Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

The following is an article about the University of Michigan’s plan to eviscerate the First Amendment right to free speech on its campus (this article is reproduced with the consent of Michael O’Brien, Editor-in-Chief of The Michigan Review):

The College of Literature, Science, and the Art’s Facilities and Operations Department is considering adopting regulations that could seriously affect the ability of student publications to distribute their products on campus, according to various interviews and documents obtained by The Michigan Review. (A copy of the draft policy can be found by clicking here.)

According to preliminary drafts of the proposed policies, distribution of publications would be limited to those governed by the Board of Student Publications (which includes The Michigan Daily and humor magazine The Gargoyle) and student organizations approved by the Michigan Student Assembly. The policy also forbids distribution of materials between April 14 and September 15. The Michigan Daily currently distributes a weekly summer issue on campus.

Robert Johnston, the Director of Facilities and Operations for LSA, said that this policy has been under consideration for the last two years, and is intended to minimize the amount of clutter and litter associated with publications being scattered around LSA buildings. The policy additionally seeks to limit access to outside publications, specifically commercial publications distributed in University facilities.

“We want to provide a place that publications can be distributed from, and still allow them to attain access,” said Johnston, adding that LSA is considering constructing what he called “nodes,” similar to the cubbies in the Michigan Union, for publications.

According to the draft policy, to gain access to these nodes, publications would have to apply on a “first-come, first-serve” basis. To accommodate all publications, though, the policy says, “LSA reserves the right to limit the number of times per academic term and/or per year in which a recognized student organization will be granted permission to distribute publications in LSA facilities.”

“What we need to do is determine which publications are distributed in which buildings,” said Johnston, “because we can’t accommodate everyone everywhere.”

The latest draft was presented to the Board of Student Publications Monday, raising the concern of some in attendance. Samuel Offen, the Student Publications General Manager, said he had concerns about the policy when it was first introduced.

“I just don’t like that they can decide who gets to distribute and who doesn’t get to distribute,” said Offen. “Even though I understand their need regards safety or security or financial-having to pay for additional custodial work-anytime anyone determines who gets to distribute publications, I think that’s a concern.”

Maya Kobersy, the Assistant General Counsel for the University, said the regulations are permissible as “time, place, and manner” restrictions under the First Amendment. Kobersy, who helped develop the distribution policy, said the University is “concern[ed] about the disruption to the educational nature and character” of its facilities posed by extraneous materials in LSA buildings.

LSA buildings, she asserted, are not “public” venues under the Constitution, and the entire facility– even the hallways and commons areas accessible after-hours– are encompassed by that policy. She concluded that the regulations pass muster.

“We are limiting things only in terms of there being so many racks,” said Kobersy. “That addresses the clutter issue.”

“I don’t have any knowledge of an intent to change the policy,” said Kobersy, when asked if the University will back off of this policy which could be challenged on legal grounds.

There could be other significant constitutional issues associated with the proposed guidelines, Adam Goldstein, an Attorney Advocate with the Student Media Law Center said.

“On rational basis, the amount of approvals [for distribution] given is not at all related to how many issues are handed out,” said Goldstein. “It doesn’t even address the problem. It does not approach the level of First Amendment compliance required of any state in the country.”

Though there are a few schemes where pre-approval can limit free speech, Goldstein said that this is not one of those cases for the University.

The process regarding violations to this policy gives power to the LSA Facilities as well as the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) to assess violations. The policy states that organizations in violation “may be denied future opportunities to distribute or display publications in LSA facilities, or may be subject to other disciplinary action.”

Central Student Judiciary Chief Justice Alex Edelson said that he has not been informed of the policy.

“We have not been made aware but that’s not something that is offensive. It may be standard operating procedure,” said Edelson. Edelson said that CSJ has been given new powers by the administration during his tenure. ”

CSJ has evolved a lot over the last few years. It has just developed its source of power. There are moredetails we are still trying to work out regarding where CSJ fits into dispute resolution on campus,” said Edelson.

Edelson said CSJ’s purpose is to review violations to the MSA Constitution and to the Student Code of Conduct. University officials can choose to enlarge CSJ’s power. While Edelson did not comment directly upon the proposed policy, he said that CSJ involvement in similar issues only arises when a compliant is brought before CSJ.

“If you wanted to challenge the policy, that might require that you go to someone higher up in the administration,” said Edelson.

While CSJ had not been informed about the development of the policy, Jennifer Garfinkle, the business manager for The Gargoyle Humor Magazine, said her organization had been made aware of the policy. Garfinkle said that Cynthia Alexander, an LSA Facilities Manager, informed her of the policy proposal when she requested information about placing new stands on campus. Garfinkle expressed concerns about the policy’s impact on publicity.

“One of the main problems we have is recognition on campus, having a limited amount of time to have our publications in racks will severely limit the exposure that we do have on campus,” said Garfinkle. While Garfinkle said the policy would negatively impact The Gargoyle, she could not see how The Michigan Daily could follow the policy.

“Basically, just from the two week limitation at the start and the end of the semester, The Daily prints on the first day of the semester and on the day the semester ends and so it does not make sense for them” said Garfinkle.

Garfinkle, who was not aware of an updated proposal that enlarged the role of the Board of Student Publications, also criticized the role of MSA.

“My only real concern with MSA is if they had to approve materials that get put into racks,” said Garfinkle. She also said that The Gargoyle has scheduled meetings through Offen to provide input on this policy.

According to incoming Michigan Daily Editor in Chief Andrew Grossman, the Michigan Daily also has plans to meet with university administrators.

“We’re going to sit down with someone from LSA and talk about the policy, but I think its wrong to restrict publications,” Grossman said. Grossman continued that the Michigan Daily has always been an avodacte of first amendment rights.

“The first ammendment supports our right to distribute our publication, and we fully support the right of aohter publication to distribute theirs,” said Grossman

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) issued a statement Thursday blasting the proposal.

“Restricting student speech by excessively tight control on distribution of printed material is a dangerous step for a public university to take,” said Will Creeley. Creeley, an Associate Director for Legal and Public Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, held that while the policy under consideration by the University may pass constitutional muster, it seems “strikingly harsh.”

In e-mail correspondence, Creeley took issue with the need for publications to apply, the regulation of display stands, the limitations on the number of distributions per term, and the possibility of internal judicial sanction. Creeley said that, while attempts by universities to regulate the distribution of student-produced print materials are not new, U-Ms proposal goes to greater lengths than most.

“Indeed, the University seeks here to institute a far more labyrinth process for distribution than FIRE normally sees, particularly at public universities,” said Creely.

Goldstein echoed Creely’s sentiment.

“This is either insincere or a monumentally ineffective way to do this,” said Goldstein. “Generally speaking, employees of the state are more sophisticated than this.”

Well if Ann Coulter says it, it must be true. Yes my favorite blonde female Republican wrote an extensive column on how Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate while simultaneously bashing Iowa and New Hampshire voters for not doing enough research to make that obvious of a decision. Of course Michigan voters (and Wyoming ones) finally made the right decision.

However while on the subject of Ann I must make mention of her new book: If Democrats had any brains they’d be Republican. I just feel like her newer works are slipping. How to talk to a liberal (if you must) was one of the first conservative political books I read; it was great. Godless…not so much. It wasn’t bad but we get it Democrats really suck and her newest work seems to be little more of a montage of her best sentences ever. It’s like the TV show that puts in a clip show episode just so they can fit a 22 episode season. Though I don’t think she’ll be giving me my $17 back.

On to Ann’s theory:

…in the end, Republicans would choose [Romney] as our nominee. My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate.

I had no idea that Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire planned to do absolutely zero research on the candidates and vote on the basis of random impulses.

Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car.

One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain…

Turn on any cable news show right now, and you will see Democratic pundits attacking Romney, calling him a “flip-flopper,” and heaping praise on McCain and Huckleberry — almost as if they were reading some sort of “talking points.”

Doesn’t that raise the tiniest suspicions in any of you? Are you too busy boning up on Consumer Reports’ reviews of microwave ovens to spend one day thinking about who should be the next leader of the free world? Are you familiar with our “no exchange/no return” policy on presidential candidates? Voting for McCain because he was a POW a quarter-century ago or Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher is like buying a new car because you like the color…

Coulter went on to reference a New York Times writer that does just what she says is happening to Mitt, while taking her usual, less that mature (yet funny) jabs. Coulter goes on to defend Romney’s pro-life stance in a pro-choice constituency, his religious background and moral character, saying Giuliani avoids the “flip-flopper” label even though he has flip-flopped on marital vows quite a few times. Overall I feel like she is making a relevant point. If Democrats are quick to praise McCain or Huckabee, the must be foaming at the mouth over taking them on in a general election. I’m sure they would be worried if they had to take on Romney, given that he is articulate, fairly brilliant and he has deep pockets. Though I do love any support that gets thrown Romney’s way, I really feel like he needs his GOP3 love as much as any other candidate.

As we all know, Wisconsin has the seventh highest taxes in the nation and the Democrats continue to raise taxes and attempt to inhibit business further. Group’s like YPM - FUELMilwaukee try to cheerlead and think we just need to spend more money, they point to the “millions of dollars being invested in the Fifth Ward, Mitchell Street and Bronzeville” as major inroads against our failing business environment.

The real decision makers and captains of industry have spoken though, and surprise, surprise, it really is our high tax, anti-business attitude that is driving businesses away along with our miserable public education system that struggles as Democrats try to kill the widely successful, innovative voucher program. Here is an excerpt from the recent CEO forum in Milwaukee:

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce is working hard to convince Miller Brewing Co. and Molson Coors Brewing Co. executives to locate their combined headquarters in Colorado, rather than Milwaukee.

Denver’s effort received a huge a boost from a rather strange place Thursday: from Milwaukee’s business community.

Five of the Milwaukee area’s most prominent chief executive officers were featured in a panel discussion on “Global Wooing” Thursday by the Public Policy Forum. The five CEOs took turns ripping Milwaukee as a terrible place to do business.

The CEOs jointly described Milwaukee as a region with a broken public education system, runaway health care costs and an anti-capitalistic mindset. They said Milwaukee’s taxes are too high, and the region doesn’t know how to market itself, suffers from a lack of leadership, has wasteful government spending and doesn’t provide enough tax incentives to attract and keep businesses and create jobs.

And when they were done criticizing the region as a terrible place to do business, they piled on and did it again. And again.

The quotes from the CEOs themselves are priceless, it’s exactly what countless conservative blogs have said over and over again:

Paul Purcell, CEO of Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., criticized Milwaukee Public Schools and called for more charter schools and choice schools. “We need to fix MPS,” he said.

Purcell also denounced Wisconsin’s “bureaucracy and tax structure.”

John Shiely, CEO of Briggs & Stratton Inc., was asked if he would consider building a new manufacturing plant here.
“We probably wouldn’t, to tell you the truth,” Shiely said.

…
When asked about the need for taxes to support quality-of-life initiatives, such as public parks, Sullivan said local governments were inefficient and duplicative.

“We are squandering millions of (dollars) of federal money,” Sullivan said.

If we want businesses to start looking at Wisconsin, no amount of cheerleading YPM/Milwaukee 7 groups will solve our problems. They have their role but, the real tax cuts, business deregulation and incentives will come when Scott Walker is re-elected, we have a Republican in the governors mansion and a conservative legislature.

Peggy Noonan is one of my must-reads each week (along with Steyn and Beckner-Posner). She had a column about three weeks ago that I’ve re-read a couple times since because I enjoyed it so much and also discussed it with some friends.

The first part of Noonan’s column discusses the ginned up liberal story from Scott Thomas and TNR. Noonan then discusses problems with today’s leadership class. One of her paragraphs particularly struck me. I’ve included the preceding paragraph for some context:

But this new leadership class, those roughly 35 to 40, grew up in a time when media dominated all. They studied, they entered a top-tier college, and then on to Washington or New York or Los Angeles. But their knowledge, their experience, is necessarily circumscribed. Too much is abstract to them, or symbolic. The education establishment did them few favors. They didn’t have to read Dostoevsky, they had to read critiques and deconstruction of Dostoevsky.

I’m not sure it’s always good to grow up surrounded by stability, immersed in affluence, and having had it drummed into you that you are entitled to be a member of the next leadership class. To have this background in the modern era is to come from a ghetto, the luckiest ghetto in the world, a golden ghetto beyond whose walls it can be hard to see. There’s much to be said for suffering, for being on the outside or the bottom, for having to have fought yourself up and through. It can leave you grounded. It can give you real knowledge not only of the world and of other men but of yourself. In some ways it can leave you less cynical. (Not everything comes down to money.) And in some ways it leaves you just cynical enough.

Ms. Noonan is obviously not writing about only Democrats. Indeed, if the last seven years are any indication, I think she’s talking more about Republicans. Whatever her partisan or non-partisan intentions, Noonan is accurately describing problems with today’s leadership class.

And unfortunately, it’s not something you need to go to DC to witness. I wish I could say that it weren’t true of a very significant proportion of the “leaders” I’ve come to know on campus - including on the right. The problem Noonan points out infects a number of individuals who make the claim to be leaders.

I think this is evident in the level of risk one is willing to take. (I can even see this on the left on campus). Individuals who feel entitled to leadership positions take fewer risks in pursuit of partisan ideas, put themselves and their cause out in the open and on the line less and instead engage in protectionist behavior.

Other individuals who build a reputation for putting their necks out tend to continue such behavior once ensconced in a leadership position. Those individuals, valuing risk as a necessity to advance a cause, seem to be more willing to volunteer their welfare in favor of the potential to advance a cause higher than personal well-being.

Yesterday, some writer at the New York Post, Geoff Earle, wrote this story about Mrs. Clinton’s 33 point lead in a Democrat primary poll:

October 4, 2007 — WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton has jumped to an astounding 33-point lead over Barack Obama, topping her main rival among every major slice of the electorate and widening a dominating advantage she has held all summer.

Clinton got support from a full majority for the first time in any national survey about the Democratic presidential field. She is backed by 53 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.

Obama follows far behind, with 20 percent, and John Edwards has 13 percent.

“I think it’s pretty well done, don’t you? All over but the voting,” said Rep. Tom Petri (D-Wis.), when asked about the poll. [E/A]

I laughed out loud when I read this story linked from the front page of the Drudge Report. First, what on earth does Tom Petri have to do with the Democrat Party presidential primary campaign; second, what on earth is the problem with the writer? Did he seriously think Petri was a Democrat?

What probably happened is that this beat writer was asked to get a story on Hillary’s poll lead ASAP and found literally the nearest elected official wearing a Member’s pin he could roaming the halls of the Rayburn office complex. Amateur hour. But is there not a single person in the Post chain of command who would have known better?

But then came Peggy Noonan’s weekly column today:

You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I’ve started to lean forward a little when he talks.

But he doesn’t stand a chance, right? His main competitor, Mrs. Clinton, is this week’s invincible. She broke through 50% for the first time in a big national poll–53% saying they would support her, a full 33 points more than Obama. Her third quarter fund raising beat everyone else’s. “It’s all over but the voting,” said Rep. Tom Petri, who will probably get pummeled a bit by the campaign for premature triumphalism. But he only said what a lot of people are starting to think.

Ms. Noonan seems to have fallen for the Post story’s accident, believing that Petri is a Democrat who will be “pummeled” for “premature triumphalism” — as if he’s being triumphant about Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects.

It’s too bad here, as well, that no one at the Wall Street Journal knows House members well enough to have known the Post’s error. It makes you wonder how often this happens — the media misquotes some non-primary political actor and everybody is taken for a ride.

From one of President Bush’s worst former speechwriters, a guy who I predict we’ll have to listen to for years to come, “What History Taught Karl Rove“:

But in several years as a colleague, I found Rove to be the most unusual political operative I have ever known; so exceptional he doesn’t belong in the category. His most passionate, obsessive love — after his wife — is American history. He visits its shrines and collects its scraps — carefully archived pictures of President William McKinley’s funeral, original ballots from the 1860 election. And from American history Rove knows: Events are not moved primarily by techniques; they are moved by ideas.

Rove’s main influence on the Republican Party has not been a series of tactical innovations but a series of strategic arguments. In this way, Rove is the opposite of a cynical political operator. He is not only a partisan for George W. Bush but the most serious, tireless advocate of Bushism.

“Yes, sir, may I have another.”

Events are moved by ideas?? Like which ones in particular?? Nationalizing education? Redundant federal regulation over businesses ala Sarbanes-Oxley? How about appointing your personal friend to the Supreme Court?

Third, Rove has argued that the Republican Party will need to appeal to minorities or gradually decline. “We can’t be the party of America,” he says, “and get 13 percent of the African American vote.”

Well, Karl, you did an excellent job reversing that. What was it, 9% of the African American vote in 2000 and 11% of the African American vote in 2004? Seems like Bush didn’t do so hot in the “expanding the base” catagory, despite his call to expand government.

What Bush and Rove never understood is that they cannot create an alternative, “right-wing” big government. Monopolistic government agencies/actors will always tend to act in their own self interest, not in the interest of the people. I don’t want right-wing Big Government anymore than left-wing Big Government.

That’s why we reached the crescendo that we have in America over the past few decades: government has overstepped its grounds. It’s not a matter of creating a whole new class of dependencies who will somehow be fortunate/grateful for their government betters who happen to be right-of-center for once (the essence of the prescription drug and immigration battles).

It’s about reducing the reliance on government of people so that we won’t have to play these petty games of “Who gets to control the treasury?” every election cycle, so that citizens will be rewarded for their talents through market mechanisms instead of through the ability to coerce government subsidization of their particular interests.

I’m going to have to disagree with Brian. I’m going to miss Karl. On the overall looks of things, I find Karl Rove to be a political genius. In fact, his resignation has sparked me to re-read Boy Genius which covers most of Rove’s life and shows how he was the architect of Bush’s political triumph. –Yes triumph, because I’m not starting history at his 2000 election, I am talking about the elections for Texas Governor and the like.

His ability to win elections began in high school but the bigger ones came when he became the College Republican National Chairman. It was the first of many disputed election wins for Rove.

Rove’s early career in Texas is most notable, since he basically took over the state, ousting Democrats from many top positions and getting George W into the Governor’s mansion –who took out a governor with a 70% approval rating before the race. Rove was brilliant at starting rumor campaigns and groomed Bush into the presidential contender that he became. One of the more memorable parts of the book, and one of Rove’s more brilliant tactics was during the 1986 Clements gubernatorial campaign. Rove claimed that he found a listening device in the office. However instead of going directly to the police, he held a press conference to implicate democrats in the scandal and said an independent task force would investigate the matter. There were allegations that Rove bugged his own office, nonetheless a brilliant election tactic.

Obviously people are critical of Rove’s influence during the Bush Administration, the 2006 election, and the notion that Rove cared more about getting people elected than the policy they’d support, but I’d disagree. Since 1981 Rove and Co. have been in the business of getting people elected and he’s done just that over and over and over again. Phil Gram’s party switch and senatorial campaign in 82 and 84 respectively, the Texas supreme court in 1986, Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial campaign were a few of Rove’s successes. To his defense, Rove’s hands were tied during much of the 2006 campaing because of the Abramoff and Foley scandals and of course the furstrating situation in Iraq.

All I can hope is that I’ll have the second coming of Rove in my corner one day.

As if I needed any more of a reminder of why Washington, DC makes me sick to my stomach, the fawning over infamous Bush aid Karl Rove will do the trick.

Anyone who seriously thinks that Karl Rove — and the Bush presidency by extension — deserve some kind of laudatory praise based solely on the fact of its existence is smoking something.

Sure, Rove played a big hand in engineering 2 presidential elections, for which Bush barely won by the way. Aside from electoral victories (I’ll get to defeat in a second), Rove and Bush have been a disaster.

I remember just months into the Bush presidency someone as conservative as I am going into a tirade about Bush’s laxidasical start. It took me until October of 2005 to admit what a disaster it has been.

Let’s review, briefly, the record:

No Child Left Behind: Remember when the platform of the Republican Party advocated ending the Department of Education? Bush strolls into office and proceeds to expand federal spending to education — and possibly more significant, federal regulation over education — above and beyond any president since Carter. Has increasing federal oversight of local school districts helped them manage their finances better or forced the firing of bad apples? What do you think?

Medicare entitlement: Admittedly a mixed bag - some seniors like it. But honestly, so what? Does anyone imagine that a Democrat Congress and President will say “Whoops, I guess Medicare is as big as it needs to be for seniors — no need to expand it!”? Yeah, right. As with most bad policy, the process of getting there was abominable. Members of Congress threatened if they vote against the new entitlement … holding the floor vote open for hours to get the ‘right’ result … and the real costs are hidden to the public.

McCain-Feingold: When everyone from the ACLU to NRL oppose a bill, you know it has to be pretty attrocious. When the President of the United States admits his concern about the constitutionality of limiting free speech in elections, it is downright immoral. Besides the constitution question, how successful was this bill? Would the Republican proponents say that George Soros’ $$$ made the election more upstanding? How about the Democrat proponents and the Swift Boat Vets’s $$$?

As long as the government controls as much of our daily lives as it does, people will find a way to lobby, financially or otherwise, for certain politicans and policies. Get the government out of our lives and campaign finance issues won’t be this absurd.

Harriet Miers: The mother lode. At this point in the Bush presidency, the entire conservative movement had to admit that Bush’s expansive government projects first time around weren’t mere political pandering, they were — worse — mere ignorance about the potential of government to positively induce change. Bush appoints his White House counsel and Texas gal pal Miers to the highest Court in the land. It was as predictable as Bush’s inarticulateness itself. Thankfully, reason prevailed and Miers dropped out - causing one of the few victories of the past 6.5 years - the Roberts nomination.

2006 Election: Last summer, Bush and Rove and Co. tried to get amnesty passed through Congress. Fortunately, the House of Representatives would have none of it. Bush and the WSJ-right insult the entire base of the Republican Party — conservatives — not to mention the American people by telling them that they know what’s best, and what’s best are tens of millions of new individuals using up the already squeezed welfare state handouts government provides. Not surprisingly given six years of Democrat-lite, Republicans stay at home for the 2006 elections and Democrats sweep Congress.

It’s important to consider how big of a sweep the 2006 elections were. You could make the case that it was the biggest Democrat election in 32 or even 50 years. In 1974 the Democrats annihilated the Republicans in post-Watergate midterm elections, setting the stage for Jimmy Carter’s win in 1976 and the disaster of the following four years. But actually, 2006 was the first time in 50 years — FIFTY YEARS — that the Republican Party lost control of the House and Senate in one election. Karl Rove - some “political strategist”!

Immigration: What can be said that hasn’t been written a hundred times over already? Nobody really wanted the bill, nobody believed (or had any reason to believe) that a single enforcement mechanism would be enforced, and nobody really appreciated Bush’s assinine attacks on his base. Look at House and Senate campaign coffers and ask them if they appreciate the attacks on the grassroots. You have Bush’s cabinet making insult after insult - even to the point a couple days ago of claiming that conservatives will force an economic downturn as the result of new enforcement mechanisms. How does any of this make sound political or policy sense?

Passive stuff: Bush has said volumes over the past 6.5 years about what he has not said. Namely, the stuff that he could have focused upon, especially when his political capital was vast and he had an unencumbered majority in Congress. Take his half-baked Social Security reform. He barely discussed it early on and (if I remember correctly) only really touched it after his first term. By the time he started talking about it, he gave a token interest in serious reform (I remember the trips). It was a couple months long story and we haven’t heard about it since. Runaway congressional spending, failing to veto a single spending bill in 6.5 years and much more are examples of Bush’s passivity about the conservative agenda.

***

I understand that it is human nature — incentive based action, really — to kiss the rear end of someone who you may potentially benefit from politically one day, but let’s be honest about the level of success of the Bush presidency.

Update: Ditto David Frum. His money quote: “Building coalitions is essential to political success. But it is not the same thing as political success.”

Talk about trouble in the dugout.

From my old home at Townhall.com, of course.

By the way, speaking of Cubs, this from this weekend was a great summary of the “worst team in baseball['s]” latest troubles.

A couple days ago, George Bush claimed conservatives “don’t want to do what’s right for America” on the issue of immigration.

This has - I believe legitimately so - made many on the right go apoplectic. Some even claim that Bush is challenging the patriotism of his critics with such remarks.

I’m sure that there have been many times when those on the left have taken Bush’s rhetoric and believed it to question their patriotism - we seem to hear about it all the time.

But, I’m wondering if any of our liberal friends could point out any specific instances of Bush claiming that liberals “don’t want to do what’s right for America” due to their beliefs on any issue.

Any takers?

(BTW - that NYT article I link to above is an excellent, brief recap on the division on the right over immigraiton.)