Welcome back from the long weekend.
A day after outlining the case for Mike Bloomberg, the Post's Chris Cillizza goes through the case against him. Honestly, it made me think it was an even better idea. There were the usual reasons independents have trouble (money, about which Bloom needn't worry, and ballot law, which Unity08 would handle), and then this graf:
He is too liberal to attract most Republican voters and too conservative to win over large numbers of Democratic voters. While there are huge amounts of unaffiliated/independent voters in the country, most of them tend to favor one party over the other in most major elections.
I love Chris Cillizza, but this is a surprisingly stupid paragraph. Most voters are somewhere between the two parties, and they vote and register based out of tradition, name recognition, or whichever happens to come closest to their idea of reality. While Bloom loses on the first two, he would probably win huge on the last one. He's actually just liberal enough and just conservative enough to win over all but the bases of the two major parties. The problem, of course, is that the first two reasons are big ones. Much of Pittsburgh has way more in common with the Republican Party, but is Democrat for historic reasons. Similarly, no one who liked Reagan should have voted for Bush, but tradition matters. As does name recognition, which Mike B lacks. But his positions, as a moderate, pragmatic quasi-Libertarian, put him in line with most of the country.
In case you were wondering, Bloomberg currently polls in high single digits to mid-double digits in Northeastern States.
Now that I've ripped Cillizza, let me give him some credit for a great point on Fred Thompson:
We can't shake the idea that Thompson could wind up like retired Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004, whose best day as a candidate was his first.
That really changes my feelings. I still think Thompson is a better candidate than an outside shot, but Cillizza's right; a guy with no organization, no money, a great profile, and a lazy campaigning disposition... we've seen that before. His only chance is to pry social conservatives away from Rudy.
Good news! Wolfie's successor might be almost exactly the same as him! The Politico reminds us:
Ambassador Zoellick was chosen last year to oversee development of domestic and foreign policy for the McCain campaign.
and
The Washington Post, on March 18, 2005, when Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), now the director of the Office of Management and Budget, was named to succeed Zoellick as U.S. Trade Representative: “Although admired for his mastery of trade policy and strategy, Zoellick sometimes raised lawmakers' hackles and was disparaged by Democrats as a divisive figure.”
Well, it worked so well last time.
This Politico article is a great example of why polling is so limited. Note that Edwards' name recognition has actually gone down in the past four years, during which he's been campaigning.
How does that happen? Do people wake up one day and say, "Hey, who was that guy who ran for vice president, is championing poverty and gets $400 haircuts? Nope, can't remember."
What happens is people don't feel like giving an opinion because, as early as all this is, many people won't care about the election until after the 2008 World Series. They know who Edwards is, maybe, but they don't feel the need to know anything about him.
McCain vs. Obama: A symbiotic fight. Taking shots at each other actually helps both. Welcome to primary politics. Speaking of which, Rasmussen has Hillary back up by nine on Obama, but Romney has caught up to McCain. Woo hoo. Mitt '08: More Wives, Fewer Votes. Just kidding, he doesn't really support polygamy. So he'll have one wife, and maybe a couple more votes.
If the AG business has turned off Hispanic voters (who tend to be Republican), then Alberto could be way worse than a punchline for the GOP.
Rather than any type of case that Bush is actually a liberal, this Richard Cohen column is a testament to how screwed up the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become. Of course, by no standard definition could today's Republican Party be called "conservative."
This decision by the Supreme Court is not a shock, given the conservative slant the Bench has taken. Still, I think it's a fair one. The law says there's a time limit; if you can go back 19 years, what's the point of the limit? Of course, I'm all in favor of changing that law, but that's not the point in court cases.
If you're not aware of the research on how neuroscience sees morality, here's some news.
And here's George Will on just a few of the stupid things involved in the immigration bill debate. I tell you, Will's slipped a bit, but he still makes people look dumb better than almost anyone in the business, because he's still smarter than them.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Building Bombs:Immigration as George Will:Kerfuffle
The campaign news of the day is based around dueling memos, and Hillary's use of the word "kerfuffle." Here's the breakdown: A Hillary adviser circulated a memo advising her to skip Iowa, since Edwards and Obama are basically tied there, and, as I've said, it's weird politically and hard to predict, and her machine can do more work in later contest sites. Everyone says she's unlikely to take the advice, and she even laughed it off in some interviews and called it a "kerfuffle." But Iowa caucusgoers are strange political animals, and highly susceptible to feeling ignored or neglected. This is the type of thing that could annoy them, even though it's like a year ahead of time. And then Obama circulated his own memo in Iowa, outlining the fact that he's electable, and Hillary, in a word, is not.
Shockingly, young people are more liberal. Who would have guessed. Seriously, can we place a ban on columns like this? The hilarious thing is that she begins by criticizing people who say obvious things.
For those of you interested in the 71 million blogs out there, and how the major ones function, The Politico has started BlogJam, which will profile blog/gers throughout the year. No, I do not expect to be featured.
I guess it's Mike Bloomerg day at the Politico. Here's a pretty gratuitous column about why he wouldn't win if he runs. Of course, I don't think he'd win, but these reasons are so soft that it actually makes me think he has a better chance. And here's a report on the things he's doing that indicate he will run. And then a couple reporters take a look at the probable effects of a Bloomberg run.
George Will and Robert Novak write about immigration. As so often happens with Will these days, he kind of starts out aiming at a good point, and then turns back on himself and meanders, culminating with this stunningly odd pair of sentences (one short, one labyrinthine):
To those who say border control is impossible -- often these are the same people who said better policing could not substantially reduce crime, until it did -- one answer is: It took just 34 months for the Manhattan Project to progress from the creation of the town of Oak Ridge in the Tennessee wilderness to the atomic explosion at Alamogordo, N.M. That is what America accomplishes when it is serious.
So because we can build bombs and make scientists solve physics problems, we can police a 3,000-mile border? What? Does anyone see anything but the most tenuous connection here? His greater point is that we could police the border if we really want to. We could draft 300,000 people into service and stick them on the border. We could invest billions of dollars in building a series of high, dense, deep walls along the border, and then put the new draftees on top with rifles. Does anyone really doubt that we could do that? No, the question is: can we have secure borders and still do all the other things we want to do, like wage an expensive war with no end in Iraq? And Afghanistan. And have schools. Not to mention, there's a question of whether it's the right thing to do. Just like no one thought police couldn't solve crime; even the liberals Will hates so much agree that a martial law police state is very, very secure. It's just not ideal for other reasons. Anyway, the good part of Will's point is: we've never been real serious about immigration reform, and we're unlikely to start now.
I'm out for the long weekend. Thanks for reading, and please keep posting comments as the spirit moves you.
Shockingly, young people are more liberal. Who would have guessed. Seriously, can we place a ban on columns like this? The hilarious thing is that she begins by criticizing people who say obvious things.
For those of you interested in the 71 million blogs out there, and how the major ones function, The Politico has started BlogJam, which will profile blog/gers throughout the year. No, I do not expect to be featured.
I guess it's Mike Bloomerg day at the Politico. Here's a pretty gratuitous column about why he wouldn't win if he runs. Of course, I don't think he'd win, but these reasons are so soft that it actually makes me think he has a better chance. And here's a report on the things he's doing that indicate he will run. And then a couple reporters take a look at the probable effects of a Bloomberg run.
George Will and Robert Novak write about immigration. As so often happens with Will these days, he kind of starts out aiming at a good point, and then turns back on himself and meanders, culminating with this stunningly odd pair of sentences (one short, one labyrinthine):
To those who say border control is impossible -- often these are the same people who said better policing could not substantially reduce crime, until it did -- one answer is: It took just 34 months for the Manhattan Project to progress from the creation of the town of Oak Ridge in the Tennessee wilderness to the atomic explosion at Alamogordo, N.M. That is what America accomplishes when it is serious.
So because we can build bombs and make scientists solve physics problems, we can police a 3,000-mile border? What? Does anyone see anything but the most tenuous connection here? His greater point is that we could police the border if we really want to. We could draft 300,000 people into service and stick them on the border. We could invest billions of dollars in building a series of high, dense, deep walls along the border, and then put the new draftees on top with rifles. Does anyone really doubt that we could do that? No, the question is: can we have secure borders and still do all the other things we want to do, like wage an expensive war with no end in Iraq? And Afghanistan. And have schools. Not to mention, there's a question of whether it's the right thing to do. Just like no one thought police couldn't solve crime; even the liberals Will hates so much agree that a martial law police state is very, very secure. It's just not ideal for other reasons. Anyway, the good part of Will's point is: we've never been real serious about immigration reform, and we're unlikely to start now.
I'm out for the long weekend. Thanks for reading, and please keep posting comments as the spirit moves you.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
On Compromise
First, thanks to the good reporter at the Washington Post Express who put a quote from yesterday's post on the Express Bloglog. It's small, perhaps, but quite rewarding. And thanks to reader Nate for the heads up.
Second, I have listened to Mike and Mike in the morning for the last six months, but I had no idea they were this successful.
Okay, on to minor stuff, like the fact that the timeline from the Iraq bill is gone, as expected. They weren't going to get it through with "a surrender date" (one of those annoying scare tactic names the GOP attaches to anything they don't like, e.g. the "death tax," which they do much better than the other party), so they backed off and found a compromise brokered by a moderate Republican, John Warner (R-VA).
Between this and immigration and various other issues, something has occurred to me:
This is actually a great time to be a centrist. We're getting compromises on all issues, and the radical flanks are continuing to fail in their drive to control issues. They shape debate, as they should, but in the end the solutions tend to be a meeting in the middle, exactly as the system is designed to do. This way, the President is forced to agree to some limitations (not on his executive power, but on his war), the Dems get a higher minimum wage and some other social issue victories (all of which is related when we spend $120 billion on any investment), and we do nothing too crazy. No one's very happy, and that's a pretty good sign to me that the system (after 7 years of failing) is starting to work again.
As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) puts it:
"Both sides are in a position where neither can do something without the other. That's the reality."
Speaking of compromise, Dick Morris investigates why it's a good idea for Republicans, politically, to accept the one on immigration. Tom Curry cites evidence that it's a bad idea for the GOP. Ruben Navarette calls it "really a remarkable compromise, the likes of which you don't see often in Washington." Roger Ebert calls it "a thrill-packed joy ride" of legislation. Just kidding.
Stop Just Stop would like to thank Liz Sidoti of the AP for her contributions to the "Fred Thompson is going to run for president" awareness movement.
New Hampshire independents look like they're going to crash the Democratic side of the primary. People this is good for include: McCain, Romney, Obama and maybe Edwards.
The NYT has some more detail on the puzzling McCain-Romney feud. It makes sense to me: They both want conservatives. For either to win, the other needs to be gone. Rudy, they just need to hope, will fade.
And our Secretary of Education apparently cleaned up on Jon Stewart last night. From The Politico's Mike Allen:
Publicity coups are in short supply for the Bush administration these days, but Education Secretary Margaret Spellings nailed an appearance last night on “The Daily Show.” Jon Stewart said: “You are the only active member of our government, in terms of the executive branch, who is not allergic to me.” Laughter. Spellings: “So far, so good.” Applause.” Stewart: “So I’m delighted to have you.” The host gave her an apple, which they playfully pushed back and forth throughout the interview. He showed off No. 2 pencils and brandished a Lunchables, sipping from the CapriSun “juice beverage.” Spellings wedged in a serious, detailed plug for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act: “We have to expect more from our kids, and we have lowered the bar and lowered the bar. … What we’ve done with this law is peel the onion and bring to bear information about how well are we serving every single kid. And the answer is not well enough, by far these days. What we’re causing is anxiety with grownups, on behalf of kids. … We have to pay more attention to our high schools – No Child Left Behind is about our elementary and middle schools.” As a parting shot, Stewart asked the secretary: “Alberto Gonzales is to ‘I don’t recall’ as trees are to sunshine, oxygen or ‘I don’t recall.’?” With a broad wink and nod, Spellings replied to whoops and applause: “I don’t recall.” Stewart was clearly taken by her Texas sassiness, and apparently it was mutual. After the taping, Spellings was heard to say: “I’m smitten. He’s adorable.”
Rerun's at 2 pm today on Comedy Central, if you're not watching the Champions League Final.
And would somebody please tell Mr. Ahmadinejad that he can't make his country relevant by kidnapping random people for no reason? Iran is turning into the new Libya, always doing annoying, mostly pointless things just to aggravate us and make their radical base happy for ten minutes. There's an economic angle, too: every time we sabre-rattle, oil prices go up and Iran gets richer. But mostly, I think it's just playing gadfly.
The ABC Blotter reports that we're now doing covert things against Iran. Of course, the various rightwing pundits now want an entire network brought in for questioning and convicted of treason for reporting this. Me? I'm wondering why this is news. Shouldn't we have been trying to destabilize that government for a long time now? I mean, that's what you do with rivals, right? You play shadow games and try to undermine their power through political and economic ways. Is anyone unaware that we do not like Iran's government? Of course we're trying to weaken them. One of my big issues with the Iraq war is that it strengthened Iran, so I'm glad to hear that someone, somewhere is trying something. Also, that quote with a name attached to it is the kind of thing I'd do if I wanted someone to know we're doing something. Maybe this is a little chin music at Iran, a sort of "knock off the hostage games or we'll do some mean things." Who knows?
Also, a quick plug: www.politico.com has a whole series on "The Oversight Congress," about the investigations that the 110th has pursued against the White House and other offices. I recommend it if you're interested in how this whole effort has gone and will go.
Second, I have listened to Mike and Mike in the morning for the last six months, but I had no idea they were this successful.
Okay, on to minor stuff, like the fact that the timeline from the Iraq bill is gone, as expected. They weren't going to get it through with "a surrender date" (one of those annoying scare tactic names the GOP attaches to anything they don't like, e.g. the "death tax," which they do much better than the other party), so they backed off and found a compromise brokered by a moderate Republican, John Warner (R-VA).
Between this and immigration and various other issues, something has occurred to me:
This is actually a great time to be a centrist. We're getting compromises on all issues, and the radical flanks are continuing to fail in their drive to control issues. They shape debate, as they should, but in the end the solutions tend to be a meeting in the middle, exactly as the system is designed to do. This way, the President is forced to agree to some limitations (not on his executive power, but on his war), the Dems get a higher minimum wage and some other social issue victories (all of which is related when we spend $120 billion on any investment), and we do nothing too crazy. No one's very happy, and that's a pretty good sign to me that the system (after 7 years of failing) is starting to work again.
As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) puts it:
"Both sides are in a position where neither can do something without the other. That's the reality."
Speaking of compromise, Dick Morris investigates why it's a good idea for Republicans, politically, to accept the one on immigration. Tom Curry cites evidence that it's a bad idea for the GOP. Ruben Navarette calls it "really a remarkable compromise, the likes of which you don't see often in Washington." Roger Ebert calls it "a thrill-packed joy ride" of legislation. Just kidding.
Stop Just Stop would like to thank Liz Sidoti of the AP for her contributions to the "Fred Thompson is going to run for president" awareness movement.
New Hampshire independents look like they're going to crash the Democratic side of the primary. People this is good for include: McCain, Romney, Obama and maybe Edwards.
The NYT has some more detail on the puzzling McCain-Romney feud. It makes sense to me: They both want conservatives. For either to win, the other needs to be gone. Rudy, they just need to hope, will fade.
And our Secretary of Education apparently cleaned up on Jon Stewart last night. From The Politico's Mike Allen:
Publicity coups are in short supply for the Bush administration these days, but Education Secretary Margaret Spellings nailed an appearance last night on “The Daily Show.” Jon Stewart said: “You are the only active member of our government, in terms of the executive branch, who is not allergic to me.” Laughter. Spellings: “So far, so good.” Applause.” Stewart: “So I’m delighted to have you.” The host gave her an apple, which they playfully pushed back and forth throughout the interview. He showed off No. 2 pencils and brandished a Lunchables, sipping from the CapriSun “juice beverage.” Spellings wedged in a serious, detailed plug for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act: “We have to expect more from our kids, and we have lowered the bar and lowered the bar. … What we’ve done with this law is peel the onion and bring to bear information about how well are we serving every single kid. And the answer is not well enough, by far these days. What we’re causing is anxiety with grownups, on behalf of kids. … We have to pay more attention to our high schools – No Child Left Behind is about our elementary and middle schools.” As a parting shot, Stewart asked the secretary: “Alberto Gonzales is to ‘I don’t recall’ as trees are to sunshine, oxygen or ‘I don’t recall.’?” With a broad wink and nod, Spellings replied to whoops and applause: “I don’t recall.” Stewart was clearly taken by her Texas sassiness, and apparently it was mutual. After the taping, Spellings was heard to say: “I’m smitten. He’s adorable.”
Rerun's at 2 pm today on Comedy Central, if you're not watching the Champions League Final.
And would somebody please tell Mr. Ahmadinejad that he can't make his country relevant by kidnapping random people for no reason? Iran is turning into the new Libya, always doing annoying, mostly pointless things just to aggravate us and make their radical base happy for ten minutes. There's an economic angle, too: every time we sabre-rattle, oil prices go up and Iran gets richer. But mostly, I think it's just playing gadfly.
The ABC Blotter reports that we're now doing covert things against Iran. Of course, the various rightwing pundits now want an entire network brought in for questioning and convicted of treason for reporting this. Me? I'm wondering why this is news. Shouldn't we have been trying to destabilize that government for a long time now? I mean, that's what you do with rivals, right? You play shadow games and try to undermine their power through political and economic ways. Is anyone unaware that we do not like Iran's government? Of course we're trying to weaken them. One of my big issues with the Iraq war is that it strengthened Iran, so I'm glad to hear that someone, somewhere is trying something. Also, that quote with a name attached to it is the kind of thing I'd do if I wanted someone to know we're doing something. Maybe this is a little chin music at Iran, a sort of "knock off the hostage games or we'll do some mean things." Who knows?
Also, a quick plug: www.politico.com has a whole series on "The Oversight Congress," about the investigations that the 110th has pursued against the White House and other offices. I recommend it if you're interested in how this whole effort has gone and will go.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
We Salute You, Charles Sumner!
Happy Tuesday, on this anniversary of Charles Sumner's caning on the Senate Floor. Appropriately, the Democrats are celebrating by being lying, hypocritical jerks. Seriously, this is driving me effing crazy. Mostly, I'm pissed at myself for believing one lousy party was going to actually behave more ethically than the other. All I can say is that I hope their failure to regulate themselves goes just as badly as it did for the last batch of ethically challenged idiots.
I'm now hoping Edwards doesn't win the nomination. They've got him, just like they had John Kerry. As long as the Edwards campaign keeps going, we're going to keep finding stories like this. We're going to keep seeing them, because every high profile candidate has done things that involve making money, and large amounts of it. But Edwards and his weird I-wish-I-were-William Jennings Bryan populism has opened the door to investigate every thing he's ever done that show's he's rich. News flash: He's done a lot of them. No matter his virtues, he's going to be the well-coiffed rich guy slumming it in the primary.
How useless is Iowa? The GOP frontrunner is going to ignore it. If he's smart, he will, because the state leans conservative and is utterly useless to Rudy. Of course, his campaign insists that he isn't that smart.
The Giuliani campaign tells [Politico] Playbook the former New York mayor intends to compete in Iowa and has shown it with his actions: “It would be rather silly for us to spend the candidate’s time and campaign money on staff, office space, etc. in Iowa if we didn't intend to play there.”
With the compacted primary schedule, Iowa won't matter that much to Rudy, if he sets the expectations the right way. The worst thing he could do would be to try and win, fail miserably, and create a momentum opening for someone else.
I still believe that Richardson doesn't have the money or machine to make a real run, but he keeps ticking up. And he's a much more charming underdog than Edwards. And at this point in 1991, William Clinton was someone no one had heard of, barely in single digits in polls. Maybe I sold my favorite candidate (at the moment) short. Money's weird; if Bill starts clearing double digits (which he is in Iowa right now), money could start coming a little faster. And he was the biggest raiser not in the top three.
Chris Van Hollen is the man who replaces Rahm Emmanuel as the head of the DCCC, and he has a tougher act to pull: defending a new wave majority. He's starting early. Although I think that strategy is probably going to be less important than strong candidates, GOP screwups and national feelings.
Meanwhile, the immigration bill looks like it's on real shaky ground. Maybe my coin flip prognosis was way too optimistic.
This could be the new evangelical movement: Pro-environment, anti-poverty, warm, fuzzy and anti-secularism. It's a lot nicer than the crazy Satan-obsessed one of the last generation, and a lot more dangerous to separation of church and state.
I'm now hoping Edwards doesn't win the nomination. They've got him, just like they had John Kerry. As long as the Edwards campaign keeps going, we're going to keep finding stories like this. We're going to keep seeing them, because every high profile candidate has done things that involve making money, and large amounts of it. But Edwards and his weird I-wish-I-were-William Jennings Bryan populism has opened the door to investigate every thing he's ever done that show's he's rich. News flash: He's done a lot of them. No matter his virtues, he's going to be the well-coiffed rich guy slumming it in the primary.
How useless is Iowa? The GOP frontrunner is going to ignore it. If he's smart, he will, because the state leans conservative and is utterly useless to Rudy. Of course, his campaign insists that he isn't that smart.
The Giuliani campaign tells [Politico] Playbook the former New York mayor intends to compete in Iowa and has shown it with his actions: “It would be rather silly for us to spend the candidate’s time and campaign money on staff, office space, etc. in Iowa if we didn't intend to play there.”
With the compacted primary schedule, Iowa won't matter that much to Rudy, if he sets the expectations the right way. The worst thing he could do would be to try and win, fail miserably, and create a momentum opening for someone else.
I still believe that Richardson doesn't have the money or machine to make a real run, but he keeps ticking up. And he's a much more charming underdog than Edwards. And at this point in 1991, William Clinton was someone no one had heard of, barely in single digits in polls. Maybe I sold my favorite candidate (at the moment) short. Money's weird; if Bill starts clearing double digits (which he is in Iowa right now), money could start coming a little faster. And he was the biggest raiser not in the top three.
Chris Van Hollen is the man who replaces Rahm Emmanuel as the head of the DCCC, and he has a tougher act to pull: defending a new wave majority. He's starting early. Although I think that strategy is probably going to be less important than strong candidates, GOP screwups and national feelings.
Meanwhile, the immigration bill looks like it's on real shaky ground. Maybe my coin flip prognosis was way too optimistic.
This could be the new evangelical movement: Pro-environment, anti-poverty, warm, fuzzy and anti-secularism. It's a lot nicer than the crazy Satan-obsessed one of the last generation, and a lot more dangerous to separation of church and state.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Immigration Special
As we begin our short march toward the long Memorial Day weekend, I am struggling to understand this immigration debate. Before I wade in, I feel the need to disclose my two major feelings about immigration:
1. I don't see why this became a big deal so quickly; to me, immigration has been one of the few things in this country that has actually functioned well on its own, without a ton of regulation. They need jobs, we need workers. I've never seen compelling evidence that the crush of migrant workers on our services is bankrupting the country.
2. I am an ardent foe of isolationism, as much as a person can be a foe of a concept. While I understand a nation's duty to protect its own interest, America is, first and foremost, a country of immigrants. Our entire history is immigration. Anyone who wants to keep people out of the country, unless he or she is pureblood Native American, I think is pretty massively hypocritical. It's like pulling up the ladder once you're in the treehouse, just because you happened to be first. Also, look back on eras of isolationism in history, and see if any of them are times to be proud of.
All that said, I do see the security issue. And the fairness one. If we're really looking for secure borders and equitable practices, it makes sense that we at least have some policy. Not that we don't now (see #1).
And I think any discussion of immigration without a major discussion of Latin American economics and politics is pretty stupid. This is common sense: If your home stinks, you will try to go somewhere better. And, if the discrepancy is big enough, no fence or guard will stop you.
Okay, so, my efforts have yielded this:
Read at least the first page of this Politico article detailing the history of "chain migration" policy, which was laughed out of Congress 12 months ago, but is now a major part of the bill. Rather than providing grown children and siblings with clear paths to immigration, and focusing on family members, the new bill takes a very businesslike approach: Let in the people that will help society the most; the ones with skills or who already speak some English, etc. Still, one can read this story and have no idea how to feel about the bill, if you don't already know. Where does one turn when this happens? The Washington Post, maybe.
There is little doubt about how grass-roots organizations feel about a bipartisan immigration compromise reached in the Senate: They don't like it.
Read the story, though, and the "grass-roots" platform is basically: Let everyone in. And their sisters. And their cousins. And if they have friends, let them in, too.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to fly. But there's a good point on page two, from Eun Sook Lee, executive director of the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium:
"If we take out the future family program" that allows sponsorship, she said, "we will be creating another problem. People will continue to come without documentation. People want to be with their family members. It's something you can't kill."
Bringing me back to my original thought: We have shown zero ability to stop this, and it doesn't appear to be killing anyone, so why are we spending so much time and money on it? There's also the good point that rewarding workers and English speakers is a pretty big stiff-arm to Asian and African immigrants. Although would more of those (especially the African ones) qualify for asylum?I would think so, at least more than people from Latin America, where we never officially acknowledge that anything is wrong. Though good luck trying to get asylum if you're from the Middle East.
Back to the bill: my gut reaction is to like anything that pisses off both sides of extremists this much. I'm a centrist, I believe in compromise, and this appears to be the best kind: one that makes no one totally happy, myself included. I like the utilitarian approach of rewarding those who will help the country most, I like letting other grown adults immigrate on their own, I like giving those already here legal status (that, incidentally, is what Mitt and Tancredo and some others are calling "amnesty," even though it's not). I don't like lots of money on border security, where it's basically a waste, I don't like the cutting down of any type of immigration, I don't like pretending we can stop families from being together. But whatever, it's a compromise, and that's what they're supposed to be.
So what are its chances? Everyone says slim. The White House felt the need to defend the compromise agreement 29 hours after it was released. Sadly, the state of the White House is such that I don't consider anything in this document useful, because I have no idea what to believe from them, but the fact that we got two days before royal defense was needed is notable. On the other hand, everyone is saying how fragile this is, and they're saying it so much, that I am forced to assume it's at least partly posturing. No Senator running for office is going to vote for it, I imagine, but I'd still give it a 50-50 shot to pass in some form.
If you know a lot about immigration and this bill, and you want to correct me or add to this, please, please, PLEASE leave a comment. I admit to not having a perfect command of this issue.
From my good friend Cari comes this great story on Hillary's six years on Wal Mart's board of directors. It's one she doesn't make a big deal of, probably because of Wal Mart's hated rep among liberals and their, well, evil business practices (yes, I hate the way Wal Mart operates; that's why I'm a Costco member). But the biggest thing is that she wasn't big on their union-unfriendly practices. To reprise, Hillary, while working on Wal Mart's board, didn't help unions. It's like reading a Charlie Kaufmann script; there's just no likable character.
Mitt Romney has taken the lead in Iowa caucus polls, proving how useless the Iowa caucuses are. Also, I predict that seven other candidates will lead the GOP field in Iowa in some poll between now and the caucuses, proving how impossible it is to poll a caucus. At least the Dem field is all within the margin of each other, so we admit we have no idea there.
Bill Richardson will announce today that he is Hispanic - and running for president.
And Bernie Kerik does some damage control for his buddy Rudy.
1. I don't see why this became a big deal so quickly; to me, immigration has been one of the few things in this country that has actually functioned well on its own, without a ton of regulation. They need jobs, we need workers. I've never seen compelling evidence that the crush of migrant workers on our services is bankrupting the country.
2. I am an ardent foe of isolationism, as much as a person can be a foe of a concept. While I understand a nation's duty to protect its own interest, America is, first and foremost, a country of immigrants. Our entire history is immigration. Anyone who wants to keep people out of the country, unless he or she is pureblood Native American, I think is pretty massively hypocritical. It's like pulling up the ladder once you're in the treehouse, just because you happened to be first. Also, look back on eras of isolationism in history, and see if any of them are times to be proud of.
All that said, I do see the security issue. And the fairness one. If we're really looking for secure borders and equitable practices, it makes sense that we at least have some policy. Not that we don't now (see #1).
And I think any discussion of immigration without a major discussion of Latin American economics and politics is pretty stupid. This is common sense: If your home stinks, you will try to go somewhere better. And, if the discrepancy is big enough, no fence or guard will stop you.
Okay, so, my efforts have yielded this:
Read at least the first page of this Politico article detailing the history of "chain migration" policy, which was laughed out of Congress 12 months ago, but is now a major part of the bill. Rather than providing grown children and siblings with clear paths to immigration, and focusing on family members, the new bill takes a very businesslike approach: Let in the people that will help society the most; the ones with skills or who already speak some English, etc. Still, one can read this story and have no idea how to feel about the bill, if you don't already know. Where does one turn when this happens? The Washington Post, maybe.
There is little doubt about how grass-roots organizations feel about a bipartisan immigration compromise reached in the Senate: They don't like it.
Read the story, though, and the "grass-roots" platform is basically: Let everyone in. And their sisters. And their cousins. And if they have friends, let them in, too.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to fly. But there's a good point on page two, from Eun Sook Lee, executive director of the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium:
"If we take out the future family program" that allows sponsorship, she said, "we will be creating another problem. People will continue to come without documentation. People want to be with their family members. It's something you can't kill."
Bringing me back to my original thought: We have shown zero ability to stop this, and it doesn't appear to be killing anyone, so why are we spending so much time and money on it? There's also the good point that rewarding workers and English speakers is a pretty big stiff-arm to Asian and African immigrants. Although would more of those (especially the African ones) qualify for asylum?I would think so, at least more than people from Latin America, where we never officially acknowledge that anything is wrong. Though good luck trying to get asylum if you're from the Middle East.
Back to the bill: my gut reaction is to like anything that pisses off both sides of extremists this much. I'm a centrist, I believe in compromise, and this appears to be the best kind: one that makes no one totally happy, myself included. I like the utilitarian approach of rewarding those who will help the country most, I like letting other grown adults immigrate on their own, I like giving those already here legal status (that, incidentally, is what Mitt and Tancredo and some others are calling "amnesty," even though it's not). I don't like lots of money on border security, where it's basically a waste, I don't like the cutting down of any type of immigration, I don't like pretending we can stop families from being together. But whatever, it's a compromise, and that's what they're supposed to be.
So what are its chances? Everyone says slim. The White House felt the need to defend the compromise agreement 29 hours after it was released. Sadly, the state of the White House is such that I don't consider anything in this document useful, because I have no idea what to believe from them, but the fact that we got two days before royal defense was needed is notable. On the other hand, everyone is saying how fragile this is, and they're saying it so much, that I am forced to assume it's at least partly posturing. No Senator running for office is going to vote for it, I imagine, but I'd still give it a 50-50 shot to pass in some form.
If you know a lot about immigration and this bill, and you want to correct me or add to this, please, please, PLEASE leave a comment. I admit to not having a perfect command of this issue.
From my good friend Cari comes this great story on Hillary's six years on Wal Mart's board of directors. It's one she doesn't make a big deal of, probably because of Wal Mart's hated rep among liberals and their, well, evil business practices (yes, I hate the way Wal Mart operates; that's why I'm a Costco member). But the biggest thing is that she wasn't big on their union-unfriendly practices. To reprise, Hillary, while working on Wal Mart's board, didn't help unions. It's like reading a Charlie Kaufmann script; there's just no likable character.
Mitt Romney has taken the lead in Iowa caucus polls, proving how useless the Iowa caucuses are. Also, I predict that seven other candidates will lead the GOP field in Iowa in some poll between now and the caucuses, proving how impossible it is to poll a caucus. At least the Dem field is all within the margin of each other, so we admit we have no idea there.
Bill Richardson will announce today that he is Hispanic - and running for president.
And Bernie Kerik does some damage control for his buddy Rudy.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Friday reading
So my boy Richardson apparently is indulging in some trendy accounting practices that might not be entirely within the spirit of campaign finance law. Here's the thing: I used to be in favor of campaign finance laws. Then I learned about politics and worked on a campaign. Now I'm against them, because all they do is force candidates to get creative, which it looks like Bill is doing. The spirit of any meaningful campaign finance reform is either free air time or obliteration of the first amendment, so I say: Screw all the letters of the law and just accept that money (and not all that much of it, considering) is part of the game now. Money, after all, does have something to do with running the country. Why not let them play with a few hundred million before they get there?
EJ Dionne, who once hit on Barbara Boxer, waxes poetic about the death of the old, beatable Republican Party.
The Post's editorial board hits Bush hard over his alleged conversation with Ashcroft.
More on the Dems and the race race.
Wolfie's out, will Gonzo be next?
Chris Cillizza sees some hope for GOP Senators
There's a lot of criticism for the immigration bill, but here's are some reasons it doesn't suck.
And I am finding myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan wayyyyy too often for my comfort. But here we go again, this time in complete agreement about Ron Paul and Rudy.
EJ Dionne, who once hit on Barbara Boxer, waxes poetic about the death of the old, beatable Republican Party.
The Post's editorial board hits Bush hard over his alleged conversation with Ashcroft.
More on the Dems and the race race.
Wolfie's out, will Gonzo be next?
Chris Cillizza sees some hope for GOP Senators
There's a lot of criticism for the immigration bill, but here's are some reasons it doesn't suck.
And I am finding myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan wayyyyy too often for my comfort. But here we go again, this time in complete agreement about Ron Paul and Rudy.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
And we're back
Sorry for the time off; I was playing my small part in the political upheaval of Pittsburgh. Three old guard city councilpeople out, in favor of three "progressive" Dems. Big day for Steel City activism.
But the upshot of my time off appears to be... not a whole lot. Still waiting for final word on Iraq, Gonzo and Wolfie still around, no major movement in polls, etc. Not even that much great reporting, but here are a few notes:
Here's a moment you missed because you had something better to do than watch the second Republican debate. It was a great moment for Giuliani, because any time someone mentions the September 11, 2001 attack and says it shows flaws in our policies, he just acts outraged and does his "I lived through 9-11. 9-11, 9-11 9-11. 9-11 9-11 9-11, 9-11 9-11," spiel. Then people applaud and he looks strong. What's utterly terrifying about this is that Ron Paul is right; part of the reason for the attacks was our sanctions and first war in Iraq. I know this because I am psychic. And because OSAMA BIN LADEN TOLD US in his speech responding to Bush's post-9-11 speech (it was never aired, of course, but it was brief and laid out very specific desires). Now, one can argue that Osama was lying, or (as I would) that his desire is not a good reason to leave Iraq. Osama also wants us out of Saudi Arabia and to stop supporting Israel, but I don't advocate that. But Rudy just calls an accurate assessment absurd, because he doesn't like the idea that a vast and sophisticated network bent on destroying us has anything to do with us. Isn't smart policy based on an understanding of the risks and rewards of decisions, rather than just denial of the risks we don't like? But when someone suggests we acknowledge that our presence in Iraq does motivate Al-Qaeda to some extent, Rudy calls him crazy. The GOP frontrunner, ladies and gentlemen, and his national security credentials.
It is looking more and more like Chuck Hagel and Mike Bloomberg could be an independent ticket in '08. And the Politico's Elizabeth Wilner knows who to blame: Rudy.
Of all the unlikely places for help to come to the Dems... the Iraqi parliament? Seriously? It's backed by Sadr, so it probably won't work. But still, I'll be watching that vote.
Want a solid column about racial equality? Well, who better to turn to than a repressed white Southern reactionary, since they've always been the voice of reason on these issues? This article is based on an interesting case, which found that a white teacher being heckled by her students using racial and sexist slurs was subjected to a hostile and racist work environment. School administrators at Brentwood MS (Charleston, SC) told her they couldn't just make the kids behave better, and that it was part of the culture. It's right at this point in Ms. Parker's reporting that the wheels come off her oh-so-shoddy wagon. (Editor's note: She uses the word "tyranny" to mean "something I dislike" throughout this column, so just ignore the fact that the sentence doesn't make sense.)
Back in the day, if a student talked the way these did, he or she would have received a well-deserved thwack, been suspended and sent home to face the wrath of his or her father. That process likely would have put a swift end to the tribal tyranny now often tolerated in the service of self-esteem.
Obviously, what's missing from the lives of poor black students is brutality. If only there was a little more violence in their experiences, they'd be better adjusted. So many people concerned about the self-esteem of these black children that they're just not polite. Thank goodness Kathleen's here to help us out.
Do I agree that an established "culture" excuses cruelty? No. Do I think the settlement's fine? Sure. Do I also think that Brentwood might have some problems more pressing than the profanity employed by its students? Absolutely. And do I think that beating the children would help? Well, let's just say funding some after-school programs would be an option I'd explore first.
And as for Ms. Parker's claim that, had the races been reversed, the teacher would be a rock star, and those whiny New York Times liberals would keep her on the front page, and Al and Jesse would be all over it, well... I'll be willing to bet that there are plenty of black teachers who face racism in school districts (Teach for America, anyone?), and they either 1. Stop teaching in rural Mississippi or 2. Tough it out because they believe in what they're doing and at least a few of the kids. But my guess is that, having faced racism before, they're slightly more prepared for the reality that some people are jerks, and so they don't always sue someone when they get called names.
But then, my teachers never beat me up when I was a kid, so I'm just as self-esteem-focused and tyrannical as those kids.
But the upshot of my time off appears to be... not a whole lot. Still waiting for final word on Iraq, Gonzo and Wolfie still around, no major movement in polls, etc. Not even that much great reporting, but here are a few notes:
Here's a moment you missed because you had something better to do than watch the second Republican debate. It was a great moment for Giuliani, because any time someone mentions the September 11, 2001 attack and says it shows flaws in our policies, he just acts outraged and does his "I lived through 9-11. 9-11, 9-11 9-11. 9-11 9-11 9-11, 9-11 9-11," spiel. Then people applaud and he looks strong. What's utterly terrifying about this is that Ron Paul is right; part of the reason for the attacks was our sanctions and first war in Iraq. I know this because I am psychic. And because OSAMA BIN LADEN TOLD US in his speech responding to Bush's post-9-11 speech (it was never aired, of course, but it was brief and laid out very specific desires). Now, one can argue that Osama was lying, or (as I would) that his desire is not a good reason to leave Iraq. Osama also wants us out of Saudi Arabia and to stop supporting Israel, but I don't advocate that. But Rudy just calls an accurate assessment absurd, because he doesn't like the idea that a vast and sophisticated network bent on destroying us has anything to do with us. Isn't smart policy based on an understanding of the risks and rewards of decisions, rather than just denial of the risks we don't like? But when someone suggests we acknowledge that our presence in Iraq does motivate Al-Qaeda to some extent, Rudy calls him crazy. The GOP frontrunner, ladies and gentlemen, and his national security credentials.
It is looking more and more like Chuck Hagel and Mike Bloomberg could be an independent ticket in '08. And the Politico's Elizabeth Wilner knows who to blame: Rudy.
Of all the unlikely places for help to come to the Dems... the Iraqi parliament? Seriously? It's backed by Sadr, so it probably won't work. But still, I'll be watching that vote.
Want a solid column about racial equality? Well, who better to turn to than a repressed white Southern reactionary, since they've always been the voice of reason on these issues? This article is based on an interesting case, which found that a white teacher being heckled by her students using racial and sexist slurs was subjected to a hostile and racist work environment. School administrators at Brentwood MS (Charleston, SC) told her they couldn't just make the kids behave better, and that it was part of the culture. It's right at this point in Ms. Parker's reporting that the wheels come off her oh-so-shoddy wagon. (Editor's note: She uses the word "tyranny" to mean "something I dislike" throughout this column, so just ignore the fact that the sentence doesn't make sense.)
Back in the day, if a student talked the way these did, he or she would have received a well-deserved thwack, been suspended and sent home to face the wrath of his or her father. That process likely would have put a swift end to the tribal tyranny now often tolerated in the service of self-esteem.
Obviously, what's missing from the lives of poor black students is brutality. If only there was a little more violence in their experiences, they'd be better adjusted. So many people concerned about the self-esteem of these black children that they're just not polite. Thank goodness Kathleen's here to help us out.
Do I agree that an established "culture" excuses cruelty? No. Do I think the settlement's fine? Sure. Do I also think that Brentwood might have some problems more pressing than the profanity employed by its students? Absolutely. And do I think that beating the children would help? Well, let's just say funding some after-school programs would be an option I'd explore first.
And as for Ms. Parker's claim that, had the races been reversed, the teacher would be a rock star, and those whiny New York Times liberals would keep her on the front page, and Al and Jesse would be all over it, well... I'll be willing to bet that there are plenty of black teachers who face racism in school districts (Teach for America, anyone?), and they either 1. Stop teaching in rural Mississippi or 2. Tough it out because they believe in what they're doing and at least a few of the kids. But my guess is that, having faced racism before, they're slightly more prepared for the reality that some people are jerks, and so they don't always sue someone when they get called names.
But then, my teachers never beat me up when I was a kid, so I'm just as self-esteem-focused and tyrannical as those kids.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Obama takes the (statistically insignificant) lead
And it continues, at least according to Rasmussen. A-Rod's not the only one who had a great April.
When Michael Wolff writes, you should listen. In Vanity Fair, he writes the Catch-22 story of Rudy Giuliani : Here we have a man who is possibly clinically insane, but who may very well become president, because people assume that no crazy person can be president. IF YOU ARE EVEN THINKING OF VOTING FOR RUDY, READ THIS FIRST.
In other terrifying Rudy news, this is from the latest Rasmussen tracking:
Giuliani is seen as politically moderate by 49% of all voters. Twenty-eight percent (28%) see him as politically conservative. By a 68% to 19% margin, Republicans see Giuliani as politically moderate. Democrats are more evenly divided. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of those in Nancy Pelosi's party see the Republican frontrunner as politically conservative while 36% say he's politically moderate. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 47% see Giuliani as a moderate while 24% say conservative.
Just for the record, Giuliani is the closest thing we have to Bush in the race right now. He believes that, if he wants, he should be able to throw anyone in jail for no reason, with no review. He believes the war in Iraq, the Bush tax plan, and the government spying on its citizens are all good ideas that we should keep. And people think he's moderate. If you like Rudy and want to vote for him, fine, but do it because he's a fascist and you think that's the way to go, not because you think he's somehow moderate, politically.
And I'm pretty convinced that Fred Thompson is going to run, and that Newt then won't. This NYT article, courtesy of the girlfriend and others, is just more evidence. My (very) early prediction for the GOP ticket: Thompson/Giuliani. In which case, the Dems should be (very) afraid.
Unless, that is, we get ourselves with such lousy candidates that someone is inspired to mount an independent campaign. Someone, say, like the divorced, Jewish mayor of New York. Let's do a hypothetical here and say it was a Bloomberg/Rendell ticket. Could it really not win? I guess. But really? What if it were Bloomberg/Corzine, two guys so wealthy they could fund the thing themselves? Could they get 25%? What about 30%? What about 35%? Okay, that's almost a plurality.
This just in: Bush hates education . Seriously, the Iraq war has been bad and all, and he displays no awareness of the world around him, but to me, Bush's legacy will likely be two words that start with E: He has been the worst president in history for education and the environment.
And it's not like the GOP can't get it turned around in 18 months, but seriously. Where is the leadership of this party whipping people into shape? This is just depressing. The Dems are supposed to be the ones with no discipline! And then there's resignation possibilities in a competitive district, and posts with sentences like this:
It's generally a bad sign when a sitting member of Congress is fighting off resignation rumors less than a week after the FBI raids your wife's business in connection with an ongoing investigation.
Well put, Chris Cillizza.
When Michael Wolff writes, you should listen. In Vanity Fair, he writes the Catch-22 story of Rudy Giuliani : Here we have a man who is possibly clinically insane, but who may very well become president, because people assume that no crazy person can be president. IF YOU ARE EVEN THINKING OF VOTING FOR RUDY, READ THIS FIRST.
In other terrifying Rudy news, this is from the latest Rasmussen tracking:
Giuliani is seen as politically moderate by 49% of all voters. Twenty-eight percent (28%) see him as politically conservative. By a 68% to 19% margin, Republicans see Giuliani as politically moderate. Democrats are more evenly divided. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of those in Nancy Pelosi's party see the Republican frontrunner as politically conservative while 36% say he's politically moderate. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 47% see Giuliani as a moderate while 24% say conservative.
Just for the record, Giuliani is the closest thing we have to Bush in the race right now. He believes that, if he wants, he should be able to throw anyone in jail for no reason, with no review. He believes the war in Iraq, the Bush tax plan, and the government spying on its citizens are all good ideas that we should keep. And people think he's moderate. If you like Rudy and want to vote for him, fine, but do it because he's a fascist and you think that's the way to go, not because you think he's somehow moderate, politically.
And I'm pretty convinced that Fred Thompson is going to run, and that Newt then won't. This NYT article, courtesy of the girlfriend and others, is just more evidence. My (very) early prediction for the GOP ticket: Thompson/Giuliani. In which case, the Dems should be (very) afraid.
Unless, that is, we get ourselves with such lousy candidates that someone is inspired to mount an independent campaign. Someone, say, like the divorced, Jewish mayor of New York. Let's do a hypothetical here and say it was a Bloomberg/Rendell ticket. Could it really not win? I guess. But really? What if it were Bloomberg/Corzine, two guys so wealthy they could fund the thing themselves? Could they get 25%? What about 30%? What about 35%? Okay, that's almost a plurality.
This just in: Bush hates education . Seriously, the Iraq war has been bad and all, and he displays no awareness of the world around him, but to me, Bush's legacy will likely be two words that start with E: He has been the worst president in history for education and the environment.
And it's not like the GOP can't get it turned around in 18 months, but seriously. Where is the leadership of this party whipping people into shape? This is just depressing. The Dems are supposed to be the ones with no discipline! And then there's resignation possibilities in a competitive district, and posts with sentences like this:
It's generally a bad sign when a sitting member of Congress is fighting off resignation rumors less than a week after the FBI raids your wife's business in connection with an ongoing investigation.
Well put, Chris Cillizza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
