captain Renault award.

"Heroic military service doesn't always translate into wise leadership at the top" write Charles Krauthammer in Time Magazine.

In the middle of a war — or is it a war? — almost an entire Presidential briefing is taken up with the question of how many times a 26-year-old George W. Bush showed up in Alabama for National Guard duty more than 30 years ago.

Crazy. There is not the slightest doubt that if, say, John Edwards were the Democratic front runner, the issue would be considered an irrelevance. Indeed, during the months when Howard Dean was the front runner, it never came up. It comes up now only because the Democrats have providentially made John Kerry, war hero, their presumptive nominee.

For 2 1/2 years since 9/11, the Democrats have been adrift on national security. With Kerry, they have finally stumbled their way onto an answer: "We still have no answer, but we have a man with an unimpeachable military record. What have you got?"

The Democrats want to make the issue one of biography. It is, after all, no contest. Kerry has his Vietnam medals; Bush can barely produce his National Guard pay stubs.

Two years ago, biography was not enough. The Democrats got slaughtered in that election campaign because the President had a plan for the post-Sept. 11 world — a forward strategy of war abroad and homeland-security reorganization at home — and the Democrats had nothing.

Democratic Senator Max Cleland, another genuine war hero, was defeated in Georgia after he and other Senate Democrats had held up the establishment of the Homeland Security Department because of union rules. Democrats bitterly complained that Cleland's patriotism had been questioned. But it was not a matter of patriotism; it was a matter of seriousness: when crazed jihadists are flying airplanes into American buildings, the usual rules — including union rules — are suspended.

The Democrats simply did not understand that. They lost big. In 2002, past heroism was not enough. In 2004, it might just be. Why? Because Sept. 11 is fading.

The memory is still present enough in the national consciousness that the country demands someone minimally serious about national security. Dean collapsed because when people took a close look at him, he failed the midnight, red-phone, finger-on-the-button test. But the memory of Sept. 11 is now distant enough that, unlike in 2002, biography alone might be enough to meet the "seriousness" test.

Lucky for the Democrats. It is hard to see what Kerry has to offer beyond biography. The issue of our time is the war on terrorism. Bush's strategy throws out the old playbook on terrorism — the cops-and-robbers, law-and-order strategy of arrest and trial followed by complacency — and takes the war to the enemy. Kerry says terrorism is "primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation" — precisely the misconception that had us waking up on Sept. 12 realizing that while the enemy was preparing for war, we were preparing legal briefs for grand juries.

And where did Kerry stand on the most critical national-security questions of the past two decades? In 1991 he voted against the Gulf War, which he now says he was in favor of. Twelve years later, he voted in favor of the Iraq war, which he now tells us he was against. Then he voted against the $87 billion for reconstruction and troop support while telling us that of course he supports both the reconstruction and the troops.

War hero he is. But a man of so many pirouettes hardly inspires confidence as a resolute President. That should not surprise us. The very idea that national service, even heroic service, necessarily correlates with great presidential leadership is simply irrational. By that logic, Douglas MacArthur would have made a great President. By that logic, Ulysses S. Grant was a great President. (It's not just an American phenomenon: the most decorated veteran in Israel's history, Ehud Barak, was a disastrous Prime Minister.) Even more impressive is the fact that two of the greatest war Presidents in American history — Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — had military backgrounds that make Bush's look distinguished: Lincoln, minimal (less than half a year of militia duty); Roosevelt, none.

Kerry tells his campaign audiences how, as a returning Vietnam vet, he stood up to the waste and carnage and injustice of what he calls "Nixon's war." All true, except for one inconvenient fact. The man who got us into Vietnam — committing what is arguably the most egregious presidential misjudgment of the 20th century — was not Nixon. It was Kerry's political hero, John F. Kennedy: Ivy League, U.S. Navy, decorated officer whose wartime valor propelled him to Massachusetts Senator and then Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Sound familiar? So much for biography.

George F. Will writing in the Washington Post

Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B07


In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger despite, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:

Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?

You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?

When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?

All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?

You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?

In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?

On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?

The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?

On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?

You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?

You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?

In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?

You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?

You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?

Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?

You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- in the form of broadcast messages?

Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat President Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?

There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.

By Cinnamon Stillwell
February 16, 2004
FrontPage Magazine

If reaction to Daniel Pipes’ lecture on Tuesday (2/10) was any indication, fascism is alive and well at UC Berkeley. Pipes was invited by the Israel Action Committee and Berkeley Hillel to speak at the college campus known for its leftist politics. But ironically, the home of ''free speech'' and ''tolerance'' has shown itself to be distinctly intolerant to those who express political views other than their own. And Daniel Pipes happens to fit that description.

Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, a member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and a columnist for the New York Sun and the Jerusalem Post. But most importantly, he is pro-America, pro-Israel, and one of the foremost strategists of our time when it comes to the threat of militant Islam.

All of these combined make Daniel Pipes public enemy number one according to UC Berkeley leftists and especially radical Muslim students. Indeed, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) was out in full force on Tuesday, acting like the thugs and bullies they routinely accuse Pipes of supporting. There were about 50-70 of them, amidst a crowd of 700, and after failing to prevent Pipes from speaking, they did their best to try and disrupt the lecture and intimidate the audience.

Pipes had anticipated problems beforehand and had warned supporters that the Muslim Student Association was planning to make an appearance. They had posted an announcement about the lecture at the leftist website SFIndyMedia.org, raving that a ''Zionist'' was coming to town, and exhorting members to show up. In fact, the lecture was moved to another site on campus to accomodate a larger audience, but the MSA students still managed to sniff it out.

Outside the lecture a crowd of them were gathered, along with sympathetic leftists, many carrying the types of signs and slogans that have become all too familiar in recent years. Signs equating Zionism with Nazism, for instance. Others presented Pipes’ quotes out of context in order to smear him. Then there was the guy who shows up at all Bay Area leftist events in an Uncle Sam outfit with a sign saying ''Israel Wants You to Die for Her.'' Another nut-job hovered near the entrance shouting to anyone who would listen about how Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. ''were against Zionism.''

The Berkeley Police Department was out in full force, as were a private security team. People going inside were frisked three times and had their bags searched thoroughly as well. And a sign on the door warned that no banners, signs, shouting, or violence would be allowed. Yet all of this seemed rather futile because any and all were welcomed into the lecture, including the protesting MSA students and the guy screaming about Gandhi. The event was meant to be free and open to the public, but there’s a point at which this type of inclusiveness becomes counter-productive. It was clear from the get-go that the protesters intended to try to disrupt the event, and once inside, that’s exactly what they did.

It began as soon as Pipes stepped up to the podium. In fact, before he’d spoken one word, someone had to be escorted outside because he wouldn’t calm down. Then jeering, giggling, hissing, booing, and finally, the orchestrated chanting of ''racist'' and ''Zionist,'' (among other things) starting drowning out the lecture. However, the rest of the audience gave as good as it got and the event turned into a shouting and clapping match between Muslims and Jews.

The tension in the air was thick, tempers were rising, and yet amidst it all, Pipes kept his cool. He managed to deliver his lecture, which covered the War on Terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Iraq, but he was forced to stop many times. Pipes spoke directly to the protesters on several occasions, pointing out the irony of their undemocratic behavior, as well as mentioning casually that it is only when he speaks at college campuses that he requires such heavy security. He even brought up the fact that members of the MSA are currently under investigation for possible ties to terrorism.

Their reaction to his speech was telling.

When Pipes brought up the need to support moderate Muslims over those who subscribe to militant Islam, they booed.

When he brought up the need to improve the status of women in Islamic countries, they booed.

When he warned that peace in the Middle East would never be achieved as long as the Palestinians continued to subscribe to a ''cult of death,'' they booed.

When he mentioned Middle East Studies professors who have been arrested under terrorism charges, they booed.

When he discussed the need to combat Islamic terrorism, they booed.

When he referred to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as subscribers to militant Islam, they booed and shouted ''Zionism''--no doubt a reference to the myth that Jews were behind the attacks.

When Pipes brought up CampusWatch.org, the website he founded to provide a voice for students feeling oppressed by their leftist professors, they shouted out ''McCarthyism'' and, of course, ''racist'' yet again.

And when he mentioned Iraqis’ ''liberation'' from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, they booed even louder.

''I’m sure the Iraqis were much better off under Saddam Hussein,'' Pipes responded sarcastically.

When it came time for the question and answer period, the group of MSA students all got up together and left, chanting ''racist'' and ''Zionist'' over and over again. However, a few stragglers were left in the audience, and they eventually had to be escorted outside by the police because of their unruly behavior. One of these was the man who had been babbling about Gandhi. By this time he got down to basics, calling Pipes ''a racist Jew.'' Sadly, it took several more of these epithets before he was forcibly removed.

After the lecture, many Jews in the audience were visibly shaken. For those who hadn’t yet encountered Muslim hostility up close and personal, it was an eye-opening experience. Perhaps not all of UC Berkeley’s Muslim students subscribe to the anti-Semitic views of the MSA, but if that’s the case, they certainly didn’t make their voices heard that evening.

The fact is, radical Muslim students and their leftist counterparts are the most domineering, destructive, and dangerous forces in higher education today. If we’re to win the War on Terrorism, we may have to start with our own college campuses.

Kerry makes city move fire hydrant so he can park his SUV in front of his house. From the New York Post

By HOWIE CARR
February 5, 2004 -- BOSTON

ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.

Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.

The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations).

It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; the no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.



Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."

"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.

But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).

Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.

At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.

Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.

The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.

"Do you know who I am?"

"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."

John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.

Howie Carr, a Boston Herald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years.

From the American Conservative , where else?

by Pat Buchanan

The Bush amnesty for 8 to 12 million illegal aliens is more than a dereliction of his constitutional duty to enforce America’s laws. It is an admission by President
Bush that the Third-Worldization of America is inevitable and unstoppable.

For what Mr. Bush is saying is this: We cannot stop the invasion. We can no longer defend the borders. It is hopeless. So let us make the best of it by pardoning the lawbreakers and gate-crashers, legalizing the coming invasion, and welcoming the entire family of any “guest worker” who can find a job.

Mexican President Vicente Fox may be yowling for open borders. Bush is delivering them. Amnesty means not only that all the millions of illegals already here stay, but also millions more will be coming now that they know America’s gates are unguarded and no one gets sent back. By 2050, America will be a different country.

What will she look like? Like the California of today—only much more so. Americans of European descent will be less than half the U.S. population and a rapidly shrinking minority. As late as 1960 they were about 90 percent.

America’s southern border will be effectively erased. In the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, Latinos with roots in Mexico, whose first loyalty is there, will be the new majority, as is already true of California’s public schools.

With near-zero immigration from Europe, with birth rates among immigrants the highest in the nation, with every child of a guest worker entitled to U.S. citizenship and all the benefits of our welfare state, America will be a Third World country not only in its ethnic and racial composition but also in the socioeconomic profile she presents.

We will look less like the Affluent Society of 1957 of which J.K. Galbraith wrote, than like Brazil with its huge disparities of wealth. For, as with California, the native-born who are pouring out of the Golden State each year are taxpayers, and the immigrants, legal and illegal, who are crowding in are tax consumers.

With their wages at or near the minimum, these immigrant poor will depend on government for health care, food stamps, earned-income credits, welfare, rent supplements, legal services.

Mass immigration, and its social and economic ramifications, is what has bankrupted California and why she may have reached a tipping point from which there is no return. For her taxpayers are fleeing for two reasons, neither of which is likely to change.

First, the state no longer looks like the golden land in which they grew up. The social change has been too rapid, too radical. So they pack up and move to places where they feel more at home.

Second, the influx of immigrant poor and the exodus of the middle class means repeated hikes in tax rates and continuous cuts in social services, making life ever harsher for middle-class folks who stick it out. So they too soon head for the highways out.

In Bush’s last budget, he was forced to include $20 billion to help states balance their books. Just as many Third World nations would go belly up without regular transfusions of IMF and World Bank money, many states may come to depend on federal bailouts.

Consider education. Americans are puzzled as to why test scores fall each year, no matter how much we spend to improve schools. There is no secret to it. The students entering those schools are less and less equipped to succeed academically.

In California, a majority of the children in public schools are now of Hispanic descent. They come to school less proficient in English. Many come from immigrant families with no tradition of learning. Their aptitude for educational achievement, measured by test scores, is far below that of the average American school kid.

As these children make up ever increasing percentages of the entering classes in our public schools, average test scores will continue to fall, no matter how much we spend.

Then, there is growing potential for the disuniting of America of which Arthur Schlesinger wrote.

The old immigrants came here to become Americans. The tough-love country to which they came demanded they do so. In those melting pots of Americanization, the public and parochial schools of the early 20th century, the young were immersed in our language, literature, history, heroes, traditions, customs, faith, myths—and came to know and love them.

Nothing like that takes place in multicultural America, where the old heroes are trashed as genocidal racists, the old history has become one long recital of America’s sins, Christmas and Easter become winter and spring break, and July 4th gives way to Cinco de Mayo.

Courtesy of Bush and the Big Tent Republicans, it is Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie.

Kerry seems to take all sides on many issues. From Townhall.

Jeff Jacoby
February 13, 2004

In the 2004 presidential field, there is a candidate for nearly every point of view.

His name is John Kerry.

Equivocating politicians are sometimes accused of trying to be "all things to all people," but few have taken the practice of expedience and shifty opportunism to Kerry's level. Massachusetts residents have known this about their junior senator for a long time. Now the rest of the country is going to find out.

Here's how it works: Say you're in favor of capital punishment for terrorists. Well, so is Kerry. "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country," he said in December 2002. "I support killing people who declare war on our country."

But if you're opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that's OK -- Kerry is too! Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with former Governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race, Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said. "Your policy," he told Weld, "would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail."

What does Kerry really think? Who knows? He seems to have conveniently switched his stance after Sept. 11, 2001, but he insists that politics had nothing to do with his reversal. Either way, one thing is clear: His willingness to swing both ways fits a longstanding pattern of coming down firmly on both sides of controversial issues.

Take the Patriot Act. Kerry condemns it fiercely as the stuff of a "knock-in-the-night" police state. He vows "to end the era of John Ashcroft" by "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

So does that mean he voted against it in 2001? Au contraire! Kerry voted for the law -- parts of which he originally wrote. On the Senate floor before the vote, he singled out its money-laundering and financial-transfer sections for particular praise, but declared that he was "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation as a whole."

Bottom line, then: Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act? Absolutely.

The hottest issue in Kerry's home state at the moment is same-sex marriage. Most Massachusetts citizens only take one position on this scorchingly controversial topic, but Kerry doesn't like to limit himself that way.

So on the one hand, he voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, calling the law -- which Congress passed and President Clinton signed -- "fundamentally ugly" and "legislative gay-bashing." On the other hand, he says he's against same-sex marriage and refused to condemn a DOMA-like amendment to the Massachusetts constitution. (At one point last week, in fact, he left open the possibility of endorsing it.) On the other other hand, he supports civil unions -- same-sex marriage in all but name. And on yet another other hand, he claims to "have the same position Vice President Dick Cheney has." (Cheney's view is that "different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate.")

Where Kerry will ultimately come down on this issue is anybody's guess. But it's safe to say that wherever you come down, he'll be able to claim he was there all along.

Then there's the war. Many observers have remarked on Kerry's dual stand on the military campaign that liberated Iraq -- he voted for it, but vehemently condemns it. In 1991, by contrast, he did the opposite: he voted against using force to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, yet he claims it was an operation he firmly supported. "I believed we should kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait," Kerry told the Washington Post last month. So why did he vote no? Because "we had a very divided nation" and he wanted the first President Bush "to take a couple more months to build the support of the nation."

Or so he says says now. What Kerry actually said in 1991 was that there was a "rush to war" that might lead to "another generation of amputees, paraplegics, burn victims." He blasted the elder Bush for being too "unilateral" -- hmm, that sounds familiar -- and demanded: "Is the liberation of Kuwait so imperative that all those risks are worthwhile at this moment?" Eleven days later he wrote to a constituent that he opposed the war and had wanted to give economic sanctions "more time to work." Nine days after that he wrote to the same constituent and said that he "strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis."

So let's review the bidding: Kerry's position is that he voted against a war he was really for and voted for a war he was really against. But the war he was really for he never said he was for at the time. Except when he was writing to voters to say that he was. And that he wasn't.

Confused? Don't feel bad. Trying to keep up with Kerry's shifting stands can be baffling even to those of us who have followed his career for decades. You'll be hearing a lot more about them before this campaign is over.

Here's one for those that continue to believe that there is no liberal bias in the news. Here we have ABC News admitting quite bluntly that the political media is plainly biased.

According to ABC News own words on their blog
The Note

Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.

More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.

The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."

It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).

The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.

Anti-Special-Interest Campaign Contrasts With Funding

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 31, 2004; Page A01

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has made a fight against corporate special interests a centerpiece of his front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show.

Kerry, a 19-year veteran of the Senate who fought and won four expensive political campaigns, has received nearly $640,000 from lobbyists, many representing telecommunications and financial companies with business before his committee, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

For his presidential race, Kerry has raised more than $225,000 from lobbyists, better than twice as much as his nearest Democratic rival. Like President Bush, Kerry has also turned to a number of corporate officials and lobbyists to "bundle" contributions from smaller donors, often in sums of $50,000 or more, records provided by his campaign show.

"Senator Kerry has taken individual contributions from lobbyists, but that has not stopped him from fighting against special interests on behalf of average Americans," said Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "If anyone thinks a contribution can buy Kerry's vote, then they are wasting their money."

Kerry said on Jan. 19 that he would "happily release any lobbyist meeting I've ever had," but he has yet to do so. Cutter said Kerry will not release records until he compiles data on every meeting over the past 19 years, which will be a "pretty lengthy process." Kerry will not release it "piecemeal," she said.

Most members of Congress and presidential candidates turn to corporations and their Washington-based lobbyists for political assistance, most often with fundraising. All the presidential candidates take money from special interests, including Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who like Kerry has targeted corporations and lobbyists in his stump speeches. And Bush has far outpaced them all.

Because Kerry has made his fight against "Washington special interests" a new theme of his presidential campaign, campaign rivals and campaign finance watchdogs have accused him of hypocrisy.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a newcomer to national politics, is running a television ad that hits Kerry and others for ties to special interests. "Special interest deals. Promises unkept. Do we really need another Washington politician?" the narrator says in the ad. "A politician won't change the way Washington works."

"John Kerry has been withdrawing money from the special interest bank for his entire career and now -- because it's the popular thing to do -- he wants us to believe that he's going to close the account and go after the people that have funded his political career," said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

"The note of reality is he has been brought to you by special interests," said Charles Lewis of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group that has closely studied the senator's relationship with special interests. "It's very hard [for Kerry] to utter this rhetoric without some hollowness to it."

"I think it's harder for someone like Kerry to take on" Bush over special interests "because he's taken money . . . from a lot of the same" corporate sectors, added Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors money in politics. Dean, who has raised more money than Kerry in this campaign, has taken considerably less from lobbyists.

Cutter said her boss would have no problem fighting Bush on the issue because "Kerry has spent his career fighting against special interests, while Bush has never met a special interest he doesn't like. While Kerry was fighting to keep oil companies from drilling in ANWR [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], the White House was inviting them in to tea."

Kerry or any other longtime politician inevitably faces this charge when running for president as a self-styled reformer. Unless the candidate is someone like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has made a name for himself by fighting for reform and against corporate giveaways, or a self-financed independent, like Ross Perot in the 1990s, it is very hard to turn the theme into an effective campaign message, Noble said. "It's the classic situation: Most politicians get money from what they are calling special interests because they are the ones who give."

Kerry, who did not begin his campaign with a heavy emphasis on fighting lobbyists, appears to have usurped the special interest message from Edwards and Dean over the past few months. Now, Kerry's standard campaign refrain includes this warning to the "special interests" and their lobbyists: "We're coming, you're going and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Kerry says he would extend the current one-year lobbying ban on government officials to five years and issue an executive order requiring a public record of all meetings between government employees and lobbyists. Since the early days of the Bush administration, Democrats, including Kerry, have been pressuring Vice President Cheney to disclose his contacts with energy officials who influenced the White House energy policy, making this a political issue for 2004.

Under current law, lobbyists must register with the federal government, list their clients and in very general terms describe the issues they are working on and which branch of government they are seeking to influence. White House and congressional officials are not required to disclose their meetings.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), co-author of the newest campaign finance law, said Kerry was not one of the half-dozen members who put together the reform package but "he's always been one of our most consistent and strongest supporters." Kerry unilaterally swore off political action committee funds from corporations during his four Senate runs, a popular position for reform advocates before large, unregulated of "soft money" from corporations, unions and rich people started dominating politics in the 1990s. "It's great he didn't take PAC money, but let's not go crazy here," said Lewis.

The reason: As Kerry was pushing reforms and boasting of his PAC-free campaigns, he was aggressively soliciting money from individuals working for companies and ringing up much bigger checks from corporations in the form of soft money. Kerry has not been involved in any of the major fundraising scandals of the past three decades -- although he was one of several politicians who took money from Taiwanese American businessman Johnny Chung, who was convicted of contributing illegally to Bill Clinton and many others.

The Hill, a Washington-based publication covering Capitol Hill, this month reported that Kerry in 1999 lobbied the Coast Guard on a rule-making process that benefited a foreign company represented by Cassidy & Associates. Soon after, employees of Cassidy & Associates sent Kerry $7,250 in bundled contributions. Jim Ruggieri, the Coast Guard official who handled the matter, told the paper it was highly unusual for a senator to intervene on such a matter.

A review of FEC and other data by The Washington Post found that Kerry has raked in millions from U.S. corporations, especially financial companies such as Citigroup and telecom firms, including Rubert Murdoch's News Corp., which also flew one of his Senate staffers to California for a meeting.

In the presidential race, Kerry has accepted contributions from the same "special interests" he accuses Bush of being too cozy with: HMOs, drug companies and energy firms. He has raised nearly $27,000 from oil and gas companies, tops of the remaining Democratic candidates; $34,000 from health maintenance organizations, second to Dean; and $18,500 from pharmaceutical companies, third behind Dean and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.). Even after subtracting money Kerry has raised for his presidential campaign, he ranks in the top four Senate beneficiaries of lobbyist cash, the CRP found.

One of Kerry's biggest -- and perhaps most controversial -- donors has been the Boston-based law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. The group, which lobbies on behalf of the telecommunications industry -- and employs the senator's brother, Cameron -- is his single largest contributor over the course of his Senate career. David Leiter, Kerry's former chief of staff, is vice president of a lobbying company affiliated with the Boston-based law firm.

The Center for Public Integrity criticized the senator's relationship with the firm in a little-publicized report released last year, accusing him of pushing the agenda of those helping to pay his bills.

"Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor," the report said. The Boston law firm's client include the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), an umbrella group for telecommunications companies.

Since 1999, Kerry has sponsored at least two bills and co-sponsored half a dozen that were sought by the CTIA, including industry-backed plans for winning lucrative auctions of spectrum, or airwaves. Thomas Wheeler, the former chief executive of the CTIA, and Christopher Putala, a lobbyist for the group, are both among Kerry's biggest presidential fundraisers.

Cutter, Kerry's spokeswoman, provided a list of several industry-backed bills Kerry opposed. "Kerry has never been swayed by any donation on a vote. He consistently votes to protect consumers and workers," she said.

Illegal Alien Guest Worker Program

Now here's an issue that the Dems should really be screaming about, but I haven't heard any complaints from them. No, the group that seems to be complaining about this is the conservative Republican base.

The Dems are supposed to be all about the little guy, the blue collar workers, the Unions. For Pete's sake, where are the Unions on this issue? The threat to Union jobs is huge! Or do they simply see the illegal aliens as potential Union workers some day?

So for you Dems - what about this issue? Do you want illegal aliens taking all the low paying jobs and, by the way, keeping wages low?

We are now entering a time when highly skilled, high paying jobs are being transferred overseas faster than you can keep track. And the illegals are pouring into our country to take all the low-paying, unskilled jobs that supposedly no American wants. The combination of high paying jobs being eliminated and a flood of illegal cheap labor will combine to keep American unemployment high and drag down average American wages.

Seriously, what is the future for jobs in America? Hopefully this will rise to become the top issue of the Presidential election instead of who did what in the military 30 years ago (funny how the Dems didn't raise that as an important issue during the previous eight years, but that's a different topic).

Remember all those telephone service centers being set up in the Mid-West/West (Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas) and some in the South? Many will be going overseas. In my own industry, programming and testing jobs are going overseas by the thousands. And manufacturing - that's been moving offshore for years now (remember the auto manufacturing jobs) and continuing with garment (Levi's has now closed ALL manufacturing in the US) and high tech.

A big problem is how fast jobs are being moved overseas - literally overnight, especially in telephone service centers and programming/testing jobs. Unlike the auto workers of decades past, there is no warning and no training for new positions. On the plus side, those who are now losing their jobs are highly educated and can, in theory, more easily adapt to new careers.

But what are the new careers? In high tech, business is recovering after the Internet bubble burst. But the only new jobs being created are overseas. I've heard a lot of people in high tech are moving to real estate and mortgage broker positions, but that's just a temporary situation that will soon come to an end as interest rates go back up.

On the lower side the illegals are taking over jobs in agriculture, construction, landscaping services, houskeeping and janitorial, and even retail. The low wages keep prices low, but also keep overall wages low.

This opinion piece ran in the Sacramento Bee.

By Daniel Weintraub
Sunday, February 8, 2004

I was always amazed, growing up near the border in San Diego, at what a difference an imaginary line could make. On one side of the border there was prosperity, economic growth, a robust middle class. On the other side: poverty, corruption, a huge gap between the rich and poor.
That disturbing contrast led me to imagine a world without borders, where everyone enjoyed the economic freedom and opportunity we take for granted in the United States. A world where the individual, not the state, reigns supreme. Such a place remains my ideal.

But that is not the world we live in today, nor will we, anytime soon. We have nations and borders that divide us, and rules for immigration and citizenship. And as long as we do, it makes sense to enforce and follow them. Otherwise we get chaos.

Now President Bush has proposed a new immigration policy that would provide legal status to illegal immigrants working in the United States and to workers from other countries who can show they have a job offer here.

Bush deserves credit for at least addressing the problem of illegal immigration, which has been ignored for too long by a series of presidents. But his proposal is far too broad, and would probably do little to slow the flow of illegals. It might even make things worse.

Already, border agents are reporting a new wave of illegal immigration triggered by Bush's proposal. The president's plan was widely publicized in Mexico and led people to believe that if they could just get into the United States, they would get amnesty when the new rules took effect. That's similar to what happened after the last time the U.S. granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, in 1986. Every time the government does so, it makes fools of those who wait their turn to immigrate legally and creates a strong magnet for people to get here any way they can.

In addition, America's earlier experience with guest worker programs, and that of Europe, suggests that immigrants who enter the country as guests, even with a tie to an employer, often don't leave when their job ends. Such a program can be simply another way to reside here illegally, without having to pay a "coyote" and risk dangerous conditions sneaking across the border.

But the deeper question is whether the United States needs a guest worker program at all, and who would gain and lose from it.

It would certainly help impoverished Mexicans, who would find it easier to come here in search of a better life. It would help American business owners looking for cheap labor. But it would be a major blow to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants at the low end of the of job market, whose wages are bid down by the presence of a large and seemingly inexhaustible pool of unskilled labor.

California's widening gap between rich and poor is already evidence that the state is having trouble absorbing the number of immigrants it has today. The last census found that 26 percent of state residents are foreign-born, the highest proportion since 1890. In four California cities - Glendale, El Monte, Santa Ana and Daly City - the majority of the population was born in another country.

And recent figures show that foreign-born immigrants, legal or illegal, are three times more likely to live in poverty as whites and Asians who were born in the United States, and a about a third more likely to live in poverty as native-born Hispanics and African Americans.

The most compelling argument for liberalizing immigration is that immigrants fill jobs Americans don't want. But to the extent that is true, it's only true because those jobs don't pay enough to attract American labor. Without the safety-valve of immigrant labor, wages would rise until they were high enough to draw workers from other fields.

In some industries, this might cause problems. Garment factories in Southern California that rely almost entirely on immigrant labor might not be able to compete in the world economy paying higher wages. Agriculture, with its seasonal and migrant work in remote locations, probably will always have trouble finding workers, and might need to be treated as a special case.

But surely our economy could survive if the hotels, restaurants, landscapers and construction companies that now employ illegal immigrants were instead forced to hire legal residents and citizens. We would all pay a little more for those services, but we would also have lower unemployment and fewer of the social costs associated with poverty.

Bush's proposal appears to have been an attempt to attract the Hispanic vote. If so, it was misguided. Hispanics who are already citizens are not likely to support a policy that promises to further impoverish them.