|
June 06, 2008
 Janet Murguía: Multiple Amnesty Failures Have Unglued Her—Will She Lose Her Job, Too?
By Joe
Guzzardi
In
my April column about the then-looming illegal alien
May Day marches, I wrote that the other side had suffered
such a series of staggering defeats that some of its leaders are
becoming visibly unglued and appear on the verge of a total
stress-induced mental collapse.
The abject, utter failure of this year’s
May Day events—a more complete bomb than even I dared to
imagine—cannot have helped them regain their balance.
One of the most visibly shaken: La Raza’s
Janet Murguía who, with the cameras rolling on three recent
occasions, demonstrated an increasingly distanced position from
reality.
Murguía’s demeanor indicated that she’s teetering on the
edge.
Analyzed in reverse order, the high-visibility events were:
-
Murguia’s
April 16 speech to the National Press Club.
Fascinating for a host of reasons, Murguía’s speech counted
on the gullibility of her
MainStream Media audience to get away with her outrageously
absurd remarks.
Among them were, if you can believe it, Murguía’s accusatory
tongue-lashings of the liberal press for misrepresenting and
under-reporting the so-called merits of illegal immigration.
Murguía made multiple references to how "vigilantes"
and
"hate groups" "demonize" and "dehumanize"
what she referred to as "immigrants."
She cited, without any sources or statistical references,
that "…hate crimes against Latinos are up 35 percent over
four years…." And naturally, she touted the "Latino vote"
for its power to determine the outcome of all future elections.
Then came her corker.
Whining about how "personal" the perfectly appropriate
national immigration debate is, Murguía reached deep into her
sob story bag of tricks for this one:
"When your 10 year-old nephew who
was
born in Kansas is told by a schoolmate, ‘Mexicans are
stupid, and I think you should go back to Mexico.’"[Full
Text]
Was Murguía suggesting that
federal immigration policy should be established based on
what one fourth-grader in
Kansas allegedly said to another?
If that’s not crazy, what is?
Here’s an interesting observation on Murguía’s speech. She
never once mentioned La Raza instead referring to her
employer as "NCLR".
I take that as a solid indication that Murguía knows that
even in the most liberal circles,
"La Raza" rubs people
the wrong way.
(Read and watch Murguia’s speech
here.)
Murguía opened this dinner ceremony with an attempted joke
about
Lou Dobbs that did not generate so much as a chuckle from
the all-Hispanic crowd.
Said Murguía to open the evening: "Lou
Dobbs sends his regrets. He’s home looking at our website so
he can get it right."
What the audience didn’t find funny is that Dobbs—as well as
other
patriotic immigration reform organizations and websites like
VDARE.COM—have enjoyed a much better 2008 (as well as 2007, 2006
and 2005) than either Murguía or La Raza.
Murguía hasn’t learned that if and when you grind your
opponents into dust, then you’ve earned the right to make them
the object of your ridicule, assuming that’s your style.
But when the reverse is true and you’re the one who year
after year has his pants beaten off, the best course of action
is to remain silent.
Then Murguía droned on about how La Raza, during its
forty years as "America’s leading
civil rights organization for Hispanics," has watched
its "…tree of ideas and influence grow taller and stronger…"
Again, the reality is quite different.
La Raza’s "influence" has dramatically
diminished during the last several years.
Just look at this year’s three La Raza Capital Award "honorees,"
two Treason Lobby U.S. Representatives, California’s
Hilda Solis and
Florida’s Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and the cravenly
anti-American
Univision Spanish-language television channel.
Time was, when La Raza’s influence was waxing, its
award recipients
included Representatives
Chris Cannon,
John Boehner and Senators
Tom Harkin,
Lindsey Graham and Olympia Snowe.
But now, given America’s public outcry over La Raza
endorsements, and the fact that receiving its awards may
eventually cost Cannon and Graham their jobs, astute
non-Hispanic U.S. elected officials politely decline such "honors"
(Are you
listening John McCain?)
(See Murguía’s speech
here starting at 0:58. A constructive criticism aside to
Murguía: a bright salmon pink, sleeveless dress with a plunging
neckline does not become you.)
-
Murguía on
Lou Dobbs Tonight, February 4, 2008
Memorable for a host of reasons, including her continuous
references to "hate
speech and its consequences," Murguía’s appearance here
offered many critically important insights into our side’s
strong position.
The following exchange is the most significant:
Murguía:
"We are meeting—I already have a meeting with CNN worldwide
president..."
Dobbs: "Jim Walton."
Murguía: "... Mr. Jim Walton..."
Dobbs: "Right."
Murguía: "... to talk to him
about this."
Dobbs: "He's a good man to start
with."
Murguía: "Well, we're going to
hold you accountable. We're going to hold the other networks
accountable."
Dobbs: "And what are you going to
do?"
Murguía: "We're going to ask them
to remove these kinds of representatives..."
Dobbs: "So you want me—you want
me fired?"
Murguía: "Not you. I said these
representatives, who are tied to
vigilante and
hate groups, as
documented by the
ADL or by the
Southern Poverty Law Center. They have no place on the
airwaves." (Complete transcript
here.)
In fact, of course, Murguía would
love to get Dobbs
fired—if only she held the hammer.
But she doesn’t.
What’s crucial and what proves just how little influence
Murguía has is that her meeting with Walton was scheduled for
February 21st. And, to no rational person’s surprise,
Dobbs is still on the air.
Furthermore, Dobbs has added a
three-hour daily radio show.
And, in what must be a bitter pill for Murguía to swallow,
Fox News, as
reported by
James Fulford, refuses to meet with her.
Murguía has serious credibility problems that should put
her own position as La Raza’s president and Chief
Executive Officer is deep peril.
Appointed with major fanfare in January 2005 to replace Raul
Yzaguirre, Murguía came to La Raza with
big time credentials.
After receiving three degrees from Kansas University—a B.S.
degree in journalism (1982), a B.A. degree in Spanish (1982),
and a J.D. degree (1985) from the School of Law—Murguía worked
for seven years in Washington, DC as legislative counsel to
former Kansas Congressman Jim Slattery.
Then Murguía worked at the White House from 1994 to 2000,
ultimately serving as deputy assistant to President Clinton.
Finally, Murguía was appointed as deputy campaign manager and
director of constituency outreach for the Al Gore/Joe Lieberman
presidential campaign.
No wonder La
Raza gobbled Murguía up.
An insider! Murguía knows the players! She can deliver an
amnesty!
Wrong! Wrong! And wrong!
After more than three plus years as La Raza’s chief,
Murguía
has not moved its agenda forward one millimeter.
Worse, during Murguía’s watch, the amnesty effort has moved
significantly backward.
When you realize that because Murguía did work at the
White House and does know the players, she should
have an insurmountable advantage—something akin to a
football team that starts every drive on its opponent’s
ten-yard line—in winning her "personal" battle.
But that’s not what happened. Murguía has been soundly beaten
at every turn. So it’s little wonder that she’s increasingly
shrill.
In the private sector, Murguia’s
repeated and very public failures would get her fired.
As fully warranted as Murguia’s dismissal would be, based on
her inability to deliver the coveted "comprehensive
immigration reform"
goodies, if La Raza were to can her it would be yet
another open admission of its ineptitude.
So, because La Raza has had plenty of failures lately
and doesn’t need to admit to another, Murguia’s job is probably
safe—for now.
Joe Guzzardi [e-mail
him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor.
In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has
been writing
a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive
to
VDARE.COM. |
