June 11, 2007

6/11: The New Center

Guess who said the following on the Senate immigration bill:

• Here's what I'm looking for in immigration reform: I want immigration reform that prioritizes tougher security at our ports and borders to keep out terrorism, illegal drugs and illegal immigrants.
• We must also gain control over our porous borders by properly utilizing the assets and legal means now at our disposal. We have these laws and these means. The President needs to enforce them.
• The Senate immigration bill was a deeply, deeply flawed proposal, and I'm glad it has finally landed in the political graveyard. America needs enforcement, not amnesty.

If you said netroots-supported Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT), James Webb (D-VA), and Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) then you are correct. While Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the Washington Post, and the New York Times were all bemoaning the immigration bill's defeat at the hands of nativist GOPers, few noticed that many of the netroots' favorite candidates either voiced opposition or voted against Reid's "grand compromise." It's possible that Reid, the Post, and the Times were correct when they claimed most Americans were in favor of the bill and that only a small minority strongly opposed. But if we had to bet, our money would guess that the newcomers to Washington had a better grasp on what their constituents priorities were. If immigration reform is going to get done under Pres. Bush, proponents may want to try and get the enforcement first netrooters on board. Even hardcore conservatives, like The Heritage Foundation's Rob Bluey, are more than willing to talk amnesty (check out Bluey at Bloggingheads.tv), if enforcement is done first.

CLINTON: Good Girl

The Netroots are celebrating Hillary Clinton's move left on trade following her announced opposition to the U.S. -South Korea Free Trade Agreement. MyDD's Matt Stoller theorizes: "Good for her. She's feeling the pressure on [Mark] Penn."

David Sirota adds: "The South Korea trade pact is one of the pacts that was included in the larger secret deal to approve a package of trade deals that a handful of congressional Democrats and the White House announced last month. ... Make no mistake about it - the South Korea deal is the easiest out of the pending trade deals to oppose, because there are at least some Big Money interests (like the automakers) opposed to it. ... Nonetheless, this is a great announcement and she should be applauded for it."

CLINTON II: Bad Girl

Atrios is not impressed with news Power Rangers producer Haim Saban is supporting HRC. Atrios blogs: "That would be Haim Saban, funder and namesake of the Brookings' Saban Center for Middle East Policy and home to the dangerously credulous Kenneth Pollack, the man who made the good liberal case for war so popular."

Matt Yglesias notes that one need not beat up Pollack to worry about the foreign policy preferences of Clinton's financial backers. Yglesias links to a Haaretzinterview where Sabam says, "When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler." Yglesias comments: "Saban was the largest overall contributor to the Democratic National Committee during the 2001-2002 cycle, when the party leadership was backing the Iraq War and Terry McAuliffe was DNC chair, and if Clinton becomes president, they'll be back in the positions of influence they enjoyed back then. I doubt this all means that Hillary Clinton's secretly itching for war with Iran, but it's yet another illustration of the fact that her views on national security policy are too neoconnish for my tastes."

EDWARDS: How Are You Different Than Hillary Again?

Frustrated with Hillary Clinton's success at blurring distinctions between herself and other Dems on Iraq, MyDD's Matt Stoller posts video of Sam Brownback attacking Mitt Romney on an array of issues and asks: "Have you seen anything remotely similar to this on the Democratic side?" Stoller then recounts how John Edwards refused to admit to taking a direct shot at Clinton on Iraq in the SC debate and comments: "Why couldn't he have just said yes? I mean, it is a direct shot at Clinton. It's not an 'attack', but it's a disagreement. And that's FINE. That's democracy."

Stoller concludes: "And when John Edwards refuses to acknowledge that he disagrees with Hillary Clinton, while obviously dancing in the media with a high profile apology that implies a whole lot of disagreement with a whole lot of people, he's avoiding the argument the party needs to have. Edwards is putting forward real and different ideas about America's place in the world. He disagrees with Clinton and Obama about a bunch of stuff. That's fine. There's no reason to hide it."

Not directly responding to Stoller, Edwards supporter Michael Conrad lays out his reasons for supporting Edwards at MyDD, including:

• 1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to publicly support the 2006 Kerry - Feingold amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (both Obama and Clinton voted against it).
• 1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to support cutting off funding for the escalation of the war in Iraq (both Obama and Clinton stopped short).
• 1st major candidate to endorse and campaign for Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race. Edwards was also the 1st candidate to call for Lieberman to drop out of the race. Edwards said that because Lieberman had just run in the Democratic primary and lost to Lamont, he should honor the result of the primary. Edwards was neutral during the primary, unlike Obama and Clinton who supported Lieberman.

EDWARDS II: No Joy In Johnville

The netroots are lauding the poverty focus of the Edwards campaign evident on 6/10's New York Timesarticle , but worry the piece shows Edwards is not serious about his WH ambitions. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent writes: "The piece, which has just gone up online, argues that the Edwards campaign is "joyless" and is hampered by a sense that the campaign is little more than a vehicle for him to discuss his signature issue of poverty."

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith also appreciated the feature, but did not go on to promote Edwards campaign: "More of this sort of discussion please - because the children born into this cycle of poverty need all of us. And good on Edwards and every other politician who has been working on this issue, publicly and privately. Hillary Clinton was correct all those years ago when she said that "it takes a village," because it does - and the sooner everyone realizes that we are all connected to one another in ways that we cannot always immediately quantify, the better we will all be."

EDWARDS III: A Haircut To Remember

Astonished to find 44% of respondents to a new Fox poll could volunteer Edwards as the "presidential candidate [who] has been in the news recently for paying four hundred dollars for a haircut" TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent looks at past polling and notes: "Only one point more knew Saddam didn't have WMDs -- a statistically identical amount. That's right -- the same number know about Edwards' haircut that knew the truth last year about Saddam and his phantom weapons. .... Something's wrong here."

OBAMA: A Younger, Less Competent Clinton?

MyDD's Matt Stoller is eager to declare "Obama Buzz" dead after looking at recent polling trends. Stoller blogs: "It's no secret that I'm no fan of Obama, Clinton, or Edwards, but this BB post is reserved for Obama. In 2005, I began criticizing him for doing nothing in the Senate. And now, with the hype finally and sort of over, it's become clear that he seems to have nothing new to offer except a Gen X and less competent version of the Clinton campaign. He's going to have one more boost of hype, after he beats Clinton in fundraising again this quarter. Hopefully he'll take advantage of that. I doubt he will, since he doesn't tend to do anything. But he might. Hopefully these polls are an alarm bell ringing in Obama HQ."

RICHARDSON: The Withdrawal Method Requires Actual Withdrawal

Thomas Ricks' WaPoarticle on "post-occupation" Pentagon planning for Iraq has some in the netroots promoting Bill Richardson's plan to abandon Iraq entirely. Matthew Yglesias blogs:

The goal, according to the war's proponents, is to create the kind of situation where the country is sufficiently stable and under sufficiently docile leadership as to be willing to play host to a series of permanent bases. ... this plan is tragically consistent with the Democratic mantra of withdrawing "combat forces" from Iraq but leaving troops for training, force protection, and counterterrorism. Bill Richardson says let's really withdraw.

Also blogging on Iraq, Siun at firedoglake comments on Richardson's plan to deauthorize Bush's Iraq policy now: "September will come (and go) with more hype and maneuvers and equivocation but one candidate is asking for our help - now - Bill Richardson. ... I haven't picked a presidential candidate but this very clear approach from Gov Richardson sure has my attention, as has the recent work of Sen. Dodd.

GIULIANI: All Security, All The Time

SC's Daily Chaser voices his satisfaction with Rudy Giuliani's recent "indirectly assail[ing] of John McCain on immigration. After McCain voted against Sen. John Vitter's (R-LA) amendment making it mandatory to identify every non-citizen who enters and exits this country. From Giuliani: "There is no guarantee in the current legislation that this will happen which is a fatal flaw. ... The American people demand that their politicians enact an immigration reform bill that addresses security first. I cannot support any immigration deal that compromises on this basic principle."

MCCAIN: Kerry's Defacto VP

John McCain's latest rhetoric that no immigration bill equals a "defacto amnesty" is only enraging conservatives further. Right Wing News takes on "the latest spin from John Kerry's first choice for Vice President": "Ehr, what, the hell is he talking about? By this same logic, we should allow every burglar to be able to skip prison time if they admit they committed a crime and pay a small fine because, since we haven't detained them yet, they're being given amnesty for their crime. Who even came up with this nonsense for him?"

F. THOMPSON: He's About Three Feet Taller Than Clark Too

Jennifer Rubin's doubts about Fred Thompson conservative credentials are spreading in conservative circles. NY Sun's Ryan Sager is one of many to post video of Rubin criticizing his "tort reform" views and NRO's Jim Geragthy links to her New York Observerarticle that argues "Thompson may be about a quart low in the "new ideas" category." Geraghrty adds:

Thompson has done a fine job of articulating classic principles; turning these into policies is a slightly different story. ... It's a different world; we need new ideas on how to apply what conservatives have long stood for - limited government, free markets, hawkish defense of our nation and interests, and balancing traditional social values and libertarian leave-me-alone interests - to the problems we face today.

Captain's Quarters, however, defends Thompson from charges his campaign will flounder like Gen. Wes Clark's '04 run: "Clark did not take the time to build this kind of movement on a broad vision, but instead focused on a narrow issue -- Iraq -- and contributed nothing new. Other Democrats had already adopted his point of view on the war, including John Kerry, which made him superfluous as a presidential candidate. Fred has avoided that fate by casting a much broader policy vision and, unlike Clark, eloquently and clearly delineating it."

IMMIGRATION: Not Dead Yet

Conservatives are under no illusion that the Senate immigration bill is dead citing multiple assurances from the bill's supporters that more efforts will be made. Reports include:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty commenting on Com. Sec. Carlos Gutierrez telling CNN the bill is 'alive and well': "He called the objections 'clerical issues.' ... Holding a losing hand, the administration chooses to double its bet."
• Michelle Malkin on New York Timesreports Pres. Bush will be coming to Capitol Hill: "The "Grand Bargainers" will be toiling behind closed doors again. As I've warned many times, if they can't get what they want in one "comprehensive" package, they will do what they've done for years under the radar--break off their favorite enforcement-undermining provisions and pass amnesty piecemeal."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt after hosting Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on his radio show: "The immigration bill is clearly not dead, and the effort to resurrect it will be intense. ... To bring back a bill with only cosmetic changes will enrage the GOP base far beyond where they already were when their complaints were perceived as being ignored. Republican activists will feel as though they are being conned if the bill that was thought to be dead is raised up in the same form and quickly passed."

Trying to be proactive, conservatives are eager to detail what a new bill would have to include to get their support. Hewitt recommendsNational Review 's editorial calling for the construction of a border fence as a precondition a bill and adds: "This essential nexus between the border fence and immigration reform is so crucial that I find myself amazed by the proponents of immigration reform who don't seem to get it. The fence is the visible expression of the invisible resolve --loudly proclaimed but hardly manifest anywhere-- to actually enforce the immigrations laws present and future. Because so little has been done in the past, even proponents of regularization of most of the illegals in the country are demanding the actual construction of the fence as a down payment on the security guarantees being offered by the Administration and senators backing the big bill."

Kausfiles looks at WH promises on border enforcement and asks: "If all these enforcement measures are so wonderful, why not enact just them and drop the questionable legalization part? Bush is holding the parts of the bill everyone says they want hostage to the parts he wants. ... If we tried the enforcement parts first, then we wouldn't have to trust the federal government. We could make sure the measures work before we go ahead with legalization (and attract a new wave of legalization-seeking illegals)."

Many area also citing recent Rasmussen polling that contradicts MSM assertions that the majority of Americans support the Senate immigration bill. Townhall's Dean Barnett blogs: "There is no vast middle of the American body politic that liked this bill. This bill died because it stunk, and its stinkiness became a matter of public knowledge. It died because Senators Clinton and Obama didn't want to defend it during the campaign." From Rasmussen:

The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don't like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.
The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the legislation.

There is no mystery to why the public opposed the bill. In the minds of most Americans, immigration means reducing illegal immigration and enforcing the border. Only 16% believed the Senate bill would accomplish that goal. ... It wasn't amnesty or guest-worker programs or paths to citizenship that doomed the bill. Each of those provisions made it more difficult for some segments of the population to accept. However, most voters were willing to accept them as part of a true compromise that accomplished the primary goal of reducing illegal immigration.

IRAQ: 4evah!

Thomas RicksWaPoarticle on the Pentagon's "post-occupation" Iraq planning that includes "a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years" is being grudgingly accepted on the right and even has found some support on the left. Conservative Captain's Quarters blogs: "Both capitals understand that the US cannot entirely leave Iraq while al-Qaeda continues to operate there. Even most Democrats acknowledge that; only Bill Richardson among the serious presidential candidates has committed to total and immediate withdrawal."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "This approach is not terribly different from the one I recommended last fall before the surge began, although I was thinking in terms of a U.S. presence of 50,000 to 60,000 troops. ... The challenge for the administration in its last year likely will be to find an approach that minimizes U.S. casualties but maintains a sufficient presence to prevent the worst scenarios in Iraq. Assuming there is such an approach to be found."

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto names some ways Dems can benefit from a quick embrace of the plan:

• If Democrats get out ahead of this before the White House, they can portray the eventual policy in the 2008 defense budget as a case where Bush was forced to follow the Democrats rather than the other way around, repairing the disappointment felt by the base over the war funding vote
• Democratic messaging can be built around the theme that a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress are needed in 2009 to get us out of Iraq in the right way consistent with what the generals rather than the armchair GOP warriors want; it will be a Democratic president and Democratic Congress that removes the Al Qaeda menace from Iraq that Bush and the GOP put there
• It forces the major drawdown to occur on Bush's watch so that the Democratic president in 2009 doesn't get tagged with doing it, forcing Bush to clean up his mess

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Put Up, Or ...

Dan Balzsanctimonious missive on the Senate immigration bill's failure includes: "The collective failure of the two parties already appears to have stimulated interest in a third-party candidate for president in 2008 whose main promise would be to make Washington work." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas responds:

Seriously, Dan, if you write shit like this, prove it. And I'm not talking about you and your cocktail party circuit buddies, praising Joementum in between munching on crab cakes and weenies. Where's the evidence that people outside of DC want a third party? The fact that there is gridlock in DC and it's tough to move legislation is a feature, not a bug of the system. Had they wanted one-party uncontested rule, they could've set us up with a parliamentary democracy.

LEST WE FORGET: How You Doin'?

Mo Rocca makes the case Pres. Bush better rethink addressing the Pope as 'Sir' as opposed to the accepted "His Holiness." From Rocca: "Be careful, President Bush. You better be nice to Benedict. He's got a constituency of a billion. And he's German. You don't want to piss His Holiness off. No, sir."

Posted by Conn Carroll at June 11, 2007 12:48 PM