June 25-26, 2007
Jun 25 03:45 Immigration Tide Turning? Jun 25 04:19 GREAT NEWS FROM IRAQ!!! Jun 25 12:57 Taking a Bite Out of Crime...er...BCRA Jun 25 15:11 Getting It Right Jun 25 22:01 This Says Everything Jun 26 03:52 With Polling Like This... Jun 26 14:41 A Good Man Gone Bad Jun 26 16:04 State of the Art
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006
Immigration Tide Turning?
According to this Chattanooga, TN newspaper article, both Tennessee senators will vote against cloture. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas and Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia have also announced that they'll vote against cloture. Here's what Sen. Corker said:
Anticipating a cloture vote on the immigration bill on Tuesday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said he will be in opposition.Sen. Corker has it exactly right in saying that Washington doesn't have a shred of credibility left on the issue of enforcing the borders. I just wish that'd sink in with Trent Lott, Ted Kennedy and President Bush. It's to the point where I almost feel sorry for Tony Snow. He's caught in an impossible position. He's obligated to sell President Bush's plan but he's gotten hammered by Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham about the bill.
He said, "I plan to vote against cloture on the immigration bill, as I have already done twice during this debate. I believe a better approach would be a more modest bill that focuses on border security, employer identification, and putting systems in place that will put us in a position to actually enforce a new immigration policy.
"We have lost credibility in Washington on this issue, and I think before the American people will really ever get behind an immigration policy, they're going to have to feel that Washington is truly going to follow through on what it says, especially in terms of securing our border."
He knows that they've told him that the American people don't believe that President Bush will do what the legislation obligates him to do. He knows that his words won't sway either host. Worst of all, he knows that he can't give his own opinion, which I'm betting is different than President Bush's opinion.
Sen. Lamar Alexander said he will also vote against cloture.It sounds like Alexander is open to a deal at some point but he isn't willing to sign onto this bill because it's badly flawed.
He said, "I will vote against cloture to end debate on the current immigration bill when it comes before us next week. Other than the war on terror, there is nothing more important than fixing our broken immigration system, and we must keep working on it for as long as it takes to get it right, but right must include a process that earns the confidence of the American people, and this bill does not do that.
"This problem has been years in the making and will take time to fix. We must secure the border first once and for all, verified by credible sources, without amnesty, you are here legally or you are not here. We also must make it easier for highly skilled workers to come to America to create jobs and expect and assist those here legally to become Americans by speaking our language and appreciating our history and culture.
"I will oppose any bill that does not include these essential elements."
In his appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Jeff Sessions told Stephanopoulos that support for the bill was dwindling:
"A lot of key senators that were thought to be supportive have announced in recent days that they don't support it," the Alabama Republican said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "The poll numbers continue to plummet. Only 20 percent of the people, according to a Rasmussen poll, support the bill now."This link takes you to Captain Ed's eloquent explanation on why the committee process had to be followed if immigration reform had any chance of passing:
What needs to happen is for senators to "go back, re-evaluate and create something we can be proud of," he said. A good bill, he said, would provide for better tracking of people already in the country.
Here's what people have forgotten about legislation. Under normal circumstances, a bill comes to the House or Senate floor, and is sent immediately to a relevant committee. That committee assigns it to a subcommittee, which begins deliberation on the proposal. It gets hearings, readings, debate, and amendments at that level, after which it gets sent back to the committee (if it passes at all) and goes through the same process all over again. If the committee approves it, it then goes to the floor of the Senate for more debate and amendments.I totally agree with Captain Ed's opinion on that. If legislators can offer their amendments within the committee and floor frameworks, the more likely they'll feel that their input was given a fair hearing. The original "Grand Bargain" and the current version of the bill avoided the committee process. That's why I'm predicting this bill's failure to reach cloture.
And this is why this bill failed. The coalition members arrogated to themselves the role of both committee and subcommittee, bypassing members who serve on those panels. In the case of a bill this broad, it could have come to a number of different committees, all of whose members vied for the right to deliberate on these very policies. They had their roles usurped by the coalition, and that made them antagonistic at the start.
Let's hope that President Bush and Sens. Kennedy and Lott learn from this failure, go back to the drawing board and get this legislation right. Unfortunately, there aren't any indications that that's what will happen.
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007 3:46 AM
No comments.
GREAT NEWS FROM IRAQ!!!
This Reuters article is great news from Iraq. Check this out:
U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed 90 al Qaeda fighters across Baghdad in the past five days during one of the biggest combined offensives against the Sunni Islamist group since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, U.S. officials said yesterday.Of course, Reuters had to throw this statistic in for good measure:
U.S. air strikes yesterday killed seven fighters suspected of belonging to al Qaeda in Tikrit in Salahuddin province and near the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
The U.S. military also announced yesterday that roadside bombs killed seven American troops in Iraq, including four in a single incident outside Baghdad.This will sound cold but I don't know of many commanders who wouldn't take a 13:1 kill ration.
In the latest military action, thousands of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers are taking part in simultaneous offensives in provinces across Baghdad to deny al Qaeda militants sanctuary in farmlands and towns from which they launch car bomb attacks and other violence. U.S. officials say al Qaeda is trying to spark all-out sectarian civil war in Iraq. A key plank of the combined offensives is Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which began Tuesday in and around the city of Baqouba in Diyala province.We weren't aggressive enough after we toppled Saddam but it appears as thought Gen. Petraeus's plan is helping make up for lost time. Certainly, it's a welcome sight with a chance of achieving victory. We'll have to wait for the final outcome but this is encouraging news.
The U.S. military said yesterday that 55 al Qaeda militants had been killed in that operation alone. Another 28 have been killed in separate operations in the past several days in Diyala, north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
U.S. soldiers have been tightening the cordon around al Qaeda fighters holed up in Baqouba, advancing carefully through streets lined with roadside bombs and booby-trapped houses. "We are enveloping the enemy into a 'kill sack,'" said Command Sgt. Maj. Jeff Huggins from the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade.It'll be interesting to see if any AQI fighters escaped the surge's "kill sack". One thing's for certain, though: This operation has told Iraqis that we're in this to restore order by killing AQI fighters. Let's hope that that causes the fence sitters to commit to the elected government.
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007 4:19 AM
No comments.
Taking a Bite Out of Crime...er...BCRA
That's exactly what the Supreme Court did this morning in ruling in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life. Here's a quote from Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion:
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."Writing for the minority was Justice David Souter, who had this to say:
In dissent, Justice David Souter said the court had in effect overturned the 2003 decision and its effort to limit the role of money in political campaigns.Notice the appeal to emotion in Souter's dissenting opinion:
"After today, the ban on contributions by corporations and unions and the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena are open to easy circumvention," Souter wrote.
"the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena"Memo to Justice Souter:
Your job isn't that of a legislator. Therefore, your rulings shouldn't be based on whether you think BCRA is good policy. Your job in this case, which you obviously chose not to accept , is to determine whether Wisconsin Right to Life's First Amendment rights were violated.
Implicit in Justice Souter's dissenting opinion is that political advertising 'consumers' (those that watch the advertisements) can't judge for themselves which advertisements appeal to them and which ones disgust them.
Also implicit in Souter's dissenting opinion is that the Constitution shouldn't be taken literally. Most political junkies (I fit into that category) can recite the First Amendment but I'll repeat here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.The key operative word in the First Amendment is abridging. Here's the first definition of abridging provided by Dictionary.com:
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.TRANSLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law that...cuts off the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.
You'd also be right in translating it to say "Congress shall make no law that...deprives any person of their God-given right to speak freely on any subject..."
MEMO TO JUSTICE SOUTER: Notice that it doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...except if it has corrosive effects on the political system." The First Amendment said that the ninnies in Washington can't make any law that cuts off anyone's right to express their political opinions. To cut off one man's right to air his grievances is censorship.
Here's a line of whining in the article:
Justice David Souter said the court had in effect overturned the 2003 decision and its effort to limit the role of money in political campaigns.EXACTLY RIGHT!!! We should've thrown BCRA out entirely but this is a good start. In fact, the Roberts Court rectified the error of the Rehnquist Court , though I don't fault Chief Justice Rehnquist for that ruling. I reserve that fault to Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer.
Over the past year+, I've criticized President Bush on several things, with immigration being the most recent complaint. That said, I can't thank him enough for nominating and appointing Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. It was Alito's vote that corrected the 2003 ruling. (Thank You, Justice Alito!!!)
If they'd strike down Kelo v. New London, I'd be smiling from ear to ear. Hopefully, that day will soon come, hopefully right after we replace one of the lefties with someone like Michael Luttig.
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 26-Jun-07 02:58 PM
Good post, Gary--spot-on analysis!
Getting It Right
Former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts has written a great op-ed in today's Las Vegas Review-Journal about immigration. Here's the key graph:
The whole immigration reform/amnesty/path to citizenship/border security debate has gotten really messy.Yes, it's more complicated today than in yesteryear but the path to immigration reform is still fairly straightforward. Watts is right in saying that there wouldn't be a reason for this debate if we got serious about enforcing existing laws. Instead, we've been given a promise that they'll get serious about enforcing the existing laws, which isn't the same by any stretch of the imagination.
My position is similar to one I advanced a couple of years ago on the matter of lobbying reform on Capitol Hill: If we would just enforce the laws on the books, there would be no reason for this debate. But because of the sins of our fathers, the issue is more complicated than that today.
As I said here, we won't be fooled again. This time, we're demanding that the first step taken must be a sustained improvement in enforcing the existing laws. Only after that's happened will we move onto the other provisions of the bill.
Think of it like you think of a meal in a restaurant: Enforcing the borders is the entree. Without that, you have a substantial empty spot in your tummy. The various visas in the 'Grand Bargain' is the dessert. You don't order dessert until you're getting close to finishing the entree. The path to citizenship is the topping to the dessert.
It seems rather foolish to order dessert when you order a big steak. It makes perfect sense, however, to order dessert once you're getting close to finishing that entree. And you surely don't order whipped cream or ice cream for your dessert until you're still hungry enough to finish it all off.
One thing that hasn't changed is Ted Kennedy's role in the immigration debate:
In 1965, Ted Kennedy was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization. He essentially directed President Lyndon B. Johnson's immigration policy.McCain's and Kennedy's whining that "the status quo is unacceptable" is just a different way of saying "Surely, we've got to do something." That's been the 'rallying cry' for more bad legislation than any other saying. I know that the status quo is unacceptable. I also know that the legislation that Kennedy, NCLR and McCain cobbled together is equally unacceptable.
A younger, slimmer, dark-haired Kennedy, in supporting an immigration reform bill, said, "I want to comment on what this bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same."
In 1986, speaking on behalf of another immigration bill, Kennedy said, "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders. We will never again bring forth an amnesty bill like this."
Now, another 21 years later, we revisit the debate, and we are dealing with 10 times the amount of immigrants Kennedy promised in 1986. If we don't act now, I dread the debate 21 years hence.
As I said here, NCLR isn't interested in law enforcement. Here's a major part of their agenda:
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.In other words, NCLR is quietly advocating that the borders not be enforced while Ted Kennedy is making the rounds saying that this legislation is focused on border enforcement.
I'm going to reword King's favorite Tim Pawlenty quote to give Teddy some advice: Push away from the open borders buffet. Set your amnesty fork down.
I'd also add this advice: Send this legislation back to committee. Most importantly, get this done right. After all, the status quo is unacceptable.
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007 3:12 PM
No comments.
This Says Everything
This Politico.com article tells you everything you need to know about who Democrats fear most:
Even before his expected July announcement, Fred Thompson's all-but-declared entry into the Republican presidential stakes has prompted the Democratic National Committee to attack him as a potential GOP front-runner and to use his prospective candidacy to raise money.That email fundraiser sounds like a breathlessly desperate attempt to smear Fred Thompson. The reason for that is simple: They know that Fred Thompson is the most appealing and worrisome GOP candidate this cycle.
Democratic strategists say Thompson's populist style and show-biz allure could prove extremely appealing in a general election at a time when voters are so down on Washington. So the party has launched a preemptive campaign against him that includes a DNC fundraising e-mail branding Thompson, "The inside-outsider."
"Remember the Republican culture of corruption?" the letter asks. "The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington, D.C., lobbying firms? That's Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. For years, acting wasn't the 'Law & Order' star's profession -- it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist. And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby's legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would 'absolutely' pardon him. As he runs for president, he'll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him. Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson."
The DNC whining that Fred Thompson was a lobbyist is pathetic. The truth is that all of their past leaders are currently lobbyists. At the top of that list is none other than Tom Daschle. Of course, the DNC isn't the least bit worried that Harry Reid's three sons and his son-in-law lobby 'Dear old Dad'. They don't seem to mind Nancy Pelosi's daughter lobbying Mom, either.
If the DNC is so worried about Thompson's lobbyist past, why hasn't the DNC denounced the lobbyist pasts of Tarryl Clark and Amy Klobuchar? The obvious answer is that they aren't worried about lobbyists in general. They're only scared of this lobbyist. Here's another DNC smear tactic:
Another DNC research report sketches likely lines of attack on Thompson: "reliable supporter, defender of President Bush," "staunch supporter of Scooter Libby," "key role in Bush Supreme Court nominations," "already has a flip-flop problem," "ill-equipped for the campaign," "a thin Senate record, questions of 'work ethic', " "controversial legal clients may cause problems," "lobbying careers full of land mines."This won't work to the DNC's benefit. In fact, I'll predict right now that it'll backfire badly. Telling people that Thompson thinks that Scooter Libby's trial was a travesty of justice won't win over many independents and moderates. In fact, I'd bet that this will rally conservatives to him in droves. I'd also suggest that 'accusing' Sen. Thompson of playing a "key role in Bush Supreme Court nominations" is another way of appealing to conservatives and sane-thinking moderates/independents.
The rest of their smear list is dubious at best.
In my final analysis, this is about raising money. The DNC is hoping that Fred Thompson is a cash cow for their fundraisers. Instead of it being a cash cow for them, I think that they're piling more trouble onto themselves. Conservatives will read this article and think that Fred Thompson is the candidate Democrats would least like to face in 2008. If they think that and if they couple that with his stands on illegal immigration, the Supreme Court and tax cuts, I think the DNC will have done conservatives a big favor, one that they'll live to regret.
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007 10:03 PM
No comments.
With Polling Like This...
After the latest Rasmussen polling data, it's difficult to imagine why Harry Reid is even thinking about introducing the immigration (nonreform) reform legislation again. Here's a summation of the data:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation. That's down a point from 23% a couple of weeks ago and down from 26% when the debate in the Senate began. Fifty percent (50%) oppose the Senate bill while 28% are not sure.It's time that the Senate end this charade. It's time that they stopped acting like they're doing something meaningful through this legislation. They aren't. Fred Thompson recently said that "A piece of paper doesn't enforce the border", a clear shot at this bill and at President Bush's indifference to shutting down the Mexico-US border.
Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.
The 'leaders' who tried pushing this bill down people's throats won't be hailed as heroes when they return home for their 4th of July break. I further suspect that if they have any votes right before their August recess, they'll be greeted with brickbats and pitchforks at their townhall meetings.
Then there's this Washington Times article:
Rank-and-file conservative Republicans said the process is stifling. Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, said leaders are attempting to "take the nation's most emotionally charged issue and try to ram it down America's throat."Sen. Nineteen Percent, plenty of our anger is directed at President Bush. But saying that we shouldn't be upset with Sen. Nineteen Percent is nonsense. Only he can revive the bill. If he decided that he wasn't going to bring the legislation up again, that'd end the issue. That said, it's time for everyone to bombard their senators with phone calls and emails. It's time we told them in unequivocal terms that this compromised legislation is unacceptable.
They blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, for this week's unusual floor procedures, which include rewriting the bill into a brand-new version, bypassing the usual committees and preventing consideration of all but the limited set of amendments. But Mr. Reid said Republican anger should be directed at their own leaders in the Senate and at Mr. Bush, who have agreed to the unusual procedures to try to force the bill through.
It's time that we told them that voting for cloture is likely a vote to end their political careers.
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:54 AM
No comments.
A Good Man Gone Bad
I have the grim responsibility of reporting that a good man has gone bad. Earlier today, I visited Leo's website only to find a PC pile of crap. I tried calming myself down, thinking that this just might be Leo's attempt at snark. That had to be it, I told myself.
To make a long story short, my worst fears were realized when I met Leo for lunch this afternoon at Bo Diddley's, the best sub shop anywhere. I got there a couple minutes before the agreed upon time of 1:00 pm, ordered my meal & waited for Leo to get there. (Leo's always late.) I was finishing off the first quarter of the sandwich when Leo pulled up on his bike. That ripped it with me. (The only good news was that he wasn't wearing a helmet.)
At that point, I thought that Leo had morphed into a PC treehugger.
The good news is that, after I pounded him mercilessly with logic and regaled him with stories from the good old days, Leo has now reverted back to the same movement conservative that he was when I first met him. I had to act quickly before Leo was lost forever to a life of emotion-driven drivel, liberal hyperbole and spewing out liberal talking points like a Kossack. Fortunately, the 'therapy' worked and we've got our old friend Leo back.
Unfortunately, nobody was available to give that same treatment to Senate weak-kneed RINOs. Unfortunately, I can't be in two places at once. The silver lining to that sad chapter in the history of the GOP is that they'll have another cloture vote towards the end of the week. I will be available then.
Hopefully, I'll pull another wayward Republican down off the ledge before the next cloture vote.
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:41 PM
No comments.
State of the Art
According to this article, Fred Thompson's website ImWithFred.com is a new step in using the internet as a campaign tool. I totally agree.
His organization has opted for a slightly different approach to the Web. Thompson's website doesn't have the dizzying array of content blocks the other candidates we mentioned have posted. His main content section is a blog, kept up to date by an administrator at times when the candidate himself isn't posting.It's universally acknowledged that JFK started 'the TV Age' of presidential campaigning. While TV is still an important tool in today's presidential campaigns, Fred Thompson has started the first true omnimedia presidential campaign. He's hitting all the radio and TV talk shows. He's written op-eds for NRO. He's got his own blog at his ImWithFred website and he's posted at RedState. He's used YouTube and other similar types of media to ridicule Michael Moore and to 'air' his interview with Peter Robinson.
The important concept Thompson's people seem to get is the need to have their supporters engage traditional media. His site features specific links to encourage people to write to newspaper editors or call talk radio. Those two sections allow the visitor to pick a state followed by a media market. A results page shows the options available for contacting the media outlet of choice.
In other words, he's taken the internet seriously. In the 'good old days' of the 2000 election cycle, the buzz was about whether the candidates had their own websites and how this 'new' phenomenon would affect future campaigns. Eight years and a lifetime later, Fred Thompson's media operations model is light years different . The result? He's using YouTube and his blog to have a conversation with the American people.
Sen. Thompson's aggressive use of the internet creates a paradox. When it comes to the internet and his use of all of the tools that the internet provides, his communications staff is definitely cutting edge.
The paradox comes in when you realize that Fred Thompson is a Barry Goldwater movement conservative. After reading Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" in 1963, he promptly became the first Republican in his family.
High Tech, Old School
While Sen. Thompson uses the tools that technology made available to him, his beliefs are definitely old school. He'd appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. He's an old-fashioned Barry Goldwater libertarian. He's a strong advocate of JFK's, Reagan's and President Bush's tax cuts. He's on the record as saying that he'd resurrect a Reaganesque communications system to topple the Iranian mullahs, Hugo Chavez and Kim Jung Il.(Think Radio Free Persia instead of Radio Free Europe.)
That's the type of combination that we'll need to defeat Democrats in 2008. Thus far, Thompson's the only person out there that's using the total package. He's also the only person with a true movement conservative background, which means that there's an underlying philosophy guiding his beliefs. I can't say that about Gov. Romney or Sen. McCain. That isn't a small thing for GOP primary voters.
It's time to realize that Fred Thompson is the guy who is best equipped to defeat Hillary in November, 2008.
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:05 PM
No comments.
