Keeping Up With .... the Bush Immigration Debacle!
1) "What's their alternative?" House Republicans are planning to push improvements in border security, including in the "system that verifies the identities of those applying for employment. But (as predicted!) some House Democrats are still talking about taking on the whole comprehensive furball (i.e. inclusing semi-amnesty for illegals already here). It's not over. [See also Influence Peddler ] ...
2) The NYT cites the following quote as an example of the "heated rhetoric" that alienates Latino voters from Republicans:
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading opponent of the measure, at one point in the debate, said, "The bill would provide amnesty and a path to citizenship for people who broke into our country by running past the National Guard."
Vicious! They're going to have to do better than that if they're going to paint opponents as anti-Hispanic bigots. (Heck, I can do better than that.) ... P.S.: It seems to me that the people proclaiming most loudly that the Republicans were anti-Hispanic were named Linda Chavez, John McCain, George Bush and Mel Martinez, playing the "nativist" card in a desperate attempt to save their bill. Did they do their party any favors? ...
3) During the immigration debate, the number of self-identified Republicans increased for the first time in 2007, reports Rasmussen:
The immigration debate appears to have helped the Republican Party while hurting the President and other supporters of the "comprehensive" reform legislation. Prior to the debate, 47% of voters trusted Democrats more on the immigration issue. Following the failure of the Senate bill, just 39% trust the Democrats more on the issue. In fact, among unaffiliated voters, Republicans are now trusted more than the Democrats on immigration. The only other issue where the GOP can make that claim is national security.
5:35 P.M. link
Looks like eccentric lone blogger Luke Ford was more trustworthy than L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. (Midwife to BS: The LAT!) ... Update:LAObserved has ongoing coverage. And Ford is still dishing. ... 4:32 P.M. link
Giuliani raises $15 million and he's doing great. McCain raises $11.5 million and he's on MSM Deathwatch? I don't get it. ... So McCain spent a lot and now has to cut back. McCain's problem isn't money. It's immigration, and the way he presented his position with a toxic combination of self-righteousness and dissembling. At least he's not running on "character"! ... Oh wait.3:48 P.M.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Bob Shrum gave a non-canned talk at a local party for his book two weekends ago: One of the mildly contrarian things he said--that it was crazy to write Obama off--is now CW, thanks to the intervening release of this quarter's fundraising totals. Another resonant point isn't yet CW, though--he argued that all the Democratic health care plans are too complicated, that whoever is the Dem candidate should just say he or she plans to let everyone join Medicare and leave it at that. People know Medicare. It's hard to attack Medicare as "socialized medicine." ... P.S.: I've never quite understood why this politically appealing position is fatally flawed on policy grounds. (If there are problems with Medicare, fix them! Surely they need to be fixed even if the program doesn't get extended to younger Americans.) ... 2:01 A.M. link
Paranoid's Corner:The Wall Street Journal's instinctive assumption that some monied group must have been sponsoring those anti-comprehensive YouTube ads ("Just who sponsors Hot Air's ad, and other similar ads popping up across the Internet, is unclear") initially seemed a hilarious, telling, near-watershed instance of MSM cluelessness! As if YouTube videos need sponsors. But then I was reminded of the controversy earlier this year over Section 202 of the lobbying reform bill--which some alleged would have required professional bloggers who try to drum up grassroots outrage to register--and the WSJ inquiry seemed a bit less funny and a bit more ominous. ... You don't think Trent Lott would love to throw bureaucratic wrenches into the grassroots machinery that disrupted his bipartisan comprehensive immigration plans? ...
P.S.: For some not-quite-convincing explanations of why Section 202 was nothing to worry about, see Prof. Bainbridge and The Register. [Why not-quite-convincing?-ed. The bill by its terms applied to professional bloggers paid a substantial amount of money to drum up support for a client. But the "client" could apparently have been an employer, like Slate or Pajamas Media. Anyway, unpaid citizen activists aren't the only ones with First Amendment rights. ... When they came for the bloggers making more than $25,000 a quarter, I said nothing! .... ] 1:23 A.M. link
Mike Hype: I'm normally a sucker for independent third party candidates--the theory that the two party system conspires to prevent the public from electing the centrists they want has always seemed right to me. And I like Michael Bloomberg. So why does his nascent anti-partisan independent presidential bid seem so out of synch with the times? ... 12:38 A.M. link
Sunday, July 1, 2007