NY Times plays "the Race Card" (sort of)

The New York Times is whining this morning about the failure of the "comprehensive" immigration reform deal that Bush tried to shove down our throats. Instead of trying to understand why this bill left such a bad taste in the mouths of so many Americans, the Times instead uses the politically-correct word for racist..."nativist."

The anti-immigrant hard-core — no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever — must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage. Like nativists of generations past, they think the country is being Latinized, and they fear it. The country is changing, but the way it always has, absorbing newcomers, shaping and being shaped by them, inexorably turning them, their children and grandchildren into Americans.

Ignoring the fact that only 23% of Americans were in favor of the legislation, the Times instead blankets those of us who want our borders enforced as scared, simpletons who don't understand this complex issue.

As far as who the "nativists" really are, count the number of American flags in this protest photo:

Click to make larger

Of course you know who's fault all of this is...it's those DARN REPUBLICANS:

The immigration compromise collapsed on the floor of the Senate Thursday night. Many of its hard-line foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow. They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.

The tragedy is that the compromise bill was written to bring these restrictionists along, with punitive, detestable provisions that many supporters of comprehensive reform agreed to endorse for the sake of a “grand bargain.” The bill was badly flawed but fixable, as long as there was the possibility of leadership and courage in Congress.

But obstruction happened. Republican amendments, designed to shred the compromise, happened.

When crunch time came on the bill however, the cloture vote included ELEVEN Democrats. Those votes would not have been enough to end debate on this bill (needing 2/3rds), but at least liberals could have pointed at those "obstructionist conservatives" with a little more credibility. As it was, the cloture vote didn't even muster a simple majority.

Technically, all the cloture vote means is that debate can continue. But the Times, George Bush and Ted Kennedy wanted to just ram this bill down our throats without allowing for for proper analysis. Upon scrutiny, this was a flea-bitten dog of a bill. It put amnesty provisions ahead of enforcement. The American people might have supported the provisions that would have helped illegals "get right with the law", but we simply don't believe either Bush or Congress when they promise enforcement:

(Update) Ace also notices the missing Dems in the Times editorial. The Jawas check in with their analysis:

I also love how the article is entitled " A Failure of Leadership," as if the Democrats aren't in control of both Houses of Congress. Somebody page the NYT and let them know that the Democrats shoulder Congressional failure responsibility ever since November of last year. If the widdle babies don't like that, we can arrange a change in 2008.