The Volokh Conspiracy

I don't understand the significance you're placing on context in this particular case. The "bushism" wasn't particularly funny or remarkable, but it seems about as awkward and redundant put in context as it does taken alone.

Personally, I'd say the real context of that is Bush's rather determined refusal to allow those precise laws to be effectively enforced. The statement's hipocracy is glaring! But that's not an aspect of this "Bushism" that a party opposed to immigration law enforcement could highlight, is it?

-- I mean assuming that it deserves to be a Bushism. I am not addressing Eugene's argument that it does not deserve to be one.

Of course they should have provided context, but I don't think the context makes it look much less silly. It's not much of a "Bushism" either way, but it's dreadful speechwriting. Sounds like he's hectoring a bunch of middle schoolers. (Not a sin limited to Bush among politicians, of course.)

The sad thing is that Bush and other administration officials say blatantly false things all the time, in ways that could actually deceive people on important topics, yet Weisberg and Slate think the best use of their time and readership is on this juvenile tripe.

Anyway, so it's a tautology. Big deal. Tautologies can be useful, especially when your point is to remind people of a logically necessary truth that they've forgotten. "Short people are people too!" or what have you. I hold no brief for Bush's immigration policy, but again, the stupid verbal quibbling is a distraction and should be left to the precocious middle-schoolers and the people with MENSA bumper stickers.

I don't think context is necessary here, and I'm not convinced it's "juvenile tripe." What the stand-alone quote demonstrates is how vacuuous the talking points have become. "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up." "I want a jurist who won't legislate from the bench." This is campaign sloganeering; it's not the stuff of leaders who take issues seriously, or even of adult conversation. It's dialogue by sound byte; an appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator. The context adds little: Bush favors immigration laws that are enforced. Does that move the debate? Is that a proposition serious people can agree or disagree with? If the goal of the Bushism is to make the President look silly or even stupid, context certainly explains the redundancy of the quotation. But if, as I imagine, the point of a "Bushism" feature is somewhat more subtle - to demonstrate how unreasoned the President's political dialogue has become - the stand-alone quote is entirely appropriate.

Without the context, the joke is the simplistic and brutal approach to the quote. They showed the same quote on the Daily Show, and then had an interview about how Bush's immigration policy was all about keeping Mexicans out. Indeed, John Stewart talked about the tension being between abusing them enough to keep the right happy, but not so much that they started having hispanics voting like blacks (from memory).

With the context, it's clearer that Bush's rhetoric is a good deal more humane, and that his issue is that he wants to be considerably more permissive than most of the country does. As with many Bushisms, this one isn't so much about suggesting that the President is stupid (which it does, by suggesting he believes that the issue is so simple) as misleading us about his views and the direction the country is taking. Weisberg is one of the viler toxins in the media today, significantly worse than Moore, his most similar colleague.

What's most striking about this particular context is how vapid it is. Not only does Bush say nothing, he says it blandly.

Conspiracy Fan--

But if, as I imagine, the point of a "Bushism" feature is somewhat more subtle - to demonstrate how unreasoned the President's political dialogue has become...

That's a great idea for a column, but it's just not what Bushisms is about. The self-declared purpose is to expose "[t]he president's accidental wit and wisdom," and both the list of past Bushisms and Weisberg's associated book leave no doubt that the point is to make fun of Bush's crappy syntax.

And I don't even mind that, when it's genuinely (if only modestly) amusing, as this one is: "If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign." You can put that in as much context as you want, and it doesn't help -- Bush just screwed up and said something kind of funny. But most of the Bushisms these days aren't like that. Instead, they're just inelegant phrasings, but nothing worse than we all say ten or twenty times a day. It was a cute little feature for a while, but it's way outlived its amusement value, and like I said, there are way more important things to call the president out on these days.

All that said, I haven't the slightest idea why James of England above thinks Weisberg is "one of the viler toxins in the media today." Slate's a great magazine and the guy edits it, so you know, chill out.

Lighten up, Eugene...it wasn't all that funny of a 'Bushism', but it's just a piece of comedy.

But the whole point is that "Bushisms" strains to find quotes that make GWB sound like Yogi Berra (the verbal equivalent of Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford), yet it rarely succeeds. Slate did no better when they tried to provide "equal time" for theother side during the last presidential campaign by running "Kerryisms."

I thought Bush's statement in this case made perfect sense and was neither silly nor vapid or ungrammatical.

It is a fact that many people do not view "illegal immigrants" as lawbreakers, and many cities have actually forbidden their police forces to treat illegal immigration as a crime. Many people on the right have been using words similar to Bush's here in order to complain that Bush's previous immigration proposal was an amnesty that did not sufficiently treat illegal immigrants as criminals. In that context, IMHO, Bush was sending a crisp, precise signal to the base that he has heard their concerns and will address them.

I'm not part of Bush's base, and if I were I wouldn't believe him on this issue. But when I heard this sentence it was 100% clear to me both what he meant and who he was addressing it to. It was just as clear as when he said "I will appoint Supreme Court Justices like Thomas and Scalia" or "Jesus is my favorite Philosopher." Who here doubts to whome those messages were addressed?

At least Bush doesn't talk about " playing hide the salami" as Dr. Dean did, although it didn't appear that Dr. Dean knew what the phrase referred to. On another note, while listening to NPRs morning edition, I heard a legal analyst talk about the importance of "not pissing off the Judges" when taking a case up on appeal. If that had been said on Howard Sterns show he'd be getting fines and nasty letters to the FCC.

James, are you a parody, or are you the real thing?

Contrast this...

It's dialogue by sound byte; an appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator. The context adds little: Bush favors immigration laws that are enforced. Does that move the debate? Is that a proposition serious people can agree or disagree with?

with

With the context, it's clearer that Bush's rhetoric is a good deal more humane, and that his issue is that he wants to be considerably more permissive than most of the country does.

That's absurd. You've made that up. The man accidentally coughs, you hear a psalm. You're a religious fanatic, deciding the absolute truth and reasoning backwards, which is fine I guess, but does the President of my country deserve such worship?

...and then had an interview about how Bush's immigration policy was all about keeping Mexicans out.

I, and many Republicans, wish that were actually the case. With regards to Mexicans entering illegally, at any rate. It manifestly isn't, however, and a few speaches aren't going to distract the base from that unfortunate fact. This is NOT a President who wants our immigration laws enforced, he's merely a President who wants to make people think he wants them enforced.

Unfortunately for Slate, he's also a President who doesn't misspeak often enough for the "Bushisms" to be a regular feature, and they ought to face that, and only run 'em when he DOES say something particularly stupid.

Yeah, Seamus, it's a pain spotting a misspelling in a post you can't edit, terribly embarassing.

Is there a way to legally violate the law? And if not, does "those who enter this country" include citizens coming back from foreign visits?

In context, this makes a great deal of sense.

Christopher M: I should have said added the word "American" before the word "media". Honestly, pretty much all of the MSM, within which I would include slate, tends to be accurate in the sense of not deliberately obscuring the truth in news pages. Slate seems to push that more often than any other US MSM source I can think of (hence, I imagine, its frequent appearance on these pages). That said, my issue with Weisberg is that I think that he has done more than any other journalist, arguably including mr. Moore, to persuade the world at large that Bush is not merely misguided by stupid. Most of the better known Bushisms are very obviously false (they're said to have been said in confidence and are reported only by people who loathe him). Weisberg gives them credibility and they become widely quoted by other, less specialised, media. This kind of ad hominem attack, more than attacks on honesty or selflessness, tends to personalise politics and stop people from feeling the need to understand opposing positions.

To clarify: I think that he harms America because:
a: He publishes false quotes, as well as misleading quotes.
b: He's very successful at what he does, and is far more widely quoted than any other partisan I can think of, albeit without attribution to him (or, generally, to the source who lied to him).
c: The nature of the quotes he publishes is particularly toxic to democracy at home and to the perception of America abroad.

In addition to his harmful impacts, he probably has some positive ones. I'd estimate them at less than Krugman, Moore, Hannity, Drudge, and other prominent partisans who have been attacked for their veracity, though. There are some great slate articles and some weak ones. I'm not sure what it would be like without him there.

I have always been fascinated by phrases like "undocumented worker" because of the apparent willingness to to ignore the fact that documentation is frequently (at least in the modern world) a key distinction between permissible conduct and crime. I do not think that normal speakers of English refer to drug dealers as "undocumented pharmacists", vigilantes as "undocumented police", or murderers as "undocumented executioners". Even those who think that, e.g., the war on drugs is a bad idea and de-criminalization would be good policy seldom adopt language designed to confuse the issues.
I am, therefore, mostly with jackp and DK. Sometimes a president can get credit simply for reminding us that 2+2=4, even if it is hard to imagine why anyone would even attempt to hint otherwise.
I do not expect Bush to succeed, but if he makes anything more than a laughable dent in illegal immigration I will become at least a minimal fan.

I do not expect Bush to succeed, but if he makes anything more than a laughable dent in illegal immigration I will become at least a minimal fan.

I don't expect Bush to try. Like regrettably many politicians, he feels compelled to make the right noises, but is careful to make sure his deeds don't match his words in this area.

We know enormous numbers of people are crossing our southern border illegally. Has Bush, who doesn't hesitate to spend money, ever suggested doing anything that would abate this? Not to my knowlege. Aside from smearing volunteer border watchers, the security of the border seems of no interest to him.

Several people here have question whether "We should enforce the immigration laws" is an idea that serious people can debate.

IMHO it's clear that serious people can and do debate this proposition, much more so than "We should enforce the drug laws." Especially because we are _not_ currently enforcing the immigration laws effectively. Most economists, many city governments, several national politicians, some libertarians, and many ethnic activists are on the record as opposing effective enforcement.

Phil, I love this,

I do not think that normal speakers of English refer to drug dealers as "undocumented pharmacists"

Okay if I "repurpose" it?

Eugene, I think you're right that it doesn't seem as silly surrounded by the context. But perhaps in that wise the context is misleading. The proposition is vacuous, after all, so if the surrounding language falsely lends it an air of substance then stripping that language away might be salutary clarification. (An analogy might be the fact that statements modified by an empty "because" clause seem like explanations even though they aren't; stripping away such language reveals the bare assertion without affecting the meaning of the sentence.)

On the other hand, and no bones about it, Slate should have linked to the more complete statement.

"His reasoning has also proved somewhat controversial, as quoting that immigrants would "fill jobs that Americans will not do" seems to imply that the jobs would be less profitable or safe than others. "

Why is that controversial? That's the whole point of immigration of unskilled workers. You arrive, be poor, do the jobs no one else wants, and eventually send your kids to college after which they enter the mainstream. Worked for the Irish, Poles, Swedes, Chinese, Italians...why not the Mexicans?

..."capitolized" ...

Nick's a future Bush speachwriter in the making!