Presidente Bush 2004 Hispanic Campaign Video

Many thanks to Stephen for sending me this video. Jorge Bush looks right at home waving the Mexican flag. Has anyone else seen this? It’s a new one to me.

    Video: Windows

LA Times

“During the 2000 election, Bush previewed a campaign video from ad-maker Lionel Sosa that used emotion-laden themes to woo Latinos.

As he watched, Sosa recalled, Bush’s face lighted up. “How much do you need for this?” Bush asked as the two men sat with Rove in the governor’s mansion in Texas, Sosa said.

Sosa replied that it would take $3 million. According to the ad-maker, Bush then turned to Rove, saying: “Give him five.”

Four years later, Sosa produced a variation of that video for the 2004 campaign that was mailed to Latino voters across the country.

The video includes images that would probably rile those who today are calling for the most restrictive immigration laws. At one point, Bush is shown waving a Mexican flag. The footage was shot, Sosa said, during a Mexican Independence Day parade in San Antonio in 1998, when Bush was running for reelection as governor.

The five-minute video, narrated by Bush, opens with an image of him fishing on his property near Crawford, Texas, as he essentially described millions of Americans who populate his home state as the true foreigners in someone else’s native land.

“About 15 years before the Civil War, much of the American West was northern Mexico,” Bush says in the video. “The people who lived there weren’t called Latinos or Hispanics. They were Mexican citizens, until all that land became part of the United States.

“After that, many of them were treated as foreigners in their own land,” Bush adds.”

15 Responses to “Presidente Bush 2004 Hispanic Campaign Video”

  1. Vincent Narodnik Says:

    Emetic is a word which exists in the English language which unfortuneatly is used only for medical purposes. An emetic is a drug which induces vomiting. The word can be used adaptively as in the following sentence ‘’Rape/publican Party policies are the most emetic things I have ever witnessed.'’ I am typing this while listening to it and I feel like vomiting. If there is a stain on my floor this afternoon, WD-youre cleaning it up! JEEZ this is disgusting. I heard about this thing t’other day, now, to my revulsion, I have heard it. There are entire books that could be written on this monstrosity, but time is short, so, maybe one or two quick observations; What if bush had used the term ‘European-descended Americans’ or ‘Whites’? How many seconds do you think it would take for a swarm of aclu/mecha/pfaw types to descend upon him? What would be the likely outcome of such a swarming? Would he still be in office? So from that, let us derive an inferential question; Isnt this an example of blatant racism? Isnt it an example of groveling for votes? Gosh. I actually wish I had more time to comment on this, but the clock is ticking.I would, however, like to leave with a few other sadly neglected words. They apply to above posting AND ITS SUBJECT. Suoid; Swine-like. Pongoid; Gorilla-like. Desmodontine; Vampire bat-like. Pecksniffian-look that one up yourself. its a Dickensianism.

  2. Vincent Narodnik Says:

    oooooooooooooooooops. Forgot one! Helminthic; worm-like. thank you.

  3. Brad Says:

    Maybe we should send GW to Mexico, but not before we impeach him. The latest appears that he OKd the outing of the CIA agent. Whether or not it was legal, it shows the weasel will do anything for political gain.

  4. Arlen Sphincter (pretend Republican name) Says:

    From the content of the video I couldn’t tell if Jorge was running for president of the United States or for president of mexico.

  5. The Watchdog Says:

    You know when I get my phony Matricula Consular card, I’m going to have to get the name Arlen Sphincter next to my photo.

  6. George Says:

    I vote for impeachment!! I’ve come to the conclusion this man doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground!!

  7. Arlen Sphincter (pretend Republican name) Says:

    You like that name huh? Kinda fits don’t it?
    Found this on the FreeRepublic website:
    See if it pisses you off as much as it does me!

    Summary

    In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

    - Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.

    - Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.

    - Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.

    - Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.

    - Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.

    - Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

    - Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.

    - Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

    The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

    The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

    The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

    “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)

    The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.”

    The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

    “In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”

    An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

    Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

    The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be

    Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

    The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, “To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth.”

    The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”

    The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

    The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”

    Notional policy options

    Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

    Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

    1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or

    2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.

    These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States - as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

    Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country’s national security. Mexico’s internal immigration policy is Mexico’s business.

    However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny. The time has come to examine Mexico’s own glass house.

  8. Salamander Says:

    I saw that too, but no, only Americans are ethnocentric. lol

  9. Fred Dawes Says:

    Good god vincent narodnik makes me look like a nice guy.

    look people the mexican government is a government of drug dealers and mass murdering pigs, our government is working with the mexicans to remove our human and civil rights. “hey people its like right out in front of you.”

  10. Defender Says:

    http://defendourborders.com/ is one of the core places coordinating effort and getting people involved. We have a couple hundred users at this point and have already had one counter-rally in Boston care of WTKK-FM and Michael Graham.

  11. snitter Says:

    I’m sorry, I only managed to see the first 2 minutes of this video. The next 15 minutes I spent praying to the porcelain alter since the first 2 minutes made me want to puke.

  12. Robin Says:

    Bush leaves out a very important fact in this video. U.S. laws should be upheld. Hispanics should enter our country legally. And uphold our laws.

  13. JAMES EDWARD TYNER Says:

    Ole Theodore Roosevelt said it pretty well in 1907. “IN the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discrimiate against any such man because of creed, or birth place or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American?.There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also isn’t an American at all. We have room but for ONE flag, the American flag We have room for ONE language here and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American People

    The Voters like europe allowed a moron to led them.
    which proves Never underestimate the power of human stupidity

  14. Michael Witt Says:

    Did you watch this video? This seemed to me to be directed only at Latino Americans who can vote. This said nothing that I could see as unamerican, illegal, or evil - only wholesome, honest, and uplifting. The comments about this video on this website make me think that I didn’t see the same video they did. Am I missing something? This website seems to be populated by people with a hatred for Mexicans. I do not like illegal immigration which by definition is breaking the law, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t like latinos, or those who immigrate legally, or even those who don’t immigrate legally. It is the act of breaking the law I don’t agree with or like. I do not believe in giving amnesty to those who’ve come into the US illegally, or benefits for them either, that includes Social Security for those who haven’t contributed to it. One thing I do know is that as president Mr. Bushs’ job is not to enforce laws, but to guide and direct this nation (if allowed to by congress). It is not his job to enforce the laws or make the laws. Do you notice that President Bush doesn’t say much about immigration? That doesn’t necessarily imply anything. I believe he knows his job. He is not “King George” he is President Bush, and relies on the congress to do their part. Any complaints about illegal immigration should be directed to our senators and representatives in congress - you know who they are. It’s funny (and maybe more than a little true) that congress should be the opposite of progress. I think I can safely say that we all want our nation to be a ’success’ at dealing with immigration. If we apply proper grammer and language construction techniques that would mean we need to ‘cease (a cessation) to suck’ at immigration.

  15. arthur d Says:

    Mr. Witt:
    this entire debate is about criminal aliens of any origin.

    No one is raising the “put it on the Mexicans” issue except the trolling pro criminal individuals.

    This much is true: 50% of the criminal aliens are said to be Mexican. Many other origins are sneaking in *through* Mexico.

    If it makes you feel any better, I will stipulate that the first people deported will be all the Norwegians we can round up.

    From public statements of Vincente Fox it is clear to me at least, that the Mexican gov. is supporting and encouraging the illegal (it’s against their laws too) immigration into another sovereign country and demanding that those law breakers not be punished and have some kind of a “right” to invade America with impunity.

    Fact: if you entered my country illegally, no matter what nationality, you are a criminal.

    Art

Leave a Reply