When the city of Boston jumped on board the boycott bandwagon to protest Arizona’s bill that requires enforcement of immigration law, they must have thought themselves at the vanguard of public opinion. After all, the Obama administration spent more time in the first six weeks of the Gulf oil spill criticizing Arizona than they did talking about their response to the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Other cities had already joined the boycott movement, even those who continue to buy power from Arizona. After an embarrassing disparity between Arizona protesters and supporters yesterday, though, the city council has second thoughts:
Red-faced Boston city councilors who boldly voted to shun the state of Arizona over its new immigration crackdown are now showing signs of boycotter’s regret.
The grandstanding pols kept a low profile when the target of their boycott came to their city on Saturday. Some acknowledged taking a pass on the much-hyped protest of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for weekend vacations and other engagements – while one councilor even admitted the embargo was ill-conceived. …
“If it had to be done all over again, there’d probably be more thought put into it and perhaps a hearing,” said Councilor John Tobin of West Roxbury. “It was an emotional issue and an emotional time. I think the sponsors were getting a lot of pressure to say something, to file something.”
Just as with their counterparts in Los Angeles, the councilors take a rather nuanced view of personal dedication to the boycott anyway:
Tobin’s own resolve broke down quickly. He had a chance to go to an Arizona Diamondbacks game at Fenway Park last month.
“I asked the bill’s co-sponsors for permission,” he said. They said OK. Tobin went to the ballgame.
Yeah, but he rooted for the Red Sox, so it’s kind of like a boycott as long as he booed when the Diamondbacks were at bat. Never mind that a portion of the ticket price goes to the visiting team. It seems as though the council has made booing a key part of their governing strategy, and worry more about the affairs of other jurisdictions than they do their own — or at least like to pose as doing so.
Or, as Jules Crittenden puts it, Jan Brewer rode into town — and the Boston city council headed for the hills:
This scurrying is taking place in the wake of the much ballyhooed anti-Arizona protest that fizzled in downtown Boston, when only a few hundred diehard activists with “RACIST” signs showed up, many of them bused in from out of town. Tragic, here in the very Heart of Blueness, that they should have to be outsourcing their moonbattery, to do the protesting that local libs apparently won’t do. No wonder they’re caving so easy. …
Back to Boston, chalk up a victory for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who rode into the city of her presumptive adversaries and found them wanting.
Brewer is working to make her constituents safe and to enforce laws in the vacuum left by federal dereliction of duty. Bandwagoners on the boycott fad are working as little as possible to pump up their own public profiles. It was never any contest who would prevail in that contest.
Jules’ refers to outsourcing, a nod to the fact that even the paltry turnout Brewer’s opponents could muster came with a big assist from out-of-state ringers:
The ANSWER Coalition, which calls the law “racist” and Brewer “bigoted,” only drew about 350 people to their Saturday protest – not the thousands they had predicted. Many of those that did attend were bused in from out-of-state, organizers reported.
ANSWER? This begins to make sense. ANSWER is one of the most radical of Leftist groups in the US, aligning themselves with such open-minded regimes as North Korea and basically pursuing neo-Stalinism as a philosophy. Quite frankly, though, I’m surprised that the group can’t muster 350 people from within Boston itself for a protest. They’re slipping, and none too soon.