michael barone: Page 1
Michael Barone's shallow, 2470-word logical fallacy ("A Nation Built for Immigrants", WSJ) - 09/22/13
In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Barone offers "A Nation Built for Immigrants" , a 2470-word article designed to make elites feel good about the mass immigration they support. The entire article is a logical fallacy: it claims that current immigration will work out just like former immigration did. That claim is hardly certain because the U.S.
The DREAM Act is an anti-American bill that would let the illegal aliens covered by it deprive some U.S. citizens of college. Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner - discussing Obama's latest immigration speech - isn't exactly perturbed by the anti-American bill (link):
It's obvious that nothing like the legalization (opponents say "amnesty") provisions considered in 2007 can pass in this Congress. They can never pass the Republican House, where Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is a long-standing opponent and Speaker John Boehner will not schedule a bill not approved in committee.
Nor will this Congress pass the most attractive proposal Obama mentioned, the DREAM Act, providing a path to legalization for those brought in illegally as children who enroll in college or serve in the military. That failed last December in a more Democratic Senate and won't pass now.
It's not clear whether Barone means "attractive" in the "it is in fact an attractive bill" sense or whether he means it "attractive only when compared to Obama's other immigration ideas" sense. But, neither are good.
However positively Barone meant "attractive", calling it that shows that he isn't really concerned about the illegal aliens covered by the bill being able to take college educations from Americans. And, it shows that he isn't willing to use the fact that many Democratic Party leaders who support the bill.
Not all is bad: Barone does stick up for eVerify and doesn't appear to support massive low-skilled immigration. However, instead of reducing immigration across the board, he wants more high-skilled immigration (via a Brookings Institution plan) which would lead to problems similar to those caused by mass low-skilled immigration.
Koch family, U.S. Chamber, businesses met to plan strategy (+Glenn Beck, tea parties, "mobilize citizens for November") - 10/20/10
Twice each year, the Koch family conducts strategy meetings with corporate and thought leaders to plan how to advance their "free market" ideology. ThinkProgress has the guest list and program for their June 2010 meeting (in Aspen), and, while immigration isn't mentioned, many of the known attendees are on the wrong side.
I don't normally recommend anything at ThinkProgress, but in this case I'll suggest taking a look at their post and downloading the PDF.
The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom?” (The title refers to a classic of Austrian economic thought that informs libertarian ideology, popularized by Mr. Beck on his show.)The participants included some of the nation’s wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th-richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway; Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm; and Kenneth Langone of Home Depot... The group also included longtime Republican donors and officials, including Foster Friess, Fred Malek and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III... Participants listened to presentations from the (US Chamber of Commerce), as well as people who played leading roles in John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, like Nancy Pfotenhauer and Annie Dickerson, who also runs a foundation for Paul Singer, a hedge fund executive who like the Kochs is active in promoting libertarian causes.
Malek currently raises funds for Karl Rove.
There's also a tea parties link: one of the June sessions was called "Mobilizing Citizens for November" ("Is there a chance this fall to elect leaders who are more strongly committed to liberty and prosperity? This session will further assess the landscape and offer a strategic plan to educate voters on the importance of economic freedom.") The hosts were Sean Noble (@snoble37), Karl Crow of Themis, Mark Mix of National Right to Work, and Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity. AFP has been a very active "facilitator" of the teaparty movement.
Those who spoke at the June meeting include Peter Schiff (bad on immigration), Stephen Moore (ditto}, and Michael Barone (ditto). Others are: Ramesh Ponnuru; Phil Kerpen and Jeff Crank of AFP; Peter Wallison and Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, Russ Roberts and Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center (associated with George Mason University; see the link); Gretchen Hamel; Charles Krauthammer; and Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner.
Those listed as attending past meetings include Haley Barbour (bad on immigration), John Stossel (ditto), Mike Pence (ditto), Bobby Jindal, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, and Tom Price.
Obviously, there's nothing wrong or that sinister about the Kochs holding meetings like these. And, George Soros and associates no doubt hold similar meetings with those on their side. However, just as Soros' loose borders policies no doubt "informs" the immigration policies that those who receive his money offer, the same is probably true of the Kochs' loose borders policies. Aside from DeMint, there are few above who might be considered "border hawks", and some of those listed are quite bad on that issue.
And, of course, this provides yet more evidence of how those in the supposedly grassroots tea parties movement are doing the bidding of the very rich, even if the teapartiers have been bamboozled into thinking otherwise.
Earlier tonight, Barack Obama went to George Will's house in Chevy Chase, Maryland for a no doubt jovial evening with a few (or more) conservative pundits. Will may or may not have been there, but three known attendees were
Fred Barnes (see the update), William Kristol, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer (link). FWIW, the Huffington Post assures us that Rush Limbaugh was not there.
Whatever Obama's political reasons for meeting with them, he's for the most part only getting one set of conservative or liberal opinions, the establishment Beltway set that supports illegal activity just as strongly as Obama does. Obama would sooner dine at Arby's than meet with, say, a moderate like Lou Dobbs or a paleoconservative like Pat Buchanan.
Note also that Sam Stein of the HuffPost is trying to telegraph that the correct response from the leftwing is sheer, utter obsequiousness rather than outrage:
Obama has pledged to be a uniter once in office. He's also said he is willing to take policy suggestions from any source, regardless of ideological affiliation, as long as they work. So far, he's living up to his word.
UPDATE: I'd swear that I read that Fred Barnes was one of the attendees, but now I can't find that; he might have been there but they don't consider him important enough, or that might have been just a preliminary report, or I might have read "Weekly Standard" and gotten confused over which WS hack is which. Pending confirmation that he was there, I took his name out of the title, and put Kristol in the text.
UPDATE 2: OK, Barnes wasn't there. However, per this, Will was indeed there, as were Larry Kudlow, Rich Lowry, Peggy Noonan, Michael Barone, and Paul Gigot. None of those are border hawks, with Kudlow being a clueless supporter, Barone being a Brooks-style complete hack, and Gigot working for the Wall Street Journal, a paper that wishes there was no border at all.
Melinda Zosh lets Jason Riley/WSJ engage in logical fallacy, Michael Barone spout nonsense - 06/23/08
Melinda Zosh is an "intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia", and she offers "Today's Illegals 'Not Different, Just Newer'" about a talk that Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal (author of "The Case for Open Borders") gave at the CATO Institute (link
E.J. Dionne, Chris Cillizza/WaPo realize: voters oppose illegal immigration (Niki Tsongas) - 10/19/07
Now, we turn to the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne ("Test Run For 2008", link). Note, of course, that the Washington Post explicitly supports illegal immigration:
In Massachusetts's 5th Congressional District -- a collection of mill towns and affluent and blue-collar suburbs north of Boston -- the surprise issue was illegal immigration. [Jim Ogonowski] made it the centerpiece of an anti-Washington campaign. An Ogonowski news release, for example, accused Tsongas of being "committed to giving cheap college to illegals at taxpayer expense."Earlier, Chris Cillizza of "The Fix" wrote (link):
...[Niki Tsongas], a community college dean, favored granting in-state tuition rates to the children of undocumented immigrants. In Ogonowski's translation of that, Tsongas believed that "Massachusetts taxpayers should foot the bill for the college tuition of the children of illegals."
Republicans think the immigration issue helped Ogonowski, so the country may be in for a lot more of this sort of thing next year. "Everywhere we went, people wanted to talk about immigration," said Matt Wylie, Ogonowski's general consultant. "It was just coming up over and over again."
[...SCHIP may have helped her win...]
[Ogonowski] also found fertile ground by calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration and decrying Tsongas' support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants as amnesty.
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]
Earlier today, the blogosphere was rocked with the news that alpha particles from Mars had penetrated Michael Barone's thick skull, forcing him to say:
The emerging scandal surrounding the dismissals of eight former U.S. attorneys should signify to American voters the depth, breadth, and permeation of corruption in the Bush administration.
Sully was stunned, but now says:
A reader alerts me that it might have been a hacker's work. It's not listed on his blog's full posts. I'm checking into it. In the meantime, I've taken it down. I'll keep you posted, as it were.
In fact, Barone sent him an email denying any involvement in the matter, and Sully's investigative reporting skills now have him saying: I was duped by a hacker.
By now, the reader has figured out what this is about: it wasn't a Barone post, it was a post by Bonnie Erbe, who is not a hacker. It was just a technical glitch. The original URL now redirects to a URL at Erbe's USNews blog.
As previously discussed, massive immigration supporting hacks like Fred Barnes, Linda Chavez, Tamar Jacoby, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Arlen Specter, and Michael Barone among others have tried to claim that some GOP losses were due to opposition to an illegal alien amnesty. How this is wrong was discussed in NRO on Graf/Hayworth election results myth among other entries.
And, Mark Krikorian of CIS offers this:
...The open-borders crowd scavenged for results they hoped would confirm their pre-packaged conclusions. A favorite was the defeat of two Republican immigration hawks running for the House in Arizona, incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, who was seeking liberal Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe's seat. The problem with pointing to these results as proof of the public's support for the Bush-McCain-Kennedy "comprehensive" amnesty plan is that the very same voters overwhelmingly approved four good ballot measures related to immigration: denying bail to illegals, barring illegals from winning punitive damages in civil suits, prohibiting illegals from receiving certain state subsidies for education and day care, and declaring English the state's official language. Clearly, the actual policy issue of immigration control remained hugely popular and, while Hayworth's opponent endorsed a guest-worker program, he explicitly said on his campaign website, "Secure Our Border and Stop Illegal Immigration," "Hold employers accountable for whom they hire," and, "I oppose amnesty and will not support it." Hardly a Bush echo...
This is a wonderful opportunity to discredit hacks like Barnes, Jacoby, Barone, and the others, as well as those bloggers and other pundits who support them. Whenever they spread this line, come back with articles like this.
...Time for a reality check. This year’s anti-Republican wave was indiscriminate, washing away such immigration hawks as John Hostettler and Charles Taylor, but also such amnesty supporters as Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee. In other places, Republicans were able to withstand the wave in part because they opposed amnesty: Chris Shays was the only Republican congressman to survive in Connecticut, and Pete King kept his seat in New York...
...Even in Arizona, Sen. Jon Kyl, who voted against the open-borders bill, beat a Democratic candidate who supported it. Arizona voters also approved, by wide margins, three ballot measures cracking down on illegal immigration, plus one declaring English the state’s official language...
...A final piece of mythology concerns the Hispanic vote. Exit polling found that 30 percent of Hispanics voted for Republican House candidates, down from 38 percent in the 2002 midterms. To see the significance of this drop, it has to be put in context. The percentage of white voters who picked Republicans fell from 58 to 51 percent over the same period. Hispanics just followed the national trend...
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."
The "Northern Alliance Radio Network" (featuring the hopeless BushBots at PowerLine and their friends) will be interviewing TV pundit Michael Barone tomorrow at 1pm Eastern. The topic of discussion will be the repurposed edition of his book The New Americans ("How the melting pot can work again"). Apparently it's on a real radio station (not shortwave!) that can be streamed over the web.
Michael Barone has a good op-ed on Bush's inauguration and second inaugurals in general. What I find particularly interesting is his suggestion that Bush's address will most resemble Woodrow Wilson's. Which reminds me of something that's been rattling around in my head for a while.However, he goes on:
Intellectual honesty should force us to at least admit that A) Barone's right and B) the comparison should be at least a little troubling to conservatives. Wilson, by my lights, was the worst president of the 20th century and did more damage to that century than any other American statesman. Much of the damage he caused wasn't deliberate, but a great deal of it stemmed from his idealism and his arrogance. He got us into an idiotic war for high-fallutin' reasons and his incompetence in handling the aftermath created a parade of horribles we are still reviewing as it passes us by (He also laid the groundwork for the Welfare State, the National Security State, and the Corporatist State but that's a topic for another time).
That these traits and mistakes echo complaints about Bush is significant.
But I think we can draw important distinctions as well. Despite being a political scientist, Wilson's ideas were based on shockingly little empirical data about democracy and how it actually works. Wilson unleashed nationalism in not one nation but many and then refused to do the hard work of cleaning up the mess. Bush, on the other hand, is sticking it out to do exactly that. No one who denounces the "propaganda" from the Bush administration as if it is unprecedented or novel knows what he or she is talking about. Woodrow Wilson was the first president in American history to actually set up a bona fide propaganda ministry complete with secret agents and provocateurs. FDR's propaganda efforts were also obviously wildly more extensive than what should more properly be called Bush's PR offensives. And if you dislike the Patriot Act and other alleged civil liberties infractions, you must loathe the horror show that was the Wilson Adminsitration. If you think what Bush "does" to his "enemies" is bad you must shudder at the thought of what Wilson did to his. Valerie Plame may or may not have been "outed" in retribution, but Wilson would have undoubtedly put Michael Moore in prison.Bush: "not quite as bad as Woodrow Wilson."
Bush: "not yet imprisoning his political enemies."
Insty points to this Michael Barone article which proposes an Alaskan-oil-revenues type plan for the people of Iraq. Which is great. But, all I could think about as I read it was, "how much could I skim off the top if I were the one in charge of it?" Not that I or those in charge would, just something to tuck away in the far recesses of your mind.