Sunday, April 30, 2006
Air America made one huge mistake. It invested itself in every stupid version of Bush bashing. In the end, Air America was predictable and silly. How many times can you hear that Pres. Bush is a moron who stole the election? Even liberals tuned out Air America!
So good-bye Al Franken. Pres. Bush will be around a lot longer than Air America. How is that for sweet justice?
Friday, April 28, 2006
As I said before, I support a work permit (or visa) for the millions already here. They are working. They are not taking jobs from anyone. We have a 4.7% national unemployment rate, which is almost full employment.
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony, one of the indocumentados's best friends, is urging immigrants not to participate in a worker and student boycott planned for May 1:
"People of good will, desirous of enacting fair and just immigration legislation, can differ on which strategies will help bring about the immigration reform needed. Personally, I believe that we can make May 1st a “win-win” day here in Southern California: go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterwards." (http://www.archdiocese.la/archbishop/story.php?newsid=738)
The Cardinal is right. I agree with him for two reasons:
1) A one-day boycott is not going to have any impact in a US$ 15 trillion economy. Furthermore, people will buy on Tuesday or Wednesday what they didn't purchase on Monday.
2) This boycott will increase tensions over immigration.
Every poll shows that the US public is growing impatient over the border. This boycott will give more people a reason to vote for a fence.
In November, Americans will vote. As of today, Americans are in a bad mood about the border and immigration. This boycott will increase that anger.
P.S. I should add that there are growing tensions within the Latin community about this boycott.
Check out "Immigrant Groups Split on Boycott--Walkouts May Do More Harm Than Good, Some Say"
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Don't be fooled by the talking heads. There is no polling evidence that the Republicans will lose the Senate or House.
Indeed, history is against Pres. Bush in 2006. Reagan, Eisenhower and FDR had losses in their 6th year. I won't deny that the Dems have an advantage but it is not enough to win in November.
It's early but here are my projections in the US Senate.
As of today, there are two very weak Republican incumbents----Santorum in PA and Talent in Missouri. I think that they will go down. Burns is weak in Montana but he will recover.
There are several weak Dem incumbents----Maryland is an open seat, Menendez in NJ, Stabenow in Michigan and Cantwell in Washington. Minnesota is an open seat and that state is tilting Republican. The Dems will hold all of these but I'm praying hard for Steele in Maryland.
So the Senate won't change at all. The Reps will lose 2 and lead 52-47 and one independent from Vermont.
I will review the House later in the summer. As of today, there is no polling evidence that the Dems will win enough seats to make a difference.
Again, do not fall for the talking heads who say that the Republicans are headed for huge defeats. They are expressing "wishful thinking opinions" rather than anything based on polls.
Just remember. Vote in November and turnout will take care of everything.
For more information, check out:
Larry Sabato's "Crystal Ball"(http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2006/senate/)
What About the Senate? By Jay Cost(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/what_about_the_senate.html)
Saturday, April 22, 2006
The big question is this: why is Homeland Security getting serious about enforcing immigration laws now?
The answer is that the political class is getting an earful from their constituents. The public is sending the political class a clear message: Fix the border or we will replace you with someone who does.
Check out Howard Dean:
"The first thing we want is tough border control...We have to do a much better job on our borders than George Bush has done. And then we can go to the policy disagreements about how to get it done." (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-115953-1553r.htm)
Why is Howard Dean saying this? Because he is reading the same polls that everybody else is reading.
Check out Rasmussen Reports:
"Forty-six percent (46%) of Americans said that they prefer the candidate with the harder line on illegal aliens while 38% opt for the candidate who wants to expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs. However, those who say the immigration issue is very important in determining their vote prefer the pro-enforcement candidate by a much larger margin, 67% to 23%. This suggests that the short-term political advantage on the immigration issue lies with those who want a tougher enforcement policy. Fifty percent (50%) of Americans say the immigration issue is very important. Another 32% say it is somewhat important." (http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Immigration%20April%207.htm)
What happens next?
In the short run, the raids will cause panic in the manufacturing world. Plant executives and HR managers will meet to make sure that the employee's paperwork is in order.
In the longer run, more employers will think twice about hiring someone with soft documentation. Why? Because the illegal worker will be deported and the employer will go to jail.
Enforcement works. Surprised? I am not.
We are entering a new phase of this immigration debate. The American people are now marching and the politicians are listening. Why? Because Americans are angry and mad voters usually vote.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Where are we on this immigration debate?
First, the marches were huge but their electoral impact was negative. See Deborah Orin's excellent analysis: "ILLEGALS' RALLIES ALIEN-ATE VOTERS" (http://www.nypost.com/commentary/62416.htm)
Second, the Democrats don't have a clue. Ruben Navarette recently wrote "The Democrats Sell Out Latinos":
"Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin-American Citizens, told me that he tried to impress upon Reid's office that it was important to get immigration reform done. "Apparently, it fell on deaf ears," Flores said." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/the_democrats_sell_out_latinos.html)
Navarette is not alone. The San Diego Union editorial hit the Democrats very hard:
"You have to hand it to Democrats in Congress. If you're not concerned about leadership or honesty or consistency, and if all you care about are slick and deceitful maneuvers that make you look good while making your opponents look bad, then this bunch is for you." (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060414/news_lz1ed14bottom.html)
The Democrats also have a "union problem"! See "Unions worked up over illegals" By Charles Hurt:
"Labor unions, which are among the Democratic Party's most loyal supporters, are deeply at odds with the party's push for a guest-worker program, and many Capitol Hill aides say erosion of labor's support undermined the Senate immigration-reform bill last week." (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060414-110533-7413r.htm)
Third, the Republican Congress is divided. Tancredo wants a tough bill. McCain wants work visas. Republicans came together two weeks ago but the Democrats pulled the plug on a compromise. My guess is that Republicans got an earful from their constituents during the Easter recess. Most Republicans are probably leaning toward a "tougher border" solution because that's what the public wants.
What happens next?
The table is set for Pres. Bush to step in and score a huge political victory. Are you listening Karl Rove?
First, Pres. Bush needs to make a speech about the importance of border security in a post 9-11 world. The President should put troops on the border to reflect his seriousness about the anarchy.
The troops on the border will be a big hit and reconnect the president with the right wing base. It will drive his approval numbers over 50% again. Law and order is always a winning issue for Republicans.
Let's face reality. Bush is down in the polls because the Republican base is furious about the border. Fix the border and the base comes home for November.
Troops on the border will be a big hit with Spanish speaking immigrants as well. They are sick and tired of the chaos and anarchy on the border. Every poll confirms that Hispanic immigrants do not want open borders or support illegal immigration. Read the recent Pew survey.
Secondly, Pres. Bush should call for "earned citizenship", which will be a big winner in the Hispanic community. Politically speaking, "earned citizenship" has more spark than a work visa program.
What is earned citizenship? According to Fred Barnes:
"Earned citizenship would permit the 12 million immigrants living illegally in the United States to apply for citizenship. They would be required to work for six years, commit no crimes, pay back taxes, and learn English. Then and only then could they get in line to become citizens, a process that takes five years." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/104dybwn.asp)
Work visas are a temporary solution. Earned citizenship is a permanent solution.
Bush has a great opportunity to win back the disenchanted Republican base and score with Hispanics. Beyond that, he has a chance to solidify the gains that the Republicans made with Hispanics in 2004.
P.S. Let's remember this from the last election: "The Hispanic vote elects Bush" by Dick Morris (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/4/203450.shtml)
Monday, April 17, 2006
I would recommend that you link to Rush and listen to it. It is very good! (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041706/content/eib_interview.guest.html)
I have one simple question. Why didn't some of these generals resign years ago? or during the Iraq planning stages?
Thomas Lipscomb is senior fellow of the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future. Today, he wrote an article asking the same question: "If Rumsfeld's so bad, why didn't generals resign?" (http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref17.html):
"But if Generals Gregory Newbold, John Batiste, Zinni and others have believed Rumsfeld's policies have been so dire that they are calling for his resignation, their opinions would have carried far more weight if they had stated them at some personal cost to themselves while on active service by resigning in protest. That action might have also carried some evidence of the courage Americans expect of the highest ranking officers of its uniformed services."
This is a fair question.
I recall Sec. Vance resigning over Pres. Carter's decision to rescue the hostages. It was a principled decision. I respect a man who resigns over principle.
In the public sector, resignation is the preferred way to file a protest.
If you don't support the Secretary or the President, then resign. Call a press conference and resign.
Why didn't they? I don't know but it's a fair question. It is a good question but no one in the media has challenged the generals.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
The Newt episode is a good example.
The media is desperately seeking anyone who will criticize Pres. Bush on Iraq.
They drag out retired generals, who are promoting books and their TV careers, and do Monday morning quaterbacking shows on Iraq military decisions. (By the way, read Prof. VD Hanson's analysis of this "Dead-end Debates" (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200604130743.asp)
None of these generals, or anyone else, stood up in March 2003 and said: Stop this war because Saddam does not have WMDs.
In March 2003, everyone stayed quiet or joined the crusade. Democrats went into mute mode in March 2003! They started talking when Howard Dean built up a 20 point lead in New Hampshire!
The latest nonsense from the media has to do with Newt Gingrich's remarks. Read or watch the speech. (Remarks on Iraq at the University of South Dakotahttp://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2921)
Gingrich did not say anything like the headlines all over the media.
Check out "More Deception From "Good Morning America"(http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013742.php)
Many in the left wing media think that they are hurting Pres. Bush. In fact, they are hurting the media, i.e. their profession.
I don't expect any media to be pro-Bush or pro-Clinton. I do expect editors to be honest and shoot straight with readers.
Hugh Hewitt had a great discussion of the Iran situation on his show. Hewitt is drawing an analogy between March 7, 1936 and today.
What happened 70 years ago? As Hewitt points out, "March 7, 1936 is the day Hitler ordered German troops to reoccupy the Rhineland, and the date generally believed to have been, in retrospect, the ideal time to have stopped Hitler's march towards the war that followed. Britain and France did nothing, and the war came."
What if the US had attacked Hitler in 1936? The European street would have accused Pres. Roosevelt of being an unilateralist imperialist.
I don't know about nuclear weapons. I am not a military expert either. Yet, I do know that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.
Tony Blair and the UK will help us. I don't believe that the rest of Europe has the will or wallet to do anything.
As the Wall Street Journal points out that Iran:
"has escalated the situation by deceiving U.N. inspectors, indulging in incendiary rhetoric and abandoning its international commitments. Tehran has even resisted Russia's offer to let it enrich uranium in that country under Moscow's supervision."
The Iranian situation has entered into a dangerous situation. We may have to act very soon.
Friday, April 07, 2006
The immigration debate is getting silly and sillier.
On one hand, some people want to deport everyone. You can't do that. We don't have enough buses or train cars to send them back. Also, many employers will scream if you send back their employees! Let's face. Most of these people are working and their bosses are very happy with them.
We have 4.8% unemployment. Illegal immigrants are not taking work from Americans. They are generally doing the minimum wage work that most Americans won't do, such as picking tomatoes.
On the other hand, you have those who want amnesty. You can't do that either. Amnesty will simply invite another round of people to cross the border and wait their turn. Amnesty will mock those who have followed the legal procedures to come to the US.
Deportation and amnesty are bad ideas. It's time for both sides to stop screaming and get real about a very complicated problem. Like terrorism and Social Security, we chose to do nothing and now have to face the consequences of our indecision and lack of leadership.
It looks like the Senate came up with a compromise. According to reports, the plan divides immigrants into various groups and applies different standards to each one:
"Illegal immigrants who have been in the country for at least five years could receive legal status after meeting several conditions....Illegal immigrants in the country for between two and five years could obtain a temporary work visa after reporting to a border point of entry....Illegal immigrants in the United States for less than two years would be required to leave the country and apply for re-entry alongside anyone else seeking to emigrate." (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060407/D8GQQS3G0.html)
Frankly, this is a good place to start. I understand that it won't please everyone but that's why they call it a compromise.
The final product must include tough steps to protect the border. If necessary, put troops on the border to convey a message that the US is serious abour it. Make it clear that crossing the border is a felony and you will be sent back. Eventually, the message will get through and people will stay home!
A work visa program without border enforcement won't work. We will simply end up with another dozen million illegals in 20 years.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with the Mexican flag. I just don't like people demmanding rights and sticking a foreign flag in my face.
On Saturday, we will see another march. Let's hope that people behave and show their appreciation for what the US has done for them.
Check out: "Mexican flags draw dissent" (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0405mexicanflag0405.html:
Saturday, April 01, 2006
France is a sick economy. It can't grow or create jobs. It needs to change its labor laws.
What did Jacques and Dom do? They gave in to lawless demonstrators.
Did Chirac's concessions please the protesters? No. They promised more violence.
In the words, the street wants their way or nothing at all.
Check out these pictures from Paris. (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/would-you-let-your-daughter-go-to.html)
These are not protests. This is anarchy! It's going to be a very violent year in Paris.