ed morrissey: Page 1
Could Obamacare end up being an electoral boon for the GOP? Let me explain in the context of the video below. The video - from Time Warner Cable News - shows a Job Creator complaining that he can't expand his business to two more locations: if he does he'll hit the 50 employer limit imposed by Obamacare and have to either pay a fine or provide healthcare to his employees.
Conservative bloggers who support amnesty (Rubio; Hot Air, Morrissey, Johnsen, Loesch, Moran, Mataconis...) - 01/21/13
This post will maintain a list of those supposed conservative bloggers who support some form of comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty), specifically the amnesty proposed by Marco Rubio. This post doesn't list GOP politicians or pundits, just bloggers and other low-level members of the GOP establishment.
Those in the libertarians/fiscal conservative sphere tend to put loyalty to money ahead of loyalty to country. An example from earlier this year is at the link, and another example is offered by the case of Gérard Depardieu. That French actor has "gone Galt" by giving up his French citizenship and moving to Belgium in part to avoid high taxes ( peekURL.com/zEf4J2g ).
Dear readers of HotAir:
We disagree on many topics, but many of you agree with me on reducing illegal immigration and blocking amnesty.
Ed Morrissey of HotAir uses the recent tragic earthquake and ensuing tsunami in Japan as a launching point to promote his idea of free market capitalism. Except, he forgot to mention free market capitalism's possible role in the current nuclear issues associated with the tragedy (link):
Well, the question here is whether wealth allows for adaptation - or whether an economic system’s openness to adaptation leads to the wealth necessary to recover from disasters. The wealth of Western democracies based on capitalism owes its existence to economic and political environments where capital could flow freely to innovation and adaptation. Centrally-planned economies do not have that allowance for innovation and adaptation, even the so-called “enlightened” environment in China, where the reins have been loosened on central control but are far from removed.
Now, see this:
Critics of nuclear energy have long questioned the viability of nuclear power in earthquake-prone regions like Japan. Reactors have been designed with such concerns in mind, but preliminary assessments of the Fukushima Daiichi accidents suggested that too little attention was paid to the threat of tsunami. It appeared that the reactors withstood the powerful earthquake, but the ocean waves damaged generators and backup systems, harming the ability to cool the reactors.
That reactor is owned by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), a public company. It appears that they skimped on safety mechanisms, taking a chance that such a large earthquake wouldn't happen. And, all of that is consistent with the brand of "free market capitalism" that those in the Morrissey, tea parties, libertarians, Koch family, and Profits at Any Price school promote.
And, those in that school also tend to forget social issues, which will also play a very major role in Japan's recovery. They're a more cohesive, stratified society than the U.S. and one will note that there have been no food riots or the like as there might have been in the U.S. and there haven't even been any reported looting incidents (link).
UPDATE: From this:
Although the exact sequence of events at the Fukushima plant is still unclear, early assessments suggested that the containment structures weathered last week’s earthquake, but that power from the electric grid was cut off.
Nearly all nuclear facilities use backup diesel generators in such situations to maintain control over a reactor, prevent it from overheating by circulating a cooling agent and begin shutting it down.
But in this case, the subsequent tsunami may have damaged those generators and other components, forcing the use of another layer of backup, battery power.
However, batteries are designed to last only four to eight hours in most cases, just long enough to allow technicians to restore grid or generator power. If there is trouble restoring those power sources, as appears to be the case in Japan, the strategies for cooling the reactor become much more difficult.
All nuclear facilities in the United States deploy similar backup strategies...
And, those backup strategies failed in practice and that should have been foreseen. I'm not at all knowledgeable about nuclear power, but I do know about backups, and I can tell that all contingencies weren't planned for. It's part of the "backup culture", such as having three light sources when going caving or knowing how to make fire and distill water. It was also expressed by Hank Hill having a small can of WD-40 to open the stuck cap on the larger can of WD-40. Obviously no one can be prepared for every extremely slight contingency, but when dealing with extremely dangerous things like radiation it's vital to have multiple layers of backups.
3/15/11 UPDATE: AllahPundit offers yet another example of "capitalism" at work: "Terrific: Containment vessels used at Japanese plant have long been questioned by nuclear experts; Update: Reactor roof cracked?"
questioned-by-nuclear-experts which links to a New York Times story with:
In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended in a memo that the sort of “pressure-suppression” system used in G.E.’s Mark 1 plants presented unacceptable safety risks and that it should be discontinued. Among his concerns were that the smaller containment design was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant…
A written response came later that same year from Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the N.R.C. He called the idea of a ban on such systems “attractive” because alternative containment systems have the “notable advantage of brute simplicity in dealing with a primary blowdown.”
But he added that the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”
In the past few days, rumors have swirled that Angle is a crypto-Birther. I asked her “flat out” whether she believed Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, and she replied, “No. Is that flat-out enough for you?” Angle says she “wasn’t dodging” the caller on the radio show now being parsed by the media, in which she replied that the Supreme Court had already ruled on that issue, but instead wanted to talk about Obama’s political qualifications and wanted to politely redirect the conversation. Angle believes that Obama was born in Hawaii and is an American citizen, and also believes that those subjects are nothing more than a distraction that Democrats use to keep attention from their track record.
Angle is not now, nor has she ever been, a Birther. Even some of Morrissey's commenters call him out for McCarthyism. And, neither Morrissey nor Angle are competent enough to turn the birth certificate issue to their advantage. Neither of them are smart enough to figure out that no matter what they say their opponents are going to keep using the issue against them, and they need to do things in a different way.
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times offers "Democrats Skip Town Halls to Avoid Voter Rage" (nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html): the tantrums that those in the tea parties threw at last summer's public meetings have caused many Democrats to avoid open meetings this time around: Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority
The video at peekURL.com/v5rn15o shows New Hampshire Rep. Carol Shea Porter basically lecturing her constituents at a townhall yesterday. Those on the video (and the one at peekURL.com/vuimsnv ) just aren't in her league. And, that's saying something since Porter appears to be quite a piece of work.
A series of Beltway insiders, bloggers, and journalists have launched an online petition at demandquestiontime.com calling for repeats of the recent question and answer session Barack Obama held with House GOP leaders. In and of itself this isn't such a bad idea, at least from the entertainment standpoint. However, it's a very bad idea to the extent that it will be falsely presented as a real dialogue about vital issues. It's yet another sham, a slightly elevated version of debates held on the Hannity show.
As can be seen by the questions asked at the first event, the GOP isn't about to ask Obama embarrassing questions in a prosecutorial or even adversarial manner. And, there are topics on which he's highly vulnerable - such as immigration - that many in the Republican leadership don't want to discuss either. The GOP just can't be trusted to hold Obama accountable on immigration and a range of other topics. These events wouldn't be as fake as, say, WWE, but they're definitely Beltway-friendly and largely just for show.
The alternative is for those outside the Beltway to follow the question authority plan and use smart, adversarial questions to "cross-examine" political leaders and attempt to discredit them by showing how they've lied, misled, or failed to think their policies through. You aren't going to get anything like that from the "Question Time" events. Note that I've been promoting the question authority plan for just about three years and I've gotten almost no help with it.
Those behind the petition include a whole host of those who have little interest in rocking the boat (link):
supporters include Grover Norquist, Joe Trippi, Mark McKinnon, Ed Morrissey, Ari Melber, Katrina vanden Heuvel... Eli Pariser... Markos Moulitsas (Kos)... Ari Melber, Ana Marie Cox and Nate Silver. The steering committee is made up of Micah Sifry, David Corn, Mike Moffo, Mindy Finn (note: affiliated with Patrick Ruffini), Jon Henke and Glenn Reynolds.
That list is a very, very big clue as to what we're dealing with.
If anyone has heard of Jon Henke of The Next Right be sure and see that link. And, see the Reynolds link above for his past efforts such as encouraging people to swarm politicians and hold bunny ears behind their heads. Before the election I tried to get him and others to promote the question authority plan and he refused. See Morrissey's name for more on him, noting that when he interviewed Mike Huckabee he failed to ask him about immigration, his weakest position.
The audio at verumserum.com/?p=11595 has a radio interview with Martha Coakley about immigration. She doesn't appear to be a raving loose/open borders loon, but her position is bad, she admits that she wasn't fully doing her job, and part of her position is quite "business-friendly". See  for a discussion of the not-fully-correct video and the headline at the page, but the more important thing is her position:
Carly Fiorina supports massive skilled immigration ("There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore") - 11/06/09
Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina recently announced her candidacy as a Republican for senator from California; she's trying to unseat Barbara Boxer. While the latter is a highly worthy goal, she appears to be a globalist, profits-at-any-cost supporter of massive immigration at least of the skilled variety.
Ed Morrissey of HotAir offers "An end to fringe mainstreaming?" (link) in which he worries about the backlash from the Democrats and the MSM over the Van Jones resignation. He also shows that solving problems isn't exactly his forte:
...we can expect the media to hold Republicans to the standards the conservative punditry imposed on Van Jones, and to be a lot more aggressive about it than they were with Jones himself... it means that no one who ever expressed public support for Birthers to get the benefit of the doubt. The two conspiracy theories are different, but they both are entirely speculative and imagine dark conspiracies at the highest orbits of power, and neither have any actual direct evidence for support. Anyone who signed a Birther petition can expect to get bypassed for political appointments in a Republican White House with a halfway-decent vetting team, strictly on the basis of politics, in the wake of Jones’ resignation... [The media] will use the Van Jones Standard to launch attacks on high-profile conservatives, looking for everything from John Birch Society membership to militias and Birtherism as well... To some extent, this isn’t a bad trend. The nation could improve with a little more disavowing of conspiracy theorists and political extremists, although they tend to degrade into very damaging witch hunts more often than not.
I already discussed here what respectability-seeking, pearl-clutching hacks like Morrissey (and many others) just aren't smart enough to figure out. Regarding Morrissey himself, I've pointed out that what he wrote was directly contradicted by Hawaiian law. He refused to correct his false statement but instead chose to continue to lie just as badly as the MSM does. If, instead of doing that, he would simply tell the truth he could show how the MSM has lied. He could then use that to impeach the MSM's credibility when they go after more vulnerable members of the GOP. Maybe Morrissey wants a much smaller GOP that portrays a good portion of their base as insane and he wants to help the MSM get the GOP to that point. More likely, he (and all the others) have neither the intelligence nor the integrity to figure out how to get out of the situation they helped make for themselves.
Low-level conservative commentator Ed Morrissey of HotAir recently got a special treat: a shout-out from Media Matters for America in their article 'Unlike Dobbs, some conservative media think birthers are "nutburgers"' (by Julie Millican, mediamatters.org/research/200907220051). Rather than criticizing him, they were giving him a cookie for helping "[to] debunk the birth certificate rumors" about Barack Obama, linking to Morrissey's "The sadly obligatory SCOTUS birth-certificate post"  as proof of just how reasonable he was.
Just one problem: the HotAir post they linked to contained a series of updates as Morrissey realized he'd gotten things wrong. And, a couple more updates are necessary since he's still spreading disinformation.
In an attempt to help (of a fashion), I renewed our treasured acquaintanceship by sending him an email detailing what he got wrong. He wrote back that he had no interest in getting into an email debate about "Birther theories".
What he got wrong that time is what he referred to as "Birther theories" is actually clear-as-a-bell Hawaiian state laws, as detailed below.
1. He says:
The State of Hawaii only keeps birth certificates from births in Hawaii.
On the same day he posted that, I pointed out that he's wrong. Those born outside Hawaii can obtain valid Hawaiian birth certificates. The full text of that part of Hawaii's Revised Statutes is at that link, and here's a direct link to it at hawaii.gov. Apparently Ed Morrisey thinks that's a "Birther theory".
2. He says (this part was quoted by MMFA):
The state of Hawaii has repeatedly insisted that their records show Obama was born in Hawaii, as the Certificate of Live Birth states.
That's not only completely false, but he's in effect accusing Hawaiian officials of breaking the law. Here's the direct link to the law on hawaii.gov that forbids disclosure of private records. For Hawaiian officials to "repeatedly insist" that Obama was born there, they'd have to break that law. The fact is that they haven't broken that law, because they haven't "repeatedly insisted" that Obama was born there. Instead, they've simply stated that Obama has a valid certificate on file. That press release references the law at the hawaii.gov link. In fact, the same HotAir page, in "Update IV", quotes the portion of that press release where they say they can't reveal the information because of that law.
Please write Ed Morissey at tips *at* hotair.com and suggest that he tries to do some research before helping MMFA spread disinformation.
The following cartoon from Chris Muir is, as are many others of his cartoons, unintentionally hilarious (link).
If 48% believe that their taxes are just right, it might be because that’s the exact same percentage that will pay zero in the near future, according to Barack Obama’s tax policies. With Obama’s emphasis on refundables, 48.7% of Americans will wind up paying no income tax at all. For them, zero is the right amount, and they have no reason to be unhappy... yet ...Unfortunately, in a short period of time, even those people will have to start paying taxes, and not in small amounts...
And that's due to all the spending that Obama is doing now; see this. And, this would definitely be a powerful argument that could swing millions around to opposing Obama's policies, with a couple of caveats:
1. Will the actual long-term impact be as described? Isn't it possible that the experts are wrong, have interests they aren't disclosing, and so on? How would those experts answer their critics? Have their ideas been tested through debate?
2. Morrissey's argument is most definitely not the one that the tea parties are projecting to the world. Rather, their objection is to taxes in general, and in many or most cases not out of ideology but simply out of extreme self-centeredness. Many leftie useful idiots actually want what's best for the U.S., even if what they support would actually be counter-productive. Many or most of those at the "parties" have absolutely no interest in what's best for the U.S. All they care about is what's best for them.
Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette offers "Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories" (link) about the recent shooting of three police officers in Pittsburgh by an obviously deranged 22-year-old. He takes advantage of that tragedy to smear his or his paper's opponents:
Mr. Poplawski's view of guns and personal freedom took a turn toward the fringes of American politics. With Mr. Perkovic, he appeared to share a belief that the government was controlled from unseen forces, that troops were being shipped home from the Mideast to police the citizenry here, and that Jews secretly ran the country.
...Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s.
He was also a member of Stormfront. Ergo, in Roddy's mind, Alex Jones = Stormfront. And, whatever Jones' ideology, I don't think "far-right" is accurate. And, while Jones is "out there" a good part of the time, he's also had a couple scoops about things that sounded loony but which turned out later to be true.
Regarding the troops, see December's "20,000 U.S. military troops to help with "homeland security" in U.S. by 2011", which links to a Washington Post article about such a scheme. That was also discussed in September; the Army Times and the underlying documents included the possibility of using troops for crowd control.
One of the shooter's friends alludes to media bias regarding the MSM not covering states recently declaring sovereignty with the implication that there is no such bias. There's a round-up here from the Christian Science Monitor; Google News wasn't exactly filled with similar MSM articles. A smaller paper covered the movement in Pennsylvania here, a story that I couldn't locate at the Post-Gazette's site.
In case you think Roddy is just presenting facts without attempting to smear, he continues with this:
"For some time now there has been a pretty good connection between being sucked into this conspiracy world and propagating violence," said Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center and an expert on political extremists. She called Mr. Poplawski's act, "a classic example of what happens when you start buying all this conspiracy stuff."
Over to Ed Morrissey at the same site (hotair.com/archives/2009/04/05/kos-conservatives-like-to-shoot-cops):
Those who would use such horrifying tragedies to smear their political opponents are completely unworthy of engagement, and utterly despicable to boot, regardless of which side they’re on.
UPDATE: Also, as discussed at the last HotAir link, Kos said on twitter that "Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk "revolution" and shoot cops." He may have just been "joking".
UPDATE 2: The Anti Defamation League has also gotten involved in the smear; that and the other issues above are answered in "Poplawski Smear Debunked: Cop Killer Held Opposing Views To Infowars" (link).
UPDATE 3: Both RawStory and a DailyKos blogger have retracted Alex Jones-related smears (link). However, Sean Hamill of the New York Times and Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America continue the smear (link, link).
Yesterday, radio hosts John and Ken from KFI in Los Angeles held a "tea party" in Fullerton (Orange County) that was attended by somewhere between 8,000 and 15,000 people. Despite what you'll hear from the usual suspects, this wasn't one of the classic tea parties in the Ayn Rand/"taxation is theft"/"greed is good" sense. Instead, it was based on something that John and Ken had been pushing before the "tea parties" started and it was mostly a protest of local California issues relating to Arnold Schwarzenegger. They glommed on to the "tea party" idea and did feature some discussion about the stimulus plan, and now those behind the "tea parties" are trying to pretend it's indicative of some massive movement when it isn't.
Those misleading about this include (of course) Glenn Reynolds (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/72439, pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/72434) and Ed Morrissey of HotAir (hotair.com/archives/2009/03/08/fullerton-tea-party-gets-15000-protestors).
UPDATE: There's video from the rally here. And, Insty doubles-down at the first of his links above:
A reader emails: "I'm just wondering if 8-15 thousand at Fullerton is enough for doom sayers like Rick Moran and others to deign to join in."
Another reader (this one named) says:
John and Ken by the way are not Republican by any stretch of the imagination or even conservative. They are very much a “pox on both your houses.” The success of their rally makes me wonder why conservative talk show hosts are not pushing this more. If a local station can get 8 -15,000 people imagine what Hugh Hewitt or Sean Hannity could pull off, never mind Rush Limbaugh.
I doubt whether Rush or the rest would want to be associated with the loony libertarian subtext of these protests. If they held their own rallies, they wouldn't have that same subtext; i.e., they'd be as different from the Instapundit-style rallies as the J&K one was. If those hosts held their own rallies it would be more difficult for Insty to mislead about them, not that he probably wouldn't try.
Ed Morrissey of HotAir offers "The sadly obligatory SCOTUS birth-certificate post" (link) in which he joins the long line of people misleading about the Obama citizenship issue. As with others, he links to the Sara Olkon/James Janega article and, among many other misleading statements, says:
The State of Hawaii only keeps birth certificates from births in Hawaii. The State of California only keeps birth certificates from births in California, Minnesota only keeps those from births in Minnesota, and so on. They don’t store information on births outside of their state. Why would they bother to do that? Use some common sense.
That's a false statement. Under Hawaii law, those born in other states or foreign countries can obtain Hawaii birth certificates if their parents are residents of that state.
Mary Katharine Ham and some other guy offer "The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama" . It lays out a non-smear case against BHO over several categories: abortion, taxes, his radical associations, foreign policy judgment, his disdain for the heartland, his habit of playing the race card, and his lack of accomplishments. And, it will serve a valuable purpose for those millions and millions of conservatives who were planning on voting for BHO.
Could "Barack Obama" be a complete fake? Hillary Clinton supporter and decades-long Democrat Philip Berg is suing Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), claiming he's not eligible to be president. From this:
the Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, a Philadelphia attorney, alleged that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old, to regain his U.S. citizenship status. The lawsuit raises not only the Indonesian citizenship issue but also questions whether Obama was a citizen of Kenya.
The last move in the case appears to be that Obama and the DNC are trying to block discovery; see this.
I wish Berg well, and I think there's maybe a 5% or so chance he's right. And, if he's right it would certainly be sweet. However, while I'm sure the suit was filed in good faith, issues like this serve as a bit of a dangerous distraction. In other words, please don't count on him being right but instead concentrate on the things that we already know.
Despite that, I suggest sending this interview with Berg (via americanthinker.com/2008/10/this_could_be_the_game_changer.html) to everyone you know. I suggest sending a variant on the previous paragraph too:
UPDATE: The docket is here. And, GOP establishment hack Ed Morrissey comments on the video here. While he echoes my comment above about not counting on this and instead concentrating on easier to prove things, he also shows his GOP hack side by calling Berg a "truther" (I didn't bother looking into that because it doesn't really matter to this case and it might be a smear). He also retails the BHO supporter line that there's no there there, sounding a bit like a BHO apologist.
The problem is that, looking over the October 9, 2008 response, while some of the things in there are a bit onerous, I fail to see why someone who wants to be president of the U.S. won't release his "vault" (long form) birth certificate, the "certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of
majority", "Certified copies of Obama's Application and Admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School", and "Certified copies of any Court Orders or legal documents changing Obama's name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama". In fact, it's more than a bit suspicious that BHO isn't rushing to turn that over and put this behind him. Aren't those reasonable requests for someone who, once again, wants to be president of the United States?
UPDATE 2: See also this Hillary Clinton complaint about the actions of BHO's supporters at the Nevada caucus.
Outside a number of Senators, there aren't too many who support the Senate's immigration amnesty/"guest" worker plan. This post will keep track of them, and I urge everyone to hold those below accountable whether the bill passes or not. I also urge everyone to keep calling Congress, but, even more importantly, follow the steps previously outlined to help stop amnesty.
* Of course: president Bush, Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy
* From "Few senators support the illegals bill" (link):
Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the Republicans who helped craft the deal, said it's the best they could do... "It will treat the 12 million undocumented immigrants in a constructive way. It is not amnesty. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to earn their way to citizenship," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's better than what we have now." ...in Georgia, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, one of the secret negotiators, was also booed [like Lindsey Graham] at that state's Republican convention... ...Meanwhile, Republicans' chief negotiator in the closed-door sessions, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, wrote a column for the Arizona Republic newspaper yesterday saying he won't support the bill if major changes are made during the floor debate... "If the consensus we reach is not accurately reflected in the final legislative language, or is seriously undercut by amendments in the Senate or House, it will lose support, including from me," he wrote... ...Seven Republicans, including the party's chairman, Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Kyl, the Senate Republican Conference chairman, were at the press conference announcing the bill...
* DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff meanwhile challenged critics to offer alternative solutions instead of simply saying "this isn't good enough." (link; the obvious answer is, of course, that he should do his job)
* [Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says] "I have the impression that perhaps for some people, the only thing that would not be amnesty is mass deportation... We don't think that's practical, we don't think that's logical, we don't think that's humane and that would hurt our economy. So it's not amnesty."
* [Sen. Lindsey Graham says (ibid)] "To my colleagues who have come on the floor to tear this bill down with no alternative, you're not doing this country a service and I will push back... If you’ve got a better idea and you can lead us to a better solution, I'm all for it. But if all you're going to do is embrace the status quo, I’m going to be your biggest critic.
* The Wall Street Journal editorial board offered "Immigration Opening" on Saturday (link), which was followed by several reader letters almost all denouncing the bill (link). Today, John Fund offers "Don't Run for the Border - America needs immigration reform, but not a law enacted in haste" (link), perhaps as an indirect acknowledgement of the bill's failings.
Last week after a deal was reached in the Senate, Jacoby held a conference call with 20 business owners Friday to explain the politics of the overhaul... [She's praised by] Randel Johnson, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce... ...Jacoby sat at a table in the Senate Chef last week surrounded by two Texas bankers, a cattle rancher and a guy who represents Rio Grande Valley orange growers, all of whom had flown in to put a last-minute press on their congressional representatives... "The most important thing is the temporary-worker program," Jacoby told them. Lawmakers "are going to go all out to cut it in half and unless business goes all out, like D-Day, they will surely win." ...She is willing to work with religious and civil rights groups, including the Roman Catholic Church and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, to achieve the goal... ...the leader of a Latino civil rights group tapped Jacoby on the shoulder. Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens...
* Safely outside the compound, Michael Barone phones in to say that he supports the bill, despite not having read it.
* In the basement of the compound, Captain Ed decides to be even more like Hugh Hewitt than Hugh Hewitt, saying today  that
"Conceptually, I think it could work -- but the bill doesn't quite match the concepts outlined in the announcement, either."
In a previous post , he offered this stock talking point:
Everyone agrees that the system is broken; in fact, that's about the only agreement to be found.
* In the subbasement, Dafydd ab Hugh shows how little he knows about this issue and continues to support some form of "regularization" (the same word the Mexican government uses) 
the bi-partisan Senate bill makes a point of rewarding only good behavior... ...And speaking of rewarding good behavior, and punishing the bad: those courageous conservatives (Senators Kyl, Graham, Isakson and, yes, McCain) who have worked constructively and seriously on immigration reform deserve our support, not our rage, while those politicians and media figures who have demagogued this issue in a way that only makes it worse, in no way merit our encouragement.
UPDATE 2: I knew this would come sooner or later. Instapundit says :
WHY PEOPLE WHO HATE THE IMMIGRATION BILL SHOULD BACK THE IMMIGRATION BILL: Okay, I had this thought last night as I was drifting off to sleep. But the Nyquil wore off and I still think it may make sense. Lots of people think that the immigration bill stinks, and want to punish the GOP by staying home in 2008. Fair enough. But if you plan to punish the GOP in 2008, then you might want to support the immigration bill now. Why? Because if the Democrats win the White House and Congress in 2008, you'll get a bill that you like a whole lot less! So if you plan to punish the Republicans later, you should encourage them to pass their bill now... There's got to be something wrong with this analysis, I just can't figure out what it is. Anyone? Kaus? Anyone?
UPDATE 3: Here's another Chertoff quote:
"You know, Wolf [Blitzer], first, I understand there's some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty. The reality is the proposal here requires people who came in illegally who want to stay to pay a penalty. Like a fine. That's a punishment. That's not an amnesty."
UPDATE 6: Sen. Trent Lott says:
"Is the current situation in America with legal and illegal immigration intolerable and unacceptable? Yes. Everybody would agree. Is this bill better than the current law? Without a doubt, yes. Are we going to have another opportunity to do this better next year or the next year? The answer is no. We've got to do it. We've got to do it as good as we can. We've got to do it right now."
UPDATE 7: Sen. Mitch McConnell says he'll support the bill, and also says:
"This is a divisive issue... I don't think there's a single member of either party next year who is going to fail to be re-elected over this issue."
SPECIAL HACK UPDATE: Hacks - not all of whom specifically support the Senate bill - have started their rampage of smears against those who oppose massive illegal immigration: Linda Chavez, Michael Gerson, and Robert Novak.
SPECIAL "LIBERAL" HACK UPDATE: Eleanor Clift offers "Bush Is Right—On Immigration, Anyway". She and the preceding hacks aren't that much different. Let's count the lies:
Just as [Pete Wilson]'s anti-immigrant [lie] policies turned California into the bluest of Blue States [misleading if not wrong], the angry, racist and xenophobic rhetoric emanating from the Republican right [smear and largely false] is turning the fastest-growing voting bloc in America against the GOP... Seeing a way to rally the base and respond to the growing anti-immigrant sentiment [lie], House Republicans pushed and passed legislation that was racially divisive and punitive [lie], cracking down on those who aided illegal immigrants - even church groups [lie]. The bill sparked massive rallies across the country against the Republican Congress [some of the organizers of those rallies were Mexican political parties and those linked to the Mexican government]. Rosenberg's New Democrat Network monitored ads in 25 states picturing a Mexican immigrant side by side with an Islamist terrorist. [Chuck Schumer created a similar TV ad]
Hugh Hewitt: ... [L]et me move on. GOP question, just two years and three months ago, Tom, you endorsed an American Independent Party candidate over the Republican nominee in a special election out here in Orange County. Is that material to a campaign for the GOP nomination, that you threw the Republican overboard just two years ago? ...Tancredo didn't exactly answer the question and perhaps he should have informed Hewitt that sometimes you have to put country before party. Hewitt would have understood that about as well as a chimp would understand higher mathematics, but we should continue to try.
...HH: You threw the Republican overboard.
Captain Ed would probably have issues understanding this as well, saying that "[s]omeone who wants to lead the GOP to the White House needs to answer why he kneecapped the Republican candidate in an election in 2004."
I left a variation of the following comment; it was moderated for one reason or another, so I'm posting this here and sending a trackback:
Hewitt is an extremely partisan hack who barely reaches #72 on Talkers Top 100. He told his listener(s) to call in to John & Ken after the Tancredo interview, and they say they got two (2) calls from his listener(s).Regarding an earlier comment I left on Captain's Quarters which was moderated away despite a subsequent email asking for it to be posted, see the first link in this post.
The OC race in question was between Jim Gilchrist and John Campbell. The first ran AIG so he could get into the finals; the second is a Bush-style loose borders R who had previously supported illegal immigration (link).
And, on election day, Gilchrist got almost as many or even more votes than Campbell: Campbell only won because of absentee votes.
On a related note, in AZ the GOP refused to give measurable support to Randy Graf, another candidate who would have cost the backers of the GOP money. In the primary they supported the loose borders candidate who was losing by a wide margin; in the finals they in effect supported the Dem.
I posted the following comment:
[List below updated 12/11/07]
"People have to understand what we're talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist... He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going... I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it... And they would just tell you, 'Well, sure, it's a natural thing. It's part of the great globalization ... of the economy.' They assume it's a natural, evolutionary event that's going to occur here. I hope they're wrong and I'm going to try my best to make sure they're wrong. But I'm telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that."
This has resulted in various people calling Tancredo names or disputing that such a plan is underway. And, some of them dispute that such a plan exists, but then say that such an idea isn't so bad after all. While it's certainly possible to disagree with Tancredo's assessment, all of the comments I've seen involve some form of name-calling and none of them discuss the issue on its merits. In some cases this might be actual pro-NAU propaganda, in others it might be due to opposition to Tancredo's support for our immigration laws, in others it might be a knee-jerk defense of Bush, and in some it might be due to the fact that many bloggers aren't, shall we say, that good at research and analysis.
* Judd Legum of Think Progress says: "You might think the right would immediately repudiate this kind of conspiracy theory. You'd be wrong." As could be expected from that site, most of the comments are name-calling. Some however support the NAU concept.
* Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger says: "Now, far be it for me to defend the president against an unhinged attack from a far-right lawmaker, but does anyone seriously believe that the Bush White House wants to dissolve U.S. borders altogether?" At least two out of five comments, while calling names, provide facts on the SPP.
* "AllahPundit" says: "Oh Lord... We get e-mails from those people all the time. We... do not publish them... Update: HotAir commenters (most of them) agree: Tancredo’s a prophet whose only crime is seeing too clearly the nefarious machinations towards one-world government that are happening under our very noses!" (HotAir is run by Michelle Malkin; the first post I made to her immigration blog concerned the SPP. Her position on this matter isn't known.)
* "Captain Ed" (who isn't a real captain) says: "Tom Tancredo reminds people today why he will forever remain a fringe element in American politics... This is absurd. George Bush may not have responded very well to immigration concerns from his base, but he's done more than his father, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan in bolstering border security. Tancredo is engaging in mindless demagoguery with these doomsday descriptions, and moving closer to the realms of paranoia." Most of those commenting disagree.
* John Podhoretz says: "I speculate in my book, Can She Be Stopped?, that Tancredo will run as a third-party candidate in 2008. Sounds like he'd be perfect to top Lyndon LaRouche's ticket. If you are serious about the importance of immigration restriction, you'd best be looking for a leader who hasn't chosen to place himself beyond the political fringe."
* Mark Steyn says: "Chances of an EU-style sovereignty pooling arrangement in North America? Zero per cent – whatever Tom Tancredo and the CFR say."
* SeeDubya from Junkyard Blog mockingly refers to "internationalist conspiracy", "sweet, sweet New World Order", "Illuminati endgame", and pretends that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board supports U.S. sovereignty.
* MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy calls Tancredo various names such as "barking moonbat".
* Alexander McClure at Wizbang Politics says: "...I hope the White House throws all of its resources into this race to make sure that Tancredo also goes into retirement. He is an embarrasment to the party."
* John Hawkins at Right Wing News had a debate with Jerome Corsi on the topic. While Hawkins is not a Bush apologist in the Captain Ed/RedState/BlogsForBush mold, he is on the wrong side of this issue.
* "Appalacian Scribe" John Norris Brown says: "Why anyone gives this nutcase credibility is beyond me."
* Ragnar Danneskjold at the Jawa Report says: One would think that a U.S. Congressman would realize that any statement that starts with "I know this is dramatic" and proceeds to defend the ideas of "right-wing fringe kooks" is pretty unlikely to go anywhere good.
* Ezra of People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch says, among other things (rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/phyllis_schlafl_2.html):
...the Eagle Forum published a list of questions for its supporters to ask candidates on the trail, ranging from Schlafly's theory of "supremacist judges" to the John Birch-esque "North American Union." She says her plan is working, according to "Swift Vet" co-author and fellow "North American Union" enthusiast Jerome Corsi...
A few links are included in that excerpt, including one linking the first "North American Union" to Wikipedia's entry on "black helicopters".
* Joshua Holland, staff writer for Alternet, joins the list with "Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory" (alternet.org/audits/54184). He can't even get past the second paragraph without violating Godwin's Rule:
The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back -- Dolchstoss!
He mentions the Council of Canadians, without mentioning that they're a leftwing group and thus tend to disprove his contention that the NAU "story" is just a rightwing issue. And, he mentions some of the "dots" making up the NAU "story", but he just can't connect them.
* Chris Hayes of The Nation offers "The NAFTA Superhighway" and says that highway is fictional. Some of the letters say he's full of it, with one claiming that Katrina vanden Heuvel is a member of the CFR [11/05/10 UPDATE: Katrina vanden Heuvel is indeed a member of the CFR].
* Both join Vice President Dick Cheney in claiming there's no such highway.
* In early August 2007, Stephen Colbert had a little bit of "fun": youtube.com/watch?v=Ookak1IQJ3U
* Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey offers "Bet your bottom amero that U.S. sovereignty is safe". He bases his conclusion that there's no plan to create a NAU by asking... "the government's chief negotiator on trade, Susan Schwab". She tells him it's just an "urban legend". And, he believes what she says. The JBS - mentioned in his piece - responds here.
* The Fox News "all stars" (Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Charles Krauthammer with host Brit Hume) play the Bush quote and then have a bit of fun here: youtube.com/watch?v=TT4tBvRDy38 Krauthammer whitewashes the Bilderberg conferences, saying that he went to one. He compares those who think the NAU is possible to those who believe that Elvis is still alive. Barnes and Williams join in with the "fun". Just because these three idiots say people aren't pushing for it shouldn't be taken as proof that it is being pushed, but...
11/27/07 UPDATE: Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe offers "The amero conspiracy": ...The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan... [etc. etc.]...
12/03/07 UPDATE: Gretel Kovach of Newsweek offers a very weak debunking attempt of the NAFTA Superhighway and the NAU in "Highway To Hell?" (newsweek.com/id/73372). That's linked to by the Washington Post's "Fact Checker", Michael Dobbs (blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/a_superhighway_to_nowhere.html), who offers his own weak attempt. And, on 11/30/07, Stephen Braun of the Los Angeles Times offered "Paul believes in threat of North American superhighway" (link). It's similar to the WaPo's "Fact Checker" article, including a Stephen Colbert "joke". And:
Federal and state highway and trade officials and transportation consultants reacted Thursday with befuddlement and amusement. The fearsome secret international highway project Paul described does not exist, they said... ...the Trilateral Commission [is] an enduring bugaboo of conspiracy theorists... As alarms about NAFTA's illusory highway have spread across the Web, the issue's whiff of paranoia has ignited sparks of humor... [Colbert "joke"]
12/09/07 UPDATE: Matt Stearns of McClatchy Newspapers offers his own "debunking".
12/11/07 UPDATE: The SPLC has also tried to cast doubts on these schemes.
Speaking in Georgia about an hour ago, president Bush intentionally distorted John Kerry's earlier comments about Iraq. Yesterday, speaking at Pasadena City College, Kerry said this:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."