The bogus CW on immigration crumbles.

[Thanks to alert reader T.S.] ... 5:37 P.M. link

Thursday, May 18, 2006

James Brady writes that Rupert Murdoch is throwing his media muscle behind Hillary Clinton because he "is a good handicapper and he smells a winner."

Just why people at the Times hadn't long ago figured this out, I can't say. Any assiduous reader of the New York Post over the last year or so could read into the paper's stories about Hillary Clinton--their placement, their number, their tone--a political sea change, a shift in coverage.

Coming soon: Hillary mini-balls! ... [via Romenesko] 6:58 P.M.

John Huey knows how to  lay it on thick: "Jim's been putting out a pretty good magazine." At least that didn't come off as condescending! ... 6:02 P.M.

Fencing Logic:  More miles = fewer deaths? The A.P. reports--

"We don't think you fence off the entire border," Snow told reporters aboard Air Force One. But, he added, "there are places when fences are appropriate."

The Senate was following the lead of the House, which passed a bill last year that would have constructed 700 miles of fencing.

Bush has talked repeatedly about building fences along the border in urban areas, but told CNN Espanol in March that "it's impractical to fence off the border."

If you put a fence only in "urban areas," doesn't that mean would-be illegals will seek to cross the border in more remote, rural areas, where more will die of thirst and exposure? Is that a humane result? We want to discourage desperate foreigners from even making the attempt, which means a fence in rural areas as well as urban areas, no? You could even argue a fence in rural areas is more "appropriate." (We have policemen to patrol urban areas. It's the hundreds of miles of desert where you need a fence.)

The logic of extension seems inescapable. The U.S., in this sense, is an attractive nuisance like a swimming pool. If you want to keep neighborhood children [or adults!] from using the pool, and possibly drowning, you don't partially fence it in. You completely fence it in. ... Full funding for full fencing! ... P.S.: Sure, Bush has said "it's impractical to fence off the border." But earlier this week he wasn't willing to flatly endorse even the 320 miles the Senate supported. Today he was. Give him time. He's caving fast! Nation-building in Iraq was a lot more "impractical." ... 5:19 P.M. link

New BushSpeech Poll--Sorry, JPod! John Podhoretz has been crowing  about a CNN poll showing that "79 percent of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of [Monday's] speech." But that's of those who watched. According to Scott Rasmussen's  day-after robo-poll of those who watched and those who didn't, only