5/1: A GOP Run For The Border?

The energy is on the Dems' side these days. Pres. Bush's poll numbers are down, the WH is in the middle of a shake-up, and cong. GOPers can't open their mouths without drawing fire from all sides. Meanwhile lefty bloggers are raising money for Dem. candidates every day, generic polls show cong. Dems ahead, and all the intangibles (gas prices, hurricane season, Bush fatigue) point to big Dem. gains in 11/06. But November's six months away. Surveying the blogosphere is by no means scientific, but if the GOP is looking for an issue with the potential to unite their base while simultaneously dividing the Dems, they need look no further than immigration. Also today, Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert draws predictably mixed blogger reviews and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) makes waves on Don Imus.

Like teeny-boppers at an N'Sync concert, lefty bloggers can barely contain their love for Comedy Central faux-journalist Stephen Colbert's performance at the 4/29 WH Correspondant's Dinner. Lefty News Hounds: "Stephen Colbert, You Are My Hero!!" Lefty Brilliant at Breakfast: "It's only April, and Stephen Colbert has already wrapped up the #1 spot on my Brilliant for 2006 list. ...I'm speechless. Just speechless." Lefty Unfogged: "File under "Things which make me want to have a man's babies"... I know it's everywhere in the blogosphere, but it's truly the stuff of which awesome is made." Booman Tribune: "We should build a statue to Steve Colbert for providing a little dose of justice on a most deserving 'inside Washington' glitterati."

For those that could not stay up to catch C-SPAN's broadcast, Democratic Underground has video while Frederick at DailyKos provides a thorough transcript.

Dinner attendee Howard Mortman panned Colbert's performance at ExtremeMortman: "Stephen Colbert is being roundly panned for his mean-spirited performance. He was big on edge, short on rib-tickling. And the audience? A tough crowd reacting with embarrassment and silence. From my table I counted three rounds of infectious yawns spreading around the room like the wave at football games. ...Imagine singing the Spanish Star Bangled Banner to the Minutemen."

Lefties were quick to admit that Colbert's performance drew few laughs from the live audience, but explanations were not hard to come by. The Reality Based Community: "Stephen Colbert's astonishing rant at the White House Correspondent's Association dinner hit so near the bone -BushCo's bone, and the bone of the lapdog journalists present - that it drew few laughs, despite its superlative excellence both as text and as performance." The Moderate Voice: "If in show biz you measure the success of a comedy set by the duration and volume of laughs ... Colbert wasn't. ... The Internet term for irony is "snark." If done poorly it can veer into the area of clumsiness and die a painful death. Colbert's routine didn't go that route but clearly some audience members either didn't share his assumptions, or didn't like him sharing them in public with Bush sitting there -- or didn't like to be put in a position where they would laugh and show all the world that they shared them."

Lefty bloggers were also plenty upset that the MSM didn't swoon over Colbert the way they did. Peter Daou at The Huffington Post: "The AP's first stab at it and pieces from Reuters and the Chicago Tribune tell us everything we need to know: Colbert's performance is sidestepped and marginalized while Bush is treated as light-hearted, humble and funny. Expect nothing less from the cowardly American media. This is the power of the media to choose the news, to decide when and how to shield Bush from negative publicity." Seizing on Daou's observation mcjoan at DailyKos also took digs at the MSM: "This is the worst presidency in the history of the country. And it happened in large part because we have the worst, laziest, and most irresponsible media since the bad old days of yellow journalism. Thank you, Stephen Colbert, for exposing that." Hullabaloo and Taylor Marsh, and The Democratic Daily had similar thoughts.

Righty Expose the Left thinks Daou has a short memory: "So Daou says the media is protecting Bush because they are not reporting on Stephen Colbert's comedy act at last night's White House Correspondent's Dinner? Excuse me, but I don't remember anyone reporting about Cedric the Entertainer's performance at last year's dinner."

Most righties were quick to point out that Colbert received few laughs from the audience. Right Winged: "Colbert's performance was just extremely weak, and as I said he totally bombed. I don't base this on my reaction to the jokes... I base it on the dead silence for roughly 90% of his monologue, in a room full of liberals." And like the left, they had there own explanations. Hot Air: "In Colbert's defense, he might not have been playing for laughs. The dissident posture is very important to our friends on the left; if SC had kept things light and wasted his opportunity to speak "truth" to power, they'd have crucified him for it." Outside the Beltway: "The problem was the delivery, which was very heavy and somewhat angry. A lighter touch would have made it go over much better and probably garnered more laughter as well." Riehl World View: "Going into an entertainment venue and doing a show which only appeals to a subset of the audience is not courage, or great talent, it's a lack of feel for ones audience and a display of the type of self-obsessed alleged comedy so many young comedians appear to have fallen into. ...Great comedians have great feel for time and place. Colbert all but proved he has none at all." Captain's Quarters found the performance, "banal and obvious."

Righty bloggers were particularly tired of lefty admiration for Colbert's 'bravery.' Bloggledygook: "Similarly, it has become tiresome to hear talk of courage in this case, as if Colbert is in some fear for his life, but chose to stand against the fascist state and mock the president and media. Rubbish. The easiest place in the world to be snarky is Washington D.C. The Capitol virtually runs on snark. I pointed out that courage would be exemplified by an Iraqi mocking Saddam (when still in office) where speaking against the government carried very real danger." Protein Wisdom: "The fawning reaction coming from many on the anti-Bush bandwagon is, unfortunately, par for the course these days-as is the celebration of Colbert's "bravery," especially when there are no real consequences for engaging in meanspirited political humor other than, say, being thought a dick."

Moving left on the spectrum Ann Althouse was more impressed: "Colbert could have tried to go on as a decent guy being a nice guest and supplying some perfectly pitched stand-up humor, the way Drew Carey has done in the past. But Colbert really isn't a stand-up comedian, and his humor is always set inside a character who is not him. He's an actor, and how hard, how monumentally awkward, it must have been to stay inside his character with such intimidating people around him."

The 5/1 immigration 'event' has divided the lefty blogosphere. But don't take the Blogometer's word for it. Lefty Facing South: "In sharp contrast to the right-wing websites, a glance at today's front pages of DKos, Huffington Post, Eschaton, Talking Points Memo and Think Progress -- to pick some progressive heavyweights -- reveals they have nothing to say about May 1st. ...What's going on? Why is the progressive blogosphere so completely out of touch? Is it because most of them closely identify with partisan politics, and the Democratic Party doesn't have a very clear position on the immigration issue? Is it due to a racial blindspot in the blogosphere, connected to its demographic make-up ? Do they not understand the historic nature of this movement?"

Lefty Majikthise responds: "Good question. Personally, I haven't said much about immigration issues because I don't know very much about progressive immigration policy alternatives I doubt that big liberal bloggers are deliberately shying away from this subject because of divisions in the Democratic Party."

Lefty The Political Animal points to an Los Angeles Timesop-ed by contributing editor to The NationMarc Cooper worrying about possible backlash from the boycott as well as organizer ties to socialist group ANSWER and concludes: "I'm cautious by temperament, so I don't really trust my own reaction to the boycott. Still, there's no question that backlash is a real concern, and a militantly confrontational strategy strikes me as pretty risky right now. More importantly, though, I figure that if Marc, who shares neither my caution nor my inexperience at political protest, thinks the boycott is a bad idea, then there's a good chance it's a bad idea. So for now, that's where I stand."

Lefty Dohiyimir is also unsure that a boycott is best...for now: "After thinking about it more carefully I am less enamored with the idea of a strike at this time. It is a powerful tool in the non-violent toolbox, and I think one to hold in reserve in case the issue needs to be escalated. ...So why not get behind a boycott/general strike/whatever? Because it already came to fruition in the sense that the immoral immigration bill was scuttled by the Senate. Now seems to be inappropriate for this kind of action--instead, we all should focus on diffusing this issue because it's really nothing more than a wedge and distraction cynically wielded by the GOP."

Lefty SusanG at DailyKos also highlights disagreement in the progressive movement: "Bush's plea for workers and students to go about their daily business was echoed by some surprising advocates, including Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, a staunch supporter of immigrant rights, and disc jockey Renan "El Cucuy" Almendarez Coello, one of the main voices who helped get the word out about last month's protest march in Los Angeles, which drew an estimated half a million people to the streets. According to the Los Angeles Times, the DJ declared: We are hard workers. We came to the United States to work. We should work Monday. Work dignifies us."

Righty Michelle Malkin thinks the MSM is going soft on the "open-borders" lobby and tries to fight back with a round up of "pro-immigration enforcement" events nation wide. Fake Turkey wonders if boycotters will really follow through on all of their goals: "On the one hand, Monday's forecast high in Tucson is 95 degrees, and a day without concessions would be difficult. On the other hand, supporters are not supposed to spend any American dollars on Monday. Those are the rules, and we know Mexicans would never break any rules (cough)."

Captain's Quarters also highlights the communist angle: "The unabashed Stalinsts at ANSWER create a huge problem for the immigration-reform activists. The impression given by ANSWER's inclusion is that the issue has become a Trojan horse for eliminating national sovereignty and the promotion of communism, much as their anti-war protests became. The last thing that the more reputable immigration groups need is another march on national TV with thousands of Che Guevara T-shirts in the fore. However, May 1 hold special significance as a socialist holiday, which is why ANSWER selected it for this walkout."

Meanwhile righty Wizbang also senses lefty dissentsion in the ranks and notes the LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa backed out of a speaking engagement with protestors to meet with the NFL in Dallas. Wizbang also has suggestions for ICE agents today: "But here's a thought: rather than conducting raids during the protests, ICE agents should scour the cities in which these protests are taking place, particularly the larger ones, and identify the companies that are closed due to the fact its employees (most likely illegal employees) are attending the rallies. ICE should raid those companies the following day when the illegal immigrants are back to work. Then again, that would require ICE to do its job. Considering its track record on matters of illegal immigration, that's unlikely."

Righties unhappy with Pres. Bush's larger position on immigration found something to cheer about 4/29 after he rejected a reporters suggestion that a spanish national anthem ought not have "the same value" as the national anthem sung in English. Sister Toldjah: "Even though I'm not on board with the immigration plan that the President supports (the Senate version), I'm glad he's come out in support of singing the national anthem in ENGLISH, not Spanish."

Righties sympathetic to the Pres' immigration stance were with him on the anthem too. Poliblogger: "Given the visceral reaction to the Mexican flags at the various marches, if the goal here is greater immigrant rights, I am unconvinced that in-your-face-politics is the smart way to go, despite my opposition to the proposed House immigration bill." Latino Issues: "This is really not that complicated. It's a national anthem--a symbol of our heritage. Like with all other symbols, there is a particular etiquette that goes with how these symbols should be treated. With the flag, for example, you are to raise it in a particular respectful way, and display it in a certain way. So it is with our national anthem. To make lyrical changes, and to sing it in Spanish amounts to a disrespect to the tradition and heritage that is inherently connected to the song."

Michelle Malkin has a brief history of the anthem and Hugh Hewitt has the spanish language version and then a great re-translation of that version.

More towards the center Ann Althouse tries to re-filter the story: "I can't translate the Spanish words back into English to see the ways in which the meaning has been altered. But I can translate Bush-speak into plainer English for the purpose of fending off those Bush haters and Bush lovers who are reading more than they need to into his words. He's said that people who want to be citizens should learn English, and to say that is not to say that they shouldn't also speak Spanish, just that wanting to be a part of the country should include wanting to be able to interact with the people here who do speak English. And he's saying that people who want to be citizens should want to learn to sing the anthem along with the rest of us, as we've sung it since it was written, in English. That doesn't mean you can't also sing it in Spanish.

The left was far more divided. Some welcomed the Spanish-language anthem. The Reaction: "I urge you all to listen to Nuestro Himno, and indeed to translate the national anthem into whatever language you speak, so that the Star-Spangled Banner can be a standard under which all Americans unite. Perhaps they should learn English, but what's so wrong about bringing the national anthem to the people, in whatever language they speak?" The Carpetbagger Report: "America should be a strong enough political community to withstand diverse expressions of its national symbols, including its anthem. Simply put, America transcends language. So should its anthem."

Many lefties smelled opportunism. Lawyers, Guns, and Money: "I seem to recall a little while ago that all the wingnuts were in a rage because immigration demonstrators didn't wave enough American flags. Today, Dear Leader made clear that patriotism in Spanish just isn't quite as good as patriotism in English." The Next Hurrah: "This is his chance to signal the base that he stands with them on matters of importance. It ranks right up there with flag-burning amendments and gay marriage declarations... a substantive attempt to address the deep-seated structural issues that threaten us all. Immigration clearly is a major domestic issue. And since nothing else is going right for the GOP, it's time to let Bush be Bush."

Lefty Amitai Etzioni at TPMCafe was not ready to sign off on the new anthem: "I am strongly in favor of much greater representation, respect, and appreciation for the contributions of immigrants in general and those of Hispanic background in particular. I could not be more strongly on the record (for those who care, see THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR and CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY). However I suggest it is a mistake to introduce ethnic specific versions of the national anthem.

A Boston Globestory on President Bush's proclivity for signing statements quickly became lefty ammunition. The story also connected the signing statements to the NSA wire-tapping scandal and lefty bloggers endorsed the connection whole heartedly. Glenn Greenwald at Uncliamed Territory: "The significance of the NSA scandal was never about eavesdropping. Its significance lay in the fact that the President got caught red-handed violating the law on purpose, because he believes he has the power to do so. To defend his conduct, the administration has been forced to parade those theories around out in the open, and as a result, it is only a matter of time before the public starts to realize how severe the crisis is that we have in our country."

Lefty Hullabaloo wants Bush impeached for this: "At what point does this country begin to recognize that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis? Somebody asked Howard Dean the other day whether he thought Bush should be impeached and I wished that he had answered by pointing out that the Republicans lowered the bar so low that it's difficult to see how he could NOT be impeached."

Cenk Uygur at The Huffington Post sees shades of Nixon: "If the president feels he is free to ignore a great number of laws - and he is on the record as implementing that belief by disobeying some long established laws - there is a whole different government running the country than we think there is. This makes Nixon's imperial presidency look like child's play. In a democracy, we have a president who is literally saying he is above the law." Lefty Carpetbagger Report thinks this issue will be Bush's legacy: "Whether or not Bush is the worst president of all time isn't really the question anymore. What we should be asking is whether he's the most dangerous president of all time. ...He may not have much, if any, political capital left, he may have nothing in the way of a domestic agenda, and he may yet start up a new war with Iran, perhaps before the November midterms, but this - this is very much his legacy, right alongside the mess in Iraq.

Many lefties smelled righty hypocrisy in the air, believing righties would be up in arms if a Dem Pres. had the same record. Pam's House Blend: "Can you imagine the reaction from Republicans if Clinton had been this aggressive about asserting "presidential authority"?" Brilliant at Breakfast: "If a Democratic president had made such claims, the howling from the right would be ferocious. Instead, the right has joined in the anointment of Bush as some kind of hybrid of king and god -- in complete violation of not just the spirit, but the letter of the laws of this country." Running Scared: "You already know that Bush's fanatical supporters on the right wing will be heralding this "bold move" as the rights of a President during war time. What I can't wait to see is how the boys at Powerline, et. al. will be spinning this if/when a Democratic President tries to pull the same kind of stunt."

Some lefty bloggers focussed on how this policy affected WH relations with Congress. The Left Coaster: "No wonder he has never vetoed a bill: because he believes he can arbitrarily and unilaterally change the bill he just signed. Folks, we don't live in a country that is governed by laws anymore." Shakespeares Sister: "Bush has also "said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say". How do the Repubs in congress feel about this crap? He's pissing on them and yet they lap it up like it's life-giving water." Liberal Avenger: "If Bush has carte blanche to do as he pleases, why hasn't he taken action on any of the "values issues" you folks are so fond of: abortion, prayer in school, etc.?" Mcjoan at DailyKos: " Um, Senators Frist? Specter? Reid? Speaker Hastert? Representative Pelosi? Did you know you're irrelevant?"

All lefties agree this is just one more reason to elect Democrats in November. AMERICAblog: " Is the US a nation of laws or just a banana republic? Seems like Bush prefers to pick and choose in his little kingdom. Congressional lapdogs have gone along with it, always eager to please their master. This is why the Democrats must take back Congress in the fall because Bush needs to held accountable and balance needs to be restored." State of the Day: "More reasons why the GOP controlled congress must be turned out in November, as if we needed more. November can't come fast enough, yet it's still so far away. If only the congress we have right now would realize how marginalized they have become."

Few righty bloggers paid the story any attention. Those that did thought the lefties were overplaying their hand. Riehl World View:

"The statements have no defined legal weight, consequently Bush is "taking" nothing unto himself. Whatever he does or doesn't do in the future is still bound by the same laws it would be without the signing statements. It's no different in some ways than a privacy notice at the end of an email, with an even less clear legal heft. If someone plans to secretly break into your home while you are asleep or away, they don't put a sign on your lawn before hand declaring they are going to do it. Consequently, Bush is making his general interpretation of the Constitution known publicly. That doesn't alter any legal arguments behind the ultimate interpretation of that authority."

WH'08: Mr. Clean

The Straight Talk Express rattled through Don Imus' show 4/29 and righty bloggers where none too pleased with the follwing McCain quote: "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

For many righty bloggers considering an 08 trip with McCain, this was their stop. Blue Crab Boulevard: "To hear John McCain cheerfully announce that he would choose clean government over free speech is a complete and utter deal-breaker for me. I could not, in good conscience, vote for anyone who stands for ending free speech. Let's face it, government is corrupted by big money. Both parties are equally to blame. But the answer isn't killing the first amendment. This man frightens me." A Blog For All: "McCain fancies himself as a contended for the 2008 Presidential campaign. If you needed a reason to consider never voting for McCain in a national election, this is the reason. After all, this goes to the heart of what a President is supposed to do- protect and defend the US Constitution. In his candor, McCain gives away the fact that he simply doesn't care about free speech."

It only went down hill from there. Tapscott's Copy Desk: "Is there any remaining doubt that McCain thinks your core rights are less important than his idea of "clean government"? I will NEVER vote for this guy for anything ... except the title "retired Arizona senator." Sundries Shack: "Oh that John McCain. What a Maverick he is. He's so mavericky that he's willing to toss the First Amendment out the window if he can get his idea of "clean government"."

For more high-minded righties it was an occasion for a civics lesson. Captain's Quarters: "Senator McCain apparently has no love for the First Amendment, nor any understanding of why it occupies the primary position in the Bill of Rights.The founders would have laughed at McCain's notion that one could trade free political speech for 'clean' government. ...Senator John McCain has many fine qualities, but an understanding of free speech is not among them." RedState: "I would submit to the Senator that clean government is impossible without the First Amendment, and a sometimes zealous respect for the freedoms it offers."

Even lefties pre-disposed to campaign finance reform thought McCain's phrasing betrayed a carelessness towards other rights. MyDD: "Free speech leads to clean government. If ordinary citizens can't participate in politics, government becomes corrupt. Now I don't adopt the right-wing approach to the problem, which is to have private money dictate all political discourse. I'd like to see the barrier to the megaphone lowered, and in the absense of that change, perhaps moving towards a system of public financing of elections. Regardless, the first amendment is not something to take lightly, and politicians who care so little about the first amendment tend not to really care about the other amendments."

Must read analysis at RealClearPolitics by Scott Rasmussen on the power of the immigration issue: "Over the past generation, Republicans and Democrats have battled to a draw on issues ranging from taxes to abortion. Both sides have poll-tested, focus-grouped, nuanced answers for these issues and supporters have lined up with the party of their choice. Immigration is entirely different.

It's not the most important issue to voters (except in a few Southwestern States) but it could shake up the nation's political equilibrium more than the economy, Iraq, or any other contemporary issue. Our latest polling shows that a pro-enforcement third party candidate could attract more support than a generic Republican presidential candidate in 2008 (and also be tied with the Democrats). Conservatives divide equally between Republicans and the third party candidate. Moderates divide equally between Democrats and the third party candidate. (This should be taken as an indication of the issue's power rather than a literal projection of election outcomes).Let's hope there's a leader out there ready to focus on the bigger picture of the immigration debate... a picture that is welcoming, enforceable, and enforced.

If that person doesn't step forward, it's easy to envision an outcome that only a political junkie could love. Imagine that the nation remains bitterly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Then, a 3rd party candidate campaigns on immigration, picks up a few Southwestern states, and prevents either party's Presidential nominee from winning a majority of the Electoral College. Not a pretty picture."

LEST WE FORGET: It Ain't Easy For A Pimpfant

Are you the parent of a toddler concerned that your kid might be hitting the playground without "fresh gear and street cred." Then Pimpfants is for you! Baby Beaters, tiny Velour Hooded Track Suits, and Jersey Tees! They're all here!