5/21: Unconventional Wisdom

May 21, 2007 12:50 PM | Permalink |

David Frum's lengthy NRO post making the case that immigration legislation will destroy the GOP in '08 seems like majority opinion on the matter. But we claim the issue represents a great opportunity for the GOP field. As Kausfiles points out, the immigration deal makes it seem like Karl Rove "using advanced, high-tech tools ... has found the last pocket of support for Bush and destroyed it with laser-like efficiency." With the American public so uniformly unhappy with the president, immigration gives a great opening for a GOP candidate to establish himself as THE anti-W. As Ron Paul demonstrates, you can't gain traction by being anti-Bush on Iraq, but a candidate who thoroughly attacked Bush administration incompetence on immigration would tap into a great well of GOP eagerness to move on from the Bush era and rebrand the GOP.

IMMIGRATION: The Natives Are Restless

The reason for conservative opposition to the Senate's immigration bill are not monolithic, but with 630 pages of details to pick from, opposition to it is. Oft-repeated criticisms include:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt on Section 601(f)'s requirement for all Z applicants to be interviewed: "Let's use the low number of 12 million potential Zs, and assume that an average of 3 Zs will appear for each interview, which means the feds need to schedule, conduct and write-up 4 million interviews. Is it fair to allocate, say, 2 hours per interview set-up, completion and follow up? So we need 8 million federal manhours. Are these DHS hours? And which employees are tasked with the interview process? The bill is silent."
The Corner's Mark Steyn on Section 601 (h)'s granting of probationary 'benefits' to applicants whose background checks have not been completed "by the end of the next business day" after initial application: "Is that This-background-check-will-self-destruct-in-24-hours clause for real? If the entire "undocumented" population of, say, Falls Church, Virginia wanders into the local immigration office at 4pm on Monday, the clerks have got till 5pm on Tuesday to find anything on the guys or they've got no choice but to issue the Z visa?"
RedState's Rob Bluey rebuts all ten WH talking points for the bill, including Myth 5, "The trigger period will not cause a rush to the border." Bluey writes: "Although to be eligible for a Z visa illegal aliens must prove they were in the country prior to Jan. 1, 2007, it is expected that it will not be difficult to produce fraudulent documentation ... As previously stated, a Z-visa holder merely has to provide two documents. First, "sworn affidavits from nonrelatives" that the illegal alien qualifies, plus one other non-secure document. This is a huge loophole in the verification provision of who is present in the country illegally after Jan. 1, 2007.
Power Line's Scott Johnson: "The 1986 amnesty also promised enforcement. It was never delivered. Unless the 2007 version provides more ICE enforcement agents, information-sharing authority to find and arrest illegals, beds to house them, prosecutors and judges to adjudicate their cases, and workable procedures for deportation, we'll soon be back in the same position we're now in."
Captain's Quarters (who, was initially supportive of the bill): "The Bush administration insisted on removing a requirement to pay back taxes on money earned before legalization. This is a huge mistake. It's one thing (and not a good thing) to put illegal immigrants ahead of those waiting in line legally to enter our country. It's another entirely to put them ahead of US citizens. Should we declare an overall amnesty on back taxes? If not, then why do illegals get preferential treatment?"
RedState's Charles Bird is "mildly" for the bill but: "The guest worker program should be whacked. Title IV looks unwieldy and unworkable. Two years in-country and one year out looks totally arbitrary, and I get nervous when our federal government is making decisions about what market demand will be."

Conservatives are also upset with how their opposition to the bill is being portrayed by the MSM, and even some traditional allies. NRO's Mark Levin singles out the WSJ for labeling those opposed to the bill as "restrictionists." Levin: "We're "restrictionists" because we want border security first, which we've not had for four decades? We're "restrictionists" because we want the 1986 comprehensive immigration reform law enforced, the same law championed by the Journal back then? We're "restrictionists" because we're concerned about the costs to entitlement programs, public education, and the health care system? ... To ignore or reject all the publicly available evidence of security and cost-related issues associated with a deal like this, and they are numerous and serious, is to diminish the credibility of the editorial writers at the Journal who write this stuff. They're beginning to sound like big-spending, soft-on-security liberals."

Other reactions include:

The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "The crisis in immigration is only an enforcement crisis. It is not a crisis that millions of people who have chosen to live and work here illegally must live "in the shadows." That is their problem, not ours. I am not in favor of rounding them all up - those thin resources ought to be dedicated to ousting the illegals who violate our criminal laws. But I will never understand the urgency to address their status."
Instapundit on whether conservatives "are getting unhinged over" immigration: "There's definitely some of that. On the other hand, there's also a lot of rational dismay about the GOP leadership's efforts here, which have produced yet another self-inflicted wound."
Kausfiles: "Using advanced, high-tech tools, Karl Rove has found the last pocket of support for Bush and destroyed it with laser-like efficiency."
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum. There is simply too much here to say "Trust us," and move on."
Right Wing News: "If this bill passes the Senate, I'm going to organize multiple Googlebombs that target every Republican in the Senate who is up for reelection in 2008 and votes for this amnesty bill. I'm going to find the worst, most damaging, hit pieces on the entire world wide web and I'm going see to it that every person who searches for the name of a pro-amnesty Republican in the Senate will see those articles."

Looking forward, Townhall's Hewitt looks at what could be done on the issue: "If Senator Kyl comes forward with a half dozen revisions which the GOP will insist on, including construction of the entire fence and additional barriers that were authorized last year's law prior to the beginning of the "paperwork period" for regularization and very clear, very easily quoted language that citizenship is not open to anyone who entered the country illegally for at least the 18 years an ordinary American born here must wait to exercise his or her franchise, the DOA bill will begin to show signs of life."

Hewitt also posts a Border Patrol agent's border security solution, including: "Stand up permanent immigration checkpoints in Arizona on major routes of egress from the border. Support these checkpoints with sensors, radar, remote cameras, etc to mitigate illegal traffic attempting to circumvent it. San Diego, New Mexico and Texas have employed this strategy with great effect; Arizona does not and is the weak link. Tucson Sector comprises 13% of the SW Border but accounts for nearly 40% of all BP apprehensions/illegal entries. Give Arizona the technology, drive-through barriers, agents and permanent checkpoints (WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED BY CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE FROM 1999-2006!!!!!) not 800+ miles of fence. It is a catastrophic waste of money. Ask any BP Agent on the southwest border and they'll tell you the same thing."

IMMIGRATION II: This Is It

Netroots blogging on immigration is still light, but can be found (although consensus can not) including:

Matthew Yglesias: "It's genuinely ridiculous, in my opinion, that we accept the level of illegal immigration that we have right now. It's ridiculous, rather than just plain bad, because it seems we could put a stop to it fairly easily. The basic shape of a crackdown-plus-amnesty compromise makes a ton of sense. The restrictionist view that implementation of an amnesty should be conditional on some evidence that the cracking down is having an impact makes sense. And with that framework in place, we could then allow for the level of immigration to the United States to be set by law in a manner of our choosing. If I were dictator, we would step up enforcement, then have an amnesty, then raise the levels of legal immigration.
Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "This bill needs to be fair to the undocumented and fair to the workers. I think there's too much emphasis on enforcement and not enough on protecting workers and their families."
The Reality Based Community: "Those of us who think that the bill as proposed will put upward pressure on wages compared to the status quo stand, I think, vindicated. If the bill really meant more hordes of Mexicans and Central Americans flooding across the border, the National Restaurant Association would be for it."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein reports the House immigration effort will be headed up by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and will probably be based off the STRIVE Act. Klein adds: "The folks I talked to believe this is the year. Two years from now isn't an option. The particular political circumstances we're in are nearly unique: Bush has nothing left to lose but his involvement still provides cover for Republicans, Democrats can get an immigration bill without full ownership over it ... You have the RNC defending a bill that, were it offered under a Democratic president, they'd be tearing apart. Meanwhile, this just won't be a priority for the next president: President Democrat will want to do health care, not amnesty, and President Republican will want to get reelected someday. So this is the shot."

GOP FIELD: Kablooey!

NRO's David Frum counts the ways immigration has "detonated the slow-motion trigger on a Republican debacle in 2008" including:

The typical (median) American worker has seen his income stagnate under George W. Bush. Immigration is not the only reason for this wage stagnation, but it is certainly one of the reasons. With this immigration bill, the GOP is telling hard-pressed workers: Go look to somebody else to help you.
As complicated as this immigration deal is, it rests on a simple compromise: The Democrats get the amnesty they want - in exchange for the Republicans getting the guest-worker program they want. By identifying the guestworker program as the GOP's highest immigration priority, the deal also identifies the GOP as a party that in the crunch puts employers' interests first.
Even before the deal, Democrats entered the 2008 cycle unified and energized; Republicans, divided and demoralized. The president and the senators have now managed to divide and demoralize their party even further.
The White House/RNC defense of the deal only enrages Republican voters. When Tony Snow delivers a speech to the Council on National Priorities arguing that George W. Bush has been tougher on illegal immigration than any president ever .. well, he invites jeers and derision.
The deal will worsen Republican prospects among Hispanic voters. Over the years, the Republicans have done not too badly with Hispanics, typically winning about 35%-40% of the Hispanic vote as compared to under 10% of the black vote.

GIULIANI: The Next 50-State Strategy

NY Sun's Ryan Sager posts video of Rudy Giuliani from 5/19's GOP dinner in New York, NY, including Giuliani "sounding a bit like Howard Dean, listing all the states he can win."

HUCKABEE: Of Everyone Who Doesn't Have A Shot, You're The Best Of That Group

Acknowledging Mike Huckabee's strong debate performances have "moved him to the top of the second tier" SC Daily Chaser's argues Huckabee muffed the announcement of ex-Gov. David Beasley by announcing it a state convention that was dominated by immigration.

MCCAIN: Don't Campaign Angry Now

John McCain's online reputation continues to sink as details of 5/18's profanity dust-up with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) circulate on conservative blogging circles. Power Line's Scott Johnson reports on the incident:

We have pieced together the following account that we believe more accurately relates the incident and provides the necessary context. McCain has been largely missing from the Senate since late March, when it became apparent his fundraising operation was seriously lagging. ... But he wanted to be front and center when the immigration bargain was announced, and Kennedy and Specter did everything they could to accommodate him. They reserved the Senate press gallery room for 1:30 p.m. Thursday, just in time for McCain to attend before heading out to New York for more fundraising. ... A minor problem arose. ... A final meeting started at 10 a.m. in hopes of finishing the deal.

Cornyn, tacitly supported by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), pushed hard to streamline legal procedures to allow prompt deportation of illegals. Kennedy resisted. ... As the clock moved closer to 1:30 p.m., McCain suddenly lost it. 'This is chickenshit,' he told Cornyn. 'I think it would expedite things if you would just leave the room, Senator, so we can get along with finishing this up.' Cornyn responded: 'Wait a minute. We've been meeting for three months on this in good faith, and now you parachute in here this morning and tell me to leave? I think you're out of line.'

McCain responded: "F*** you! I know what is going on here. I know more about immigration than anybody in this room!" Other Senators moved in to calm things down, and the talks went on. Cornyn's provision was not included.

Johnson later comments on McCain: "The eruption of McCain at fellow Republican Cornyn is an incident that reverberates on several levels. It renews lingering doubts about whether Senator McCain possesses the proper temperament to be president."

At The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that The Heritage Foundation's front page "has a photo of McCain with Kennedy to advertise the critical immigration-bill section on their homepage." Also, NY Sun's Ryan Sager posts video of McCain at 5/19's GOP dinner in New York, NY, and comments: "National Review said it best the other day. Mr. McCain is the candidate for Republicans who are mad as hell."

PAUL: Seriously, Stop Emailing Us!!!

Instapundit blogs: "I keep getting emails from Ron Paul supporters asking why I've taken him off my poll, which is odd because he was in my poll. He's dropped out of the Pajamas Media poll, because he's at less than one percent in Gallup and that's the cutoff they use. I also note that nasty emails and spamming don't help his cause, but seem popular among some of his supporters."

ROMNEY: Amnesty From Dobson?

The Brody File links to audio of James Dobson speaking kindly of Mitt Romney after announcing he will not vote for John McCain or Rudy Giuliani and comments: "Would James Dobson, one of the most well known and more importantly popular evangelical leaders come out and support Mitt Romney for President? If he did, do you understand the implication of that? As it relates to the Mormonism issue, his endorsement would give millions of evangelicals "cover" to vote for Romney."

SC's Daily Chaser posts photos of "over 400 delegates" standing in line to meet Romney at the GOP convention and The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Romney's new ad securing the border.

DEM FIELD: Clinton Deflated

MyDD's Chris Bowers backs off his "Inflated Clinton Poll Theory" and instead offers these more general observations on polling of the field:

Some early indications of voter turnout favor Clinton and Edwards, while others favor Obama. Specifically, Clinton and Edwards do well among older poll respondents and Clinton does better among self-identified Democrats than among Independents who lean Democratic. However, Obama does better among poll respondents who are paying more attention to the campaign. When averaged together, these effects might very well cancel each other out / compliment each other.
There does not appear to be a large "anti-Hillary" vote in the Democratic electorate. Second, social pressure to say you are voting for a woman or an African-American does not appear to be artificially inflating either Clinton or Obama's poll numbers. Third, while Clinton performs slightly worse than Edwards or Obama in general election trial heats, the gap is not massive.

DEM FIELD II: Base Building

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher's favorably reviews Laura Flanders new book Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics From the Politicians highlighting this passage:

This book advises party Democrats to develop, not ditch, their base, by which I mean those demographic groups that vote disproportionately blue (the Democrats' color on those TV maps on election night). That includes members of trade unions, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, young voters (in 2006, a startling 70% of Hispanic voters voted Democratic), unmarried women (66 percent voted blue in 2006), religious minorities and city dwellers.

CLINTON: Working Girl

MyDD's Matt Stoller is worried about Hillary Clinton's recent relative strength in netroots straw polls and theorizes on causes, including:

No one is putting up a fight. I have heard virtually no direct criticisms of her from any of the candidates.
The other campaigns are getting weaker. Obama's rise has hit a ceiling, and Edwards is not running a particularly coherent or inclusive campaign. Richardson is out of step with the times.
All the campaigns are blurring their messaging.

Stoller later suggests the 'blurring' explanation is probably the best and advises: "I could see a lot of ways to make distinctions, which I'll hopefully write about in a future post. But let me hint that it involves criticizing her advisor Mark Penn and her corporate connections."

DODD: Don't MoveOn

The Nation's Ari Melber laments MoveOn.org's decision to leave the restoration of habeas corpus off their new survey asking its members to plan the group's "next steps." Melber notes: "In addition to bloggers' activism on this front, there are important efforts by the Alliance for Justice, Amnesty International, Sen. Chris Dodd's Restore-habeas.org, and the ACLU, which launched a high-profile campaign including legislative meetings with bloggers. ... But without more activism, especially within the netroots, it looks like habeas corpus may stay on the backburner for MoveOn and the Democratic Congress."

OBAMA: The Anti-Hillary

MyDD's Democraticavenger admires Barack Obama's "deep intellect" and proven commitment to service but adds: "Put another way, if you don't support Barack Obama at this point, you are really supporting Hillary Clinton. ... If you share my doubts about either Hillary's electability as compared to other candidates or also share general doubts about a return to the Clinton's style of politics but are supporting any of the other Democratic candidates ask yourself seriously can your candidate beat Hillary Clinton on February 5th."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Resignation Due Any Second Now

After watching "the Sunday shows" TPM's Josh Marshall claims " the tide has turned again on the AG" and credits the testimony of ex-DAG James Comey. From Marshall: "Comey's narrative of events back in March 2004 was a riveting example of the special mix of sycophancy, lickspittlism and lawlessness that is at the heart of Alberto Gonzales's tenure as Attorney General. ... The Comey story is extremely important."

Marshall also takes the time to point out the liberals should not start getting misty-eyed for the John Ashcroft era: "This is, after all, the same Ashcroft who relentlessly pushed some of the most dangerous provisions of the Patriot Act, endorsed torture, made poor choices, showed bizarre priorities, suffered crushing defeats at the Supreme Court, issued highly dubious terrorist threat warnings, fought with Congress over documents to which lawmakers were legally entitled, and may have even fibbed in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. And that's not even including the "Spirit of Justice" incident."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Tilting Left Anytime Soon

SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein explains why even though the last four presidents all appointed two Justices each, the next president will have the power to significantly alter the make up of the court, but only in one direction:

The next President similarly will have two appointments immediately (replacing Stevens and Souter), and there also is a very substantial prospect that a Democrat would quickly be in a position to appoint a third (replacing Ginsburg). In fact, if a Democrat wins, there will be something of a race for the exits. ... Even a Justice on the left who is planning on leaving and would prefer to have his or her successor appointed by a Democrat will likely retire relatively early in a Republican presidency. ... By contrast, I don't see any prospect of any conservative Justice retiring under a Democratic president.

LEST WE FORGET: Snip Snip

Andrew Sullivan points us to a Rock, Scissors, Paper tip sheet which includes this advice: "Haven't a clue what to throw next? Then go with Paper. Why? Statistically, in competition play, it has been observed that scissors is thrown the least often. Specifically, it gets delivered 29.6% of the time, so it slightly under-indexes against the expected average of 33.33% by 3.73%. Obviously, knowing this only gives you a slight advantage, but in a situation where you just don't know what to do, even a slight edge is better than none at all."