June 22-24, 2007
Jun 22 04:38 George Allen's Take On Fred Thompson Jun 22 18:35 We Won't Be Fooled Again Jun 23 01:09 Support Collapsing for Immigration 'Reform'? Jun 23 03:57 With All Due Respect Jun 23 12:28 Who'll Stop the Raids??? Jun 24 02:31 Another Do Almost Nothing Congress Update Jun 24 03:31 Police Worry About Enforcing Immigration Laws Jun 24 16:35 Another Saddam Henchman Sentenced to Hanging: Now That's Closure Jun 24 18:04 Feinstein On Fairness Doctrine: I'm Considering It
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006
George Allen's Take On Fred Thompson
While George Allen isn't endorsing Fred Thompson, he's certainly saying alot of positive things about him. Here's a sample of things that Sen. Allen has said about Fred Thompson:
Allen introduced former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) when the probable presidential candidate keynoted the state party's gala earlier this month. "I think [a Thompson candidacy] is good," Allen said. "I would encourage him to do so."The thing that's going to propel the Thompson to the next level is his building a following by exciting the activists first, then having a conversation with them about his beliefs. Allen's conservative credentials will impact people thinking about Sen. Thompson. The thing that's upsetting to activists and other voters is Washington's unwillingness to listen. That's what Fred's giving them. His interview with Peter Robinson was conversational in style and informative in substance.
Though Allen said he is not yet endorsing a Thompson bid, he did say that to grassroots Republicans "who care about the party," Thompson's popularity indicates "there has been a bit of a void for someone with a proven conservative record."
Compare that with the Harry and Nancy 'Washington knows best' model. They've shown little inclination to listening. In fact, they've decided that they'll ignore the wishes of the people if their anti-war base yells loud enough.
Don't think that Congress's performance won't impact the presidential race, either. If Congress sticks with its 'Washington knows best' model, Fred Thompson will remind people that the Constitution starts with "We the People", not "We the Politicians." If Reid and Pelosi run against President Bush, Thompson runs against the Do Almost Nothing Congress.
But Thompson, Allen said, is "resonating with people" because he espouses the "realization that all wisdom's not in Washington; in fact, little wisdom's in Washington. I think Fred's off to a very good start," Allen said, pointing to recent polls that show Thompson's numbers rising despite the fact that he is not an announced candidate.It's more than the fact that he realized that "all wisdom's not in Washington"; it's that he's a common sense, no nonsense type of person. Another thing that helps him connect is that he's conversational. That's the best way of connecting with people. Al Gore and John Kerry had a habit of talking down to people. They lost. Fred Thompson has conversations with people. That format gives people time to size him up, to evaluate his policies and belief systems.
Aside from those skills, the other reason why Fred's polling so well is because he's been brilliant in using alternative media tools. He's got his own blog, he's written op-eds for NRO, he's written a couple of posts for Redstate and he's made great use of YouTube format videos.
This race is taking shape and alot can happen over the next eight months. Still, Sen. Thompson has done a good job of creating a wind at his back. I'm not writing off anyone in the top tier but I'd be most surprised if Sen. Thompson isn't the last man standing after the primaries.
Posted Friday, June 22, 2007 4:39 AM
No comments.
We Won't Be Fooled Again
That's the message behind Jim DeMint's USA Today op-ed. Sen. DeMint uses this op-ed to make the case that further legislation isn't what's needed at this point:
We do not need the Senate immigration bill to secure the border.The American people have repeatedly said that they don't believe that the Bush administration will do what they've been mandated to do. Specifically, they don't believe that the Bush administration will build the fence on the American-Mexican border. Until they've seen the Bush administration make a good faith effort of building the wall, nothing should get done in terms of normalization. I don't want normalization hinging on specified triggers, either. I want the Bush administration to accelerate the building of the wall. Once he does that, then we'll talk about the things in the McCain-Kennedy-La Raza bill.
Congress has already passed laws authorizing border security, but the Homeland Security Department has failed to fully implement them. The administration already has the authority to build hundreds of miles of border fencing, hire and train 6,000 border patrol agents (bringing the total number of agents to 18,000), end catch and release, and create a national employment verification database. Essentially, all of the security benchmarks in the current Senate bill are already law.
Unfortunately, proponents of this bill would have us believe that none of these security measures can be implemented unless we pass a bill that grants amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. In short, security is being held hostage in return for amnesty.
The fact that La Raza was given veto power over the legislation sets off red flags galore:
Controversial Latino groups, including the National Council of La Raza, were granted virtual veto power over the immigration bill hammered out yesterday by Senate Republicans, Democrats and the White House, the Washington Post reported.Here's what La Raza's website says about their agenda:
The Post said the Latino groups "were practically in the room" as Democratic and Republican senators negotiated the bill, which would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, create a temporary worker program and increase border security.
NCLR conducts immigration policy analyses and advocacy activities in its role as a civil rights organization. The primary focus of these activities is to encourage immigration policies that are fair and nondiscriminatory, to encourage family reunification, and to enact necessary reforms to the current immigration system.The red flags started flying the minute I read the part about "family reunification." Those red flags only intensified when they said they advocated the enactment of "necessary reforms to the current immigration system." La Raza doesn't want the border secured. The term family reunification is political speak for "We aren't satisfied with just normalization of the illegal aliens already here. We want their Mexican relatives to be part of that same normalization process, too."
We need to keep pounding this message into Washington's heads. They obviously don't want to hear it. They'd certainly rather ignore us but they can't now that election season is just around the corner.
Posted Friday, June 22, 2007 6:35 PM
No comments.
Support Collapsing for Immigration 'Reform'?
That's what I take out of this Bloomberg article. Here's John Cornyn's explanation for that collapse:
Momentum is building against immigration legislation among Senate Republicans, said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who is opposing his old ally, President George W. Bush, on this issue. "We're beginning to see some of the people that would have ordinarily voted to proceed with the bill to say, `hey, this process is not fair, it's not transparent,'" Cornyn said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," scheduled to air today. "The way this bill has come up has caused it some serious problems."The reason that Sen. Cornyn cited this time is the same as what Captain Ed said when the bill first collapsed:
Part of the reason for the heated emotions was the process by which the bill came to the Senate. Reid complained about having to have so much time eaten up by amendments, but the bill took an unusual path to the Senate floor. Most of those amendments could have been offered in committee, but the backroom deal that cobbled the legislation together bypassed that process altogether. Quite obviously, enough Senators from both parties had enough problems with the massive overhaul that it shows the benefits of normal legislative process, rather than having something this complicated suddenly show up with only two weeks to parse it.Politicians are territorial when it comes to their jurisdiction. Ted Kennedy, John McCain and others hijacked the bill both times. Another reason why the bill collapsed the first time is because conservatives were wary of a bill that La Raza reportedly negotiated.
In an attempt to resuscitate the measure, Senate leaders agreed this week on a limited package of about two dozen amendments to be considered next week. Cornyn said that isn't enough.Frankly, I think Jim DeMint's logic, outlined in his USA Today op-ed, is winning people over:
"This is a bill that was written behind closed doors by a small group of senators, and now it's being brought to the floor again without an opportunity to offer, freely offer, amendments and to have the kind of debate that I think this topic deserves," the senator said.
We do not need the Senate immigration bill to secure the border.According to this Rasmussen poll, most voters reject the comprehensive immigration plan:
Congress has already passed laws authorizing border security, but the Homeland Security Department has failed to fully implement them. The administration already has the authority to build hundreds of miles of border fencing, hire and train 6,000 border patrol agents (bringing the total number of agents to 18,000), end catch and release, and create a national employment verification database. Essentially, all of the security benchmarks in the current Senate bill are already law.
Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to "take smaller steps towards reform" while 16% believe they should wait until next year.Here's another interesting statistic from Rasmussen's polling:
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration." Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats , and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.I suspect that legislators are getting cold feet now that they're getting closer to their July 4th recess. I suspect that they don't want to vote for a bill that most people oppose, then have to face their unhappy constituents during the parades and town hall meetings.
That's why I believe this attempt will collapse, too.
Posted Saturday, June 23, 2007 1:09 AM
No comments.
With All Due Respect
Based on this AP article, I'd say that Jon Kyl doesn't fully appreciate where the American people place the blame for the border mess. Here's what I'm basing that statement on:
The legislation has sparked outrage among conservatives who contend it gives amnesty to lawbreakers, and has been met with deep suspicion by Republicans who say their constituents have no faith that laws cracking down on illegal immigrants will be enforced.Republican voters know that most Republican legislators are serious. They know that RINOs like Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain take a different view of immigration reform. The Republican activist outcry is against President Bush. I've said it before that we want the current laws enforced, starting with the 870 mile fence getting built.
Kyl said the outcry in the country is such "that senators appreciate the fact that we've got to show that we're serious now."
New requirements to track down, deport and permanently bar people who overstay their visas would be added to a broad immigration bill under a GOP bid to attract more Republican support.That proposal is meaningless. Even if the legislation is passed and President Bush signed it into law, it's still meaningless. Congress passed a law last fall mandating the building of the border fence. It was mandated, it was authorized and the money was appropriated. President Bush signed the bill in late October. Thus far, 13 miles of that fence has reportedly been built.
Frankly, I won't trust President Bush when it comes to securing the border. I trust him on other issues but I don't trust him on that issue, at least until his actions prove that he's serious. It's just that simple.
Posted Saturday, June 23, 2007 3:58 AM
No comments.
Who'll Stop the Raids???
Keith Ellison and Illinois Representative Luis Gutierrez will be holding a townhall meeting at Washburn High School in Minneapolis this afternoon. The meeting is scheduled for 2:00-4:00 pm. The meeting will follow a rally that's scheduled to run from 12:30-2:00 pm. According to this MIRAc statement, MIRAc will ask them to pass some legislation.
FYI: MIRAc is the acronym for the MN Immigrant Rights Action Coalition.
Join with MIRAc and members of our immigrant communities to demand these representatives work to put an end to the raids that are devastating our communities and demand they take a real stand for immigrant rights by supporting an unconditional legalization for all NOW!In other words, this group is more committed to an open borders policy than Ted Kennedy and President Bush combined. They want these congressmen to pass legislation that gives illegal aliens citizenship regardless of what a background check uncovers. MIRAc is also asking that this citizenship not be tied to the enforcement triggers that are in the Senate bill.
I'll give MIRAc this, though: Their official statement is well written. Their line about ending "the raids that are devastating our communities" is an emotional plea that certainly appeals to liberals. MIRAc is asking that illegal immigrants that have committed felonies after they've arrived here be granted citizenship "unconditionally."
That isn't what a mainstream organization would request. But that's what this organization will lobby Ellison and Gutierrez to do. And I'll bet that they'll get a sympathetic hearing from Mssrs. Ellison and Gutierrez, too.
I went to MIRAc's website to learn more about them. One of the features of the page is a set of links to local articles about the legalize illegal immigrant movement (my characterization). Here's one of the articles that they linked to:
"It can't be against the law to be humane" Gloria Mendez, El Paso, parishioner welcoming immigrants.Actually, Ms. Mendez, it is against the law to break the law.
The article continues this way:
On the State level, Gov. Pawlenty recently released a controversial report that unfortunately stigmatized undocumented people by tying their presence in our community with crime and social costs. The report failed to recognize their contributions. The Governor has also proposed enforcement measures that include stiffer penalties to employers who hire undocumented workers and a statewide immigration enforcement team, a measure staunchly opposed by the Police Chiefs in both Minneapolis and St. Paul.Think about that paragraph. Gov. Pawlenty wants the existing laws enforced and this organization is upset. In fact, they're worried about the stigmatization of lawbreakers more than the fact that immigration laws were broken. The bad part is that "the Police Chiefs in both Minneapolis and St. Paul", the chief law enforcement officials in their cities, are opposed to enforcement.
If you think that's bad, I'm just getting started:
Minnesota needs undocumented workers. Current MN industries that are sustained by unskilled workers include: agriculture, construction and roofing, food service, hospitality, meat and vegetable packing plants, landscaping and retail. According to a report by HACER (Hispanic Advocacy and Community empowerment through Research), undocumented labor accounts for $1.56 billion, and more likely $3.8 billion, of value added in the Minnesota economy each year. The report says that if undocumented workers were removed from Minnesota, economic growth would suddenly be reduced by 40%.One thing that I've often wondered about is why we need to give the supposed 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Why can't we offer them the chance to stay legally without granting them citizenship once we've secured the border? To these groups, that proposal isn't good enough.
The sad thing is that these organizations aren't expressing any concern over the chaos that illegal immigrants cause. Instead, they talk about the contributions that they make. The dirty little secret is that they want people to ignore the costs that they inflict on state and city governments.
Please explain to me why we should ignore the chaos while focusing solely on "the good" that illegal immigrants do. That isn't logical.
This advocacy organization obviously isn't interested in taking a 'balance sheet' approach to immigration. Unfortunately, local units of government have to take that approach if they don't want to put their budgets into tons of deficit red ink.
As for MIRAc's calls for unconditional citizenship, I'll just let Fred Thompson tell you where I stand:
"Whether you're a first generation immigrant or a third generation immigrant or a newly minted immigrant, this is our house. And we still get to say who we let into our house."
Posted Saturday, June 23, 2007 12:29 PM
No comments.
Another Do Almost Nothing Congress Update
This Chicago Tribune article tells a great story about why Democrats' approval rating is at 14 percent and dropping.
In the heat of their successful campaign last year to retake the House and Senate, Democrats made voters promise after promise. They promised to end the war in Iraq. They promised to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. They promised to lower prescription drug prices for seniors and raise the minimum wage.It's one thing to have low expectations and living up to those expectations. That'll get voters into a surly mood fast. It's another to promote your team as people who will deliver on the high expectations, only to fail badly. That'll get people in a downright bad mood fast. People who have their high hopes dashed are the voters that'll take out their frustrations on the incumbents in charge.
But six months after taking over Congress, Democrats find they have accomplished little of their agenda. Perhaps not coincidentally, Congress' job approval rating has reached a dramatic low, tumbling 13 points since February to 24 percent, according to the Gallup Poll.
Rest assured that Pelosi's Democrats are staring at a major butt-kicking in 2008 if they don't get alot of positive things accomplished and if they don't actually stand up to the anti-war left. America isn't a center-left country. It isn't even if Ruy Teixeira says it until he's blue in the face. (I find it amusing that Teixeira has written that type of article immediately after polling shows Harry Reid's JA rating at 19 percent and Congress's JA rating at 14 percent.)
Republicans, damaged by a faltering war in Iraq, corruption scandals and a politically weakened President Bush, happily cite such figures to argue that the Democrats are incapable of governing. "The American people are smart enough to know when they've been had," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the NRCC, which seeks to elect Republicans to the House.Democrats rode to victory chanting 'Culture of Corruption'. The problem that Democrats have is that they're more corrupt than Republicans were. They'll have a difficult time defending William Jefferson and John Murtha, the Democrats' poster children for their Culture of Corruption.
Another thing dragging them down is that Democrats talked about how they were going to change Washington. Thus far, they've passed the minimum wage bill, which isn't the type of legislation that'll inspire allegiance with middle class voters. They wouldn't have achieved even that if they hadn't included tax cuts for small businesses to offset the cost of the minimum wage. Even then, they had to pack it into the Iraq War funding bill.
They've also introduced tax increases "that would more than double the tax rate that private equity firms, venture capital funds and many hedge funds pay on their gains." (I'm fairly positive that that isn't the way to attract voters from the investor class.)
If they can't reverse the trend, some Democrats are starting to worry, their majority could be short-lived. This week, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) reviewed the grim polling data for his Democratic colleagues during a senators-only lunch. Similarly, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) shared his view of the polls in a closed-door meeting with Democratic representatives.They aren't getting things done because their agenda wasn't appealing and therefore, didn't capture the support of the American people. Durbin's blaming Republicans won't play because Senate Democrats haven't unified behind Harry Reid's 'leadership'. Frankly, Democrats' leaders are pathetic, unthinking 20th century politicians. They haven't figured it out that they're competing in the 21st century.
Durbin's explanation for the Democrats' plight is that Republicans, in Congress and the White House, are blocking Democrats at every turn. And without bigger majorities in Congress-and perhaps the presidency as well-there is little they can do.
Each month, the Gallup poll asks voters what should be the highest priority for the president and Congress. More than 70 percent cite the war. "There has been no meaningful action on Iraq. And that's what people want," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the non-partisan Gallup poll.Rationalizations won't get rid of the sour taste that voters have in their mouth. They had high expectations, expectations that haven't been met. Voters remember that Republicans got alot done during the Clinton administration so they won't buy the notion that a split government can't get things done.
Despite months of tough talk on the House and Senate floors, Democrats have achieved little on the war other than giving the president additional billions to fund it. Durbin called the polling data troubling, and said Democrats need to show voters they are trying hard to effect change.
"We have to let them know we have done everything in our power to bring the troops home and have run into a roadblock with the Republicans in Congress and the Bush White House," Durbin said.
If you describe the Democrats' mood, it'd best be described as dispirited and apprehensive. If things don't change for them soon, their supporters will abandon them. If that happens, they'll be downright nervous and defensive.
That isn't the way to win elections and maintain majorities.
Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:31 AM
No comments.
Police Worry About Enforcing Immigration Laws
William Gillespie, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, is quoted as saying in this Strib article. That's just one of the things that jumped out at me in the article.
William Gillespie, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, said police worry they won't get cooperation from immigrants if officers get involved in enforcing immigration law. "That trust level begins to break down between the community and the police," he said.That's plain insane. Gillespie shouldn't be worried about earning illegal immigrants' trust. He should be worried about enforcing the law. I wouldn't have believed that a law enforcement official could've said something like that if I hadn't read it. Believe it or not, that's only one of several things that startled me. Here's another startling section of the article:
A Somali activist asked for faster reunification between legal residents of his community and their relatives. A leader of the Liberian community in Minnesota wondered if anything could be done to prevent an imminent deportation of Liberian immigrants. And a police leader stressed that cops don't want to be enforcing immigration laws.I don't know what family reunification for a "Somali activist" has to do with immigration reform. Perhaps it's just the Strib trying to draw attention away from the visceral feelings that most voters have about the 12 to 20 million illegal Mexican immigrants.
They were among about 300 people who attended a forum Saturday in Minneapolis on the latest attempts to overhaul immigration law to make it easier for people who entered the U.S. illegally to remain here.
I'm betting that people are worried about the potential impact that "family reunification" would have if it's offered to the 2 to 20 million illegal immigrants who fled Mexico.
Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:36 AM
No comments.
Another Saddam Henchman Sentenced to Hanging: Now That's Closure
I can't think of a better way of reinforcing the message that Saddam's regime thugs won't be coddled than with a hanging. That's the verdict in the trial of Chemical Ali:
Saddam Hussein's cousin, widely known as "Chemical Ali," was sentenced on Sunday to hang for masterminding a genocidal military campaign that used poison gas against Iraq's Kurds in the 1980s. Ali Hassan al-Majeed, looking frail and wearing traditional Arab robes, stood silently as the judge read the verdict. As he was escorted from the Baghdad courtroom, he said: "Thanks be to God."Hopefully we'll be treated to a new hanging soon. While I don't automatically accept the application of the death penalty, I definitely do in this instance. In fact, I'd say that the death penalty is the only just punishment for terrorists as evil as Saddam and Chemical Ali.
"This is judgment day for the aggressors against the Kurdish people," said Namiq Horamy, as he handed out sweets to colleagues in Kurdistan's Ministry of Martyrs, which looks after victims of the campaign.
Kurds have long sought justice for the so-called Anfal or "Spoils of War" campaign that has left lasting scars on their mountainous region. Prosecutors say up to 180,000 people were killed in the seven-month "scorched-earth" operation in 1988.Ali's hanging will bring alot of closure to the tortured Kurds. For that matter, it should bring closure to the Shia south by Basra, too. That's what I'd call justice. This quote proves that Ali's hanging will bring alot of closure to the Kurds:
"As soon as I heard Ali Hassan al-Majeed and Sultan Hashim had received the death sentence I was ecstatic and I began to scream. But the bigger joy would be to see Majeed executed in Kurdistan," said Shaheen Mahmoud, a Kurdish civil servant, in the northern city of Sulaimaniya.
Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007 4:36 PM
No comments.
Feinstein On Fairness Doctrine: I'm Considering It
Another liberal 'Guardian of Free Speech' is considering how to restrict people's First Amendment rights. It isn't surprising that that liberal is Dianne Feinstein. Here's what she said on her appearance on FNS this morning:
WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.Sen. Feinstein isn't about providing balance. You'll notice that the Fairness Doctrine only targets conservative talk radio because, in Sen. Feinstein's opinion, "it pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." Let Sen. Feinstein explain why the Fairness Doctrine shouldn't apply to newspapers and magazines. Let her explain why the NY Times shouldn't be obligated to giving equal time to a thoughtful conservative columnist for every
Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?
FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It's seven titles. Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty - we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.
This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.
WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
I'd also demand that Sen. Feinstein explain her position without arguing that the aforementioned columnists are protected by the First Amendment. I'd reject that argument because opinionists should be protected whether they're giving their opinion on the airwaves or if they're opinions are seen on the NY Times opinion page.
Furthermore, I'd state that talk radio hosts like Rush, Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Beck know more about the specifics of legislation than do the BDS-afflicted diatribists of the NY Times. If anything, there's a greater need for the Fairness Doctrine in newspapers than with talk radio.
The NY Times talks proudly about the diversity within their newsroom. Unfortunately, the most prominent displays of diversity are about which columnist can sound the shrillest in criticizing President Bush. (People in the real world don't think that that's diversity but the hyperventilating partisans that write that crap do.)
The other rip I'd take at Sen. Feinstein's incompetent defense of the Fairness Doctrine is her citing the use of the word amnesty as used by radio talk show hosts. If I had a dollar for every time I heard bloviating columnists or 'reporters' incorrectly using the terms 'domestic wiretapping' in the NSA story or the phrase "outing covert CIA operative Valerie Plame" but had to pay her two dollars for every time the term amnesty was incorrectly used, I'd come out ahead.
Sen. Feinstein's agenda is exposed because she doesn't like her ox getting gored but she's ok with her political opponents' oxes getting gored. That's a typical liberal double standard and it should be immediately rejected.
Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007 6:05 PM
No comments.
