The real question is why George W. Bush has elected to lead this ill-advised crusade. There are those who thought his reason was political, that he foolishly believed he'd provide the GOP with millions of grateful Hispanic voters. That's a possible motive. One must remember that this is the same fellow who thought he'd garner a lot of black votes by putting Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice in his Cabinet.
Then there are those who believed that because brother Jeb was married to a woman born in Mexico, thus making his niece and nephews half-Latino, George was just overly sympathetic to the plight of poor Hispanics.
The latest theory I've heard espoused was that young George may have had a Mexican nanny to whom he was particularly attached. Although most people might regard that as a frivolous reason for endangering our national sovereignty, not to mention scuttling the GOP's chances of recovering from the 2006 elections, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. If Charles Foster Kane's implausible life could be traced all the way back to a sled named Rosebud in the movie classic "Citizen Kane," I'm willing to accept that in pushing so aggressively for this lousy piece of legislation, the president was merely trying to atone for some youthful shenanigan that provoked his beloved Maria, Consuela or Esperanza.
So, instead of dismissing the bill as amnesty in sheep's clothing, perhaps we should merely think of it as the nanny bill. After all, there's no getting around the fact that those childhood experiences often have a very profound effect on us. For instance, do any of you have the slightest doubt that Ted Kennedy was a bottle baby?
And these are the same guys that I'm sure would have been having conniptions not a year ago if someone on the left had made insinuations about the Prez's Latino connections influencing his opinions or judgment, particularly if they brought up Jeb's kids. "Racism!" "Low blow!" "At least respect the office!"