The shame of NBC.

A mostly political Weblog.
April 20 2007 4:24 PM

Brian Williams or Don Imus?

Who did more damage? It's not even close.

(Continued from Page 5)

Thursday, Ap ril 12, 2007

That's the best she can do? The "shock and awe" approach--in which the enemy gets intimidated by an initial offensive flurry--will probably work as well for the alleged D.C. madam  as it did in Iraq. ... Or maybe the theory has once again simply been misapplied, with the choice of an insufficiently shock-inspiring target. ... 9:54 P.M.

Hugh Hewitt's after-action report on our recent radio debate tends to confirm my suspicions about him. He seems to think the "prospects of an amnesty light bill" are so strong opponents need to settle for some minimum demands. Here are his:

I would think a bill that mandated rapid construction of the 700 miles of double-fencing, significantly hiked fines on employers paying illegals who could not mount an affirmative defense based upon a tamper-proof ID, and the stipulation that citizenship could never be available to anyone who had entered the country illegally and who had either not returned to their country of origin for a legal entry that was separated by a period of at least some months from their exit or had served in the military.  I think it might also be possible to insist on a constitutional amendment being sent to the states on the subject of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. [E.A.]

This isn't a serious list. It would allow immediate legalization of all current illegal immigrants, as long as it stopped short of full "citizenship." Meanwhile we wouldn't find out if Hugh's "tamper-proof ID" and double-fence and increased fines actually worked until the next wave of illegals--smart enough to realize that those in the previous wave had just been amply rewarded-- tested them. ...

Advertisement

P.S.: I suspect Hewitt's spooked** about the inevitablity of an "amnesty light" bill passing. See Kate O'Beirne for the contrasting assessment. (She stresses that "border security — not amnesty — was popular on the campaign trail last year.") It's entirely possible a bill will fail because it's opposed from both sides--by anti-amnesty conservatives and pro-amnesty pols who think it doesn't go far enough. Happens all the time. (It happened to Nixon's equally misguided guaranteed-income plan, for example.) Just because 60 Senators favor some sort of amnesty doesn't mean 60 Senators will vote for the same bill, especially if they decide a stalemate that they can rail against is in their interest. It doesn't mean they won't. But Hewitt's analysis is too crude. ...

P.P.S.: Hewitt also worries that the threat of terrorists sneaking across the border with WMD's is so great we need to accept semi-amnesty to get tougher border control--as if you couldn't have the latter without the former. Is Bush holding "homeland security" hostage until he can get his amnesty?

**--Spooked or Spooker? I'm assuming Hewitt's sincere and doesn't want a bill to pass just to help the GOP in the next election (though he admits that's a factor). ... 1:54 P.M.

Wednesday, Ap ril 11, 2007

Ben Smith of Politico wonders   why no anti-immigrant-amnesty presidential candidate has emerged on the Democratic side.

Whether any Democrat will attempt to gain an advantage by tapping into these currents within the party, or whether they'll remain unified around proposals to offer illegal immigrants access to citizenship, remains an open question.