GOP Gibberish

My favorite curmudgeon blogger, Rick Moran has dug up lyrics we all know how to say, but never knew how to spell.

Salagadoola mechicka boola
bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
Put ‘em together and what have you got
bibbidi-bobbidi-boo

Salagadoola mechicka boola
bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
It’ll do magic believe it or not
bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
(Music: Mack David and Al Hoffman; Lyrics: Jerry Livingston

This is his response to the suggestion that Christian values have no place in politics.

Hewitt History, The Preview

The host of the best radio show in America, Superlawyer Hugh Hewitt posted this:

Flash forward to the summer of 2011: President Obama is beleaguered and his approval numbers are in the low 30s. Taxes are high, inflation is high, unemployment is high, and the markets have never recovered from the popst-election sell-off. Oil is back in triple digits, and the Taliban have seized large portions of Pakistan and threaten the central government there. Iran went nuclear in 2010 and threatens Israel on a weekly basis. President Obama's press conferences are painful to listen to, his inability to act decisively has earned him the title "ditherer-in-chief."

ICE Raids - Terror in Iowa

Conservatives objected to Obama's speech to LaRaza claiming that Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids terrorize people (see my post and LaShawn's).

AP relays the reports of witnesses to ICE's Postville, Iowa raid in May.

POSTVILLE, Iowa - An immigration raid that arrested nearly 400 people in northeastern Iowa scarred a small town and tore families apart, residents said Saturday.

Dozens begged a visiting congressional delegation to do everything in its power to stop federal immigration raids. The May raid in Postville at Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials was the largest of its kind in U.S. history. . . .

Postville Mayor Robert Penrod told the congressmen to take the message back to Washington that immigration raids do not work.

"This raid did nothing for this community," he said. "It downgraded us substantially. It caused people to suffer, and it caused our reputation to suffer clear across the country."

Sealing the border is a worthy objective, but mistreatment of immigrants already here is not worthy of America. The threat of deportation emboldens sleazy employers and landlords to take cruel advantage. We need to remember that immigrants have children and relatives that are U.S. citizens, and their votes will hold conservatives accountable for the mistreatment visited upon illegals.

UPDATE: Politico is laying out the GOP debacle with Latinos here [hat tip: hotair.com]. Even though McCain urges a more tolerant policy on illegals already here, he gets tarred with a broad Latino distrust of the GOP. As I said in earlier posts, nice trade conservative smart guys.

Stuck on Stubborn

Newt has already warned that the GOP campaign posture appears too boring to be electable, and it needs a VP selection that changes the conversation.

B.O. is the democrats' nominee because he is change, and he makes history. Hillary as president would have made history, but too much baggage kept her from getting the nomination.

The moderates will decide this election and will take their cues from the MSM (the main cue being: this is the year to make history). B.O. has all the sizzle because he pushes the presidency through the color barrier. If he flames out, then Mac is a fine SECOND choice, but B.O.s gaffes don’t stir enough media attention to hurt him, so don’t bet on a flame out.

Mac should pick former HP CEO and outsider Carly Fiorina as V.P. This choice is very smart because it gives moderates someone new and capable(not the bland vanilla Kay Hutchison), and it gives voters an alternative way to make history. Carly is a great foil to Obama; B.O. really should be in the V.P. slot too, given his experience. Voting Mac/Carly changes history, and keeps the change more in proportion. It’s the safer way to make history.

The GOP needs to win moderates to win the election. But the hard right continues to demand one of their own as the V.P. candidate, and will be mollified with Mac settling on Romney; they seem to have pushed Jim Geraghty off his apparent support for consideration of Carly implied here. A McCain/Romney ticket does nothing to win moderates.

Political Byline thinks he's got a cute bag for convention democrats. I've displayed a modified one ready for the hard right republicans: they can use it when they don't get Romney as V.P., or better yet -- when their McCain/Romney ticket gets crushed in the election.

Let's Veep into History-Making

The CampaignSpot on National Review Online (linked here) lays out the case for Carly Fiorina as Mac's VP candidate. If this is the move, it's VERY bright.

Our post yesterday was predicting a crushing defeat because McCain is essentially another Bob Dole -- safe, vanilla, OLD. When compared to the history-making option to push the Presidency through the color barrier - well it's no contest. In short, it's not the economy, IT'S THE HISTORY-MAKING, STUPID.

With Carly on the ticket, voting for Mac makes history too -- then all the other considerations like experience, security, foreign policy experience, and job creation experience push the decision Mac's way. This is a great move, if Mac the Maverick makes it.

You can bet that the media will give the GOP ticket a lot more coverage with Carly too. It makes sense for Mac to announce her as a finalist, and hold the audience through the convention when he announces her as the nominee.

UPDATE: Allahpundit is right on point via Newt here, Rick Moran is in the neighborhood here and here

Party Like it's 1996

I thought no way. No way would Americans embrace the scandal-ridden President for a second term. The GOP put up war veteran Bob Dole, a fellow great on military experience, leadership and Washington politics -- oh yeah, he had a crippled arm and he was ohhhhld.

GOP deja vu all over again. There is no way Americans will embrace an embarrassingly under-informed, inexperienced, radical lightweight like the junior Senator from Illinois. Here comes the GOP putting up a different version of military experience, leadership and Washington politics, John McCain -- but he's just as stiff and just as old as Ole Bob.

If the war were still perceived as a threat, then security would be issue 1. For 2008, "Change" will be issue 1 and no amount of rational thinking and no amount of Obama gaffes will get in the way of the GOP getting crushed in this election.

UPDATE: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer makes a similar observation here (hat tip: hotair.com).

Immigration BlogStorm at La Shawn Barber's

La Shawn has a great blog, but she is in tow with other conservatives who take great offense over Obama's claim of terrorism by ICE officials. The link is here.

It's the comments where the action is. I've selected from them (my comments in bold). I have no problem with sealing borders. My problem is the cruel treatment of low income Latino families that love this county, that earn a living (supplying work we all benefit from), and that have children born here with every right to grow up as U.S. citizens. The new policy causes fathers to be turned over to ICE on the slightest of infractions, leaving the children without support. These policies also harass Latinos who are bona fide citizens, who have to continually prove their status. There are a lot of Latinos who vote, and they will remember the cruelty Conservatives have brought them.

What upside is there to this slapping around of resident Latinos? Are school budgets more balanced? Welfare expenditures down? What's the downside - we probably won't win back the House of Representatives for 20 years. Nice trade smart guys.

#21

The current policy does terrorize the Hispanic community. In Cobb County, Georgia local police inquire on immigration status in all instances, and the US citizen children that are supported by their working fathers bear the brunt of this witch hunt. Car tag wrong? deported. Mom calls the police because dad’s drunk? deported. Car accident? deported. It’s so bad that one illegal fled the scene of a fender bender. A high speed chase ensued and a collision killed a father and son who were just driving down the road.

I am embarrassed by my fellow conservatives who have no appreciation of how this policy punishes the children who are US citizens. I see it with my own eyes, these are children who are polite, respectful, do good in school and are now without the support of their fathers. Does ICE inform them of where their father is? no. Does the father have right to legal counsel? no. If legal counsel calls ICE to intervene, will they acknowlege they even have the person? no. It’s a soviet justice system for illegals, make no mistake.

I have no problem with sealing the border and allowing no more, but the ones that are here deserve better - especially US citizen children of illegals. We are all the descendants of immigrants that came here for a better life. But conservatives need to mete out some sort of blame and punishment on illegals — they are here because they love our country and they are willing to earn a living. How miserable they’ve become because they don’t fit in the immigration quota. How many of our immigrant ancestors had to comply with a quota?

Many of the Hispanics that are here because of the Reagan amnesty are citizens and vote, and their children vote, and the US citizen children of illegals vote (if they’re old enough). Reagan endeared them; Bush tried to hold them with a guestworker program — but conservatives blasted it. Forget about getting more Hispanic vote over to the conservative side. The KGB/ICE has turned their hearts for generations.

Comment by Mark30339 — 07.14.08 @ 6:12 pm


#24

re:mark #21; Apparently you have not read the constitution recently. If you had you MIGHT understand the 14th amendment which explains how children of illegal border crossers are NOT citizens of this great country. They are actually citizens of whatever country their illegal parent is from. Do yourself a favor and at least read the source material first!

Comment by Richard — 07.14.08 @ 7:10 pm
#25

#21 Mark30339 asks us to put a human face on the illegal immigration problem. I think that we should do just that. There are lots of issues in this mare’s nest that need our thoughtful attention.

However, Mark30339 claims that we are running: “…. a soviet justice system for illegals, make no mistake.” I won’t get stuck on the hyperbole, if we can also be adult about the fact that people who are here illegally are fully aware of and responsible for their own actions.

Mark30339 paints an honest picture of some of the illegal alien situations. It is not the only picture.

Our enforcement people are not terrorists. An ICE agent has likely encountered hundreds of situations that advise him how to approach the next encounter. I doubt that an ICE agent goes to work hoping to terrorize someone or considers himself a rogue with extraordinary police power.

Part of the problem here is the heated rhetoric. A Presidential candidate talking about ICE terrorizing people is a good example of the demagogue’s art.

Comment by heliotrope — 07.14.08 @ 7:24 pm
#26

La Shawn knows the story of my wife, who is a legal immigrant from Africa. In the immigration debate legal immigrants are sometimes lumped together with illegals. I insist on the distinction.

The calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” would be funny if they were not so personally painful. Who are we kidding? The present system cannot handle the relatively small load of legal applicants it has now - it took the intervention of two different Members of Congress to get my wife’s visa and green card applications unstuck, and her story is far from unique. Now imagine dumping an addition 5 to 20 million (the precise number of illegals who would be eligible under a “reformed” system has never been made clear) onto a bureaucracy that already moves at glacial speed. Are you worried yet?

Either the immigration system will grind to a complete halt (it is barely moving now) or bureaucrats will be pressured into rubber-stamping applications to clear the titanic backlog. So if you are lucky enough to live in Central America legal residence in the US could be yours in the post-reform era by crossing a largely unguarded border and gaming the system long enough to get some harried USCIS official to sign off (Africans and Asians may have to swim an ocean or two to get here, however).

Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.14.08 @ 8:04 pm
#27

>>I see it with my own eyes, these are children who are polite, respectful, do good in school and are now without the support of their fathers.>>

So…why don’t they join their fathers? Where are their mothers?

Comment by suek — 07.14.08 @ 8:48 pm
#28

Mark30339, if YOU’re embarrassed by your ‘fellow’ conservatives, just try to imagine the flip side of that coin. Your examples of “deported” are GOOD examples of what SHOULD happen to “ILLEGAL” aliens, regardless of nationality. And don’t call me LA RAZAist, because you see, I hate everyone equally.

Comment by Atom&Yves — 07.14.08 @ 9:05 pm
#29

Richard at post 24 reads the constitution with such compassion - his would not be the majority view but no Supreme Court Case has expressly put out the US born babies of illegals (so for conservatives like Richard, there’s still hope). In the meantime, 8-U.S.Code-Sec.1401 is quite clear:

Ҥ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; . . .”

A birth certificate is the practical document that establishes one’s US citizenship — now if Richard wants to amend the law to say there’s an exception for offspring of illegals, Nathan Deal is already trying - the cold heart caucus doesn’t seem to have the votes yet.

Comment by Mark30339 — 07.14.08 @ 9:43 pm

GOP Debacle PREMERISIMO

My fellow conservatives have a lot of back-slapping going on with the new get tough on illegals policies cropping up everywhere. There's just something that warms their heart about enforcing a long unenforced set of laws, human carnage notwithstanding. I don't get the payoff, is the slap on the back worth what we are getting for slapping around the Latino community resident here? [I'm all for sealing the borders, but we are mistreating the Latinos already here.]

WaPo has the best summary. It sees the right's immigration stance as the gift that just keeps giving (to borrow a Rove phrase). The article is here.

This is my abstract:

ABSTRACT OF

Division Problem; The GOP's Ruinous Immigration Stance
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C. Author: Michael Gerson Date: Sep 19, 2007 Start Page: A.23

Author Michael Gerson states that immigration is an issue among Republicans and is used as a weapon to focus grass roots anger on the immigration problem. Romney and Giuliani each tried to paint the other as soft on illegals.

He states that it is strange for conservatives to try a broader appeal across all demographics and simultaneously attend to this grass roots anger. The effect is to reverse remarkable Republican gains among one of the fastest-growing groups of American voters. G.W. Bush appealed to Latinos with a middle of the road worker policy proposal to good effect. Dole got 21% of the Latino Vote. Bush 2000 got 35% and in 2004 Bush and the Republican Congress got 40% -- the high water mark. After conservatives voiced strong support for deportation policies, the party got only 30% of the Latino vote in 2006 – the year they lost both houses of Congress. Further Hispanic media reinforces the Republicans as the party of Tom Tancredo and his harsh deportation policy proposals.

The core of Gerson’s piece is this: “I have never seen an issue where the short-term interests of Republican presidential candidates in the primaries were more starkly at odds with the long-term interests of the party itself. At least five swing states that Bush carried in 2004 are rich in Hispanic voters -- Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Bush won Nevada by just over 20,000 votes. A substantial shift of Hispanic voters toward the Democrats in these states could make the national political map unwinable for Republicans.”

For more see Hispanics and the 2008 Election: A Swing Vote? by the Pew Hispanic Center

Van Winkle RIPPED

I didn't think I'd succumb, but I've fallen off the wagon and I want to blog again. Not that I had a following that longed for my return, so I guess I'm the only one who missed me.

This blog will comment on events from a correcting conservative view - WATCH OUT! BlogStorms ahead.

"Off the Record" Infidelities

Rightwing News had a nice post defending Blogs against Kathleen Parker's opinion piece on how blogs don't respect "off the record" remarks. Kathleen seems to be taking up the MSM dissembling on Easongate (how Jordan's comments must have been "off the record" when event moderator David Gergen said the opposite, or how Jordan only said that coalition military may have mis-identified journalists as enemy combatants and killed them -- when Jordan's words were that the US military was intentionally targeting persons they knew to be journalists for torture and killing).

As relayed by RWN:

"Some take it to mean “between us” or “use with discretion.” Jesse Jackson thought he was “off-the-record” when he referred to New York City as “Hymietown.” Ronald Reagan thought he was “off-the-record” when he referred to White House reporters as “sons of b*tches.” Newt Gingrich’s mother thought she was “off-the-record” when she disparaged Hillary Clinton on network television."

So maybe "off-the-record" officially died after "Easongate," but it has been on life support for decades at least and the truth is the plug should have been pulled long ago.

So this morning when you'd think a man's private telephone conversations with a friend was "off the record," ABC's Good Morning America replays Georgia W. telephone conversations that were taped unbeknownst to him. This is the same program that ripped radio counselor Dr. Laura for having been estranged from her mother when news broke that her mother had been brutally murdered.

So MSM, we hope you'll forgive us bloggers if we are reluctant to embrace your lectures on journalistic hygiene.

Roaming Between Meltdown and Release

Hats off to Michelle Malkin for her dogged reporting on the Eason Jordan/Davos debacle. Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal faulted her reporting as "suspended between meltdown and release" and then claims that the blogosphere is too quick to post derogatory material without giving the target a chance to respond. She nails him here and has quite a bit of fun with the new moniker.

In the age of print publication, it was important to hold back until targets were given an opportunity to express their side of the matter. After all, once the printing press starts, it won't be stopped, and retractions tend not to be conspicuous or timely.

The blogosphere is an INTERACTIVE media; it roams frenetically between meltdown and release. Yes it needs to check facts, and yes, it should give targets a chance to respond (like Hugh Hewitt did for Stephens, his blog cites you here for the transcript). But NO, the blog isn't going to wait. It is so amenable to amendment, it is so conspicuously correctable, and it is so abruptly updating that many print journalism standards need not apply.

But that distinction does not stop the MSM "grown ups" from hand-wringing over the blog medium. It's starting to look like there's a new sheriff in town, and some folks just don't like it.

Iraq Democracy vs American Anarchy?

Instapundit's post yesterday

INTERESTING PIECE FROM NEW YORK MAGAZINE by Spy founder Kurt Andersen on the new liberal guilt:

But now our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back then, most of us were forced, against our wills, to give Ronald Reagan a large share of credit for winning the Cold War. Now the people of this Bush-hating city are being forced to grant the merest possibility that Bush, despite his annoying manner and his administration’s awful hubris and dissembling and incompetence concerning Iraq, just might—might, possibly—have been correct to invade, to occupy, and to try to enable a democratically elected government in Iraq.

presses us to look at our own democracy in fresher ways, with less taken for granted. Enormous amounts of money and energy are spent on getting views out, getting candidates elected or defeated, and passing or blocking proposed legislation. It exhausts us and it exhausts our adversaries, and both sides seem to get partial victories and both sides are left partially wanting -- and that's a good thing. There is enough return and enough exhaustion for each side to keep us from killing each other.

The violence in Iraq, and Iraq's transition to politics from brutal force, begs a question of us: Have Americans been transitioning in the opposite direction? The right wants to govern with its majority, the left wants to govern like a Sunni minority -- and it takes quasi-suicidal positions that effectively invite defeat, despair and disaster at home so they can blame it on the right. As Rush summarizes the left strategy: "if it's bad for America, it's good for us."

Instapundit's post above clearly lets some of the pressure out of the right/left conflict. If the left will revisit how liberalism is about liberty and not about propping up Stalinists, that's a great step forward.

Back to poliblogging

BlogStorms has a sister blog, literally: Yes Sister is up and running as a Catholic blog, and has taken some attention way from BlogStorms.

Goodbye Eason Jordan

Instapundit wraps up to the Eason Jordan debacle:

I think we know what the video would have shown, now. It wasn't a case of the video not turning up, but of it not being released. I think that Jordan could have quickly defused this by just saying "I screwed up," but -- as with Trent Lott -- he waited days while hiding behind a lame and unpersuasive explanation. He should have read. . . [Hewitt's BLOG] and other people who might be in his position should do the same.

The more the blogosphere looked into Jordan, the more troubled one became with his perspective, and his history of distorted views -- he was running CNN news and presumably gathering like-minded subordinates. It looks like Jordan really believes the assertion that the US Military targets journalists for assassination and torture. Now maybe if I had a traitor's heart such that I see journalism's purpose to be dedicated to the defeat of the US and its military, then I could view that military as the enemy of journalists. Karl Rove calls it the fever swamp. How do these people get executive positions?

Get Carter

Captain's Quarters was up early this morning posting news of a CNN interview with Jimmy Carter. But the post stirs up a question that seems to repeat itself every time the man is in the news, does anyone Get Carter? Remember he is the 400 day hostage siege President that made radicals in Tehran believe they could manipulate the US and emboldened Islamic radicals everywhere. He responded to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan as the Moral Equivalent Of War [meow]. He conceded the 1980 election early, thereby blowing democrat turnout on the left coast. Now he did broker a deal between Israel and Egypt that has held up, but the North Korea deal he brokered (the Trust and Don't Verify diplomacy) puts the world in graver danger -- and right on cue the Nobel Committee rewarded the incompetence with a peace prize. Don't forget that he staged a father of the party session with Howard Dean at the peanut farm in Plains,GA to anoint Dean as the Democrat presumptive nominee. Again, does anyone Get Carter?

Storm over Moyers/Watt

Powerline has had an astonishing accomplishment. Their coverage of the Moyers false quote of James Watt led to a series of unprecedented events: first Watt denied them, then Moyers' sources disavowed them, then Powerline is invited to do O'Reily's show, then Moyer's publicly apologizes, then Watt gets editorial space. This was unthinkable just a year ago Pre-Rathergate. Power to the bloggers isn't just a slogan anymore.

I have a quibble with this:

In other words, Moyers says the quote was fake but accurate, and in any event, Watt is a lousy Christian. Moyers is a disgrace. He not only misquoted Watt, he completely misrepresented his environmental policies. And virtually every other "fact" in Moyers' hate-filled tirade against conservative Christians was a lie, as was its central thesis.

John Hinderaker is a thorough pit bull and I know I don't want to face him on the other side of the courtroom if I don't have to, but this was just smarmy piling on . . . even if he believes it's true. It's not every day that a MSM figure publicly apologizes for getting it wrong. We should politely commend the behavior so it happens more often.

Spot On Hugh Hewitt

Hugh appeared on CNBC's Kudlow and Cramer with the transcript provided here by Radio Blogger who has the best Blog photo/caption on the web (HT: Instapundit). I poke fun at Hugh quite a bit, but to be frank -- he has been a spectacular addition to the conservative onslaught against MSM. He is optimistic, trustworthy, respectful, well-spoken and well liked. His one-liner tonight about CNN's Eason Jordan is a classic:

"They've spent a lot of time building this new brand, 'The most trusted name in news,' and now they're the most busted name in news."

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Powerline Storm over CBS Report & Bias

Powerline's Deacon is featured for his Daily Standard column on Inferring the Obvious. While Deacon's offering is reasonable, it has an inferred assumption that oversimplifies: that Thornburgh is an independent prosecutor. From a lawyering point of view, Thornburgh has a tight-wire act with CBS. Tony Blankley (a former prosecutor) raised this point in Damage Control at Black Rock. Deacon's analysis that Thornburgh could infer a political bias from the CBS conduct but didn't, misses the lawyering point -- Thornburgh's client is CBS and he has continuing duties to them. This is not sinister, just problematic from a lawyering point of view.

I can only speculate but it appears that Thornburgh insisted on outing the concrete facts and let readers draw their own conclusions -- and in that context the report is particularly damning. Thornburgh can't officially conclude that there was bias and he can't officially conclude the memos were obvious forgeries because his firm is an agent of CBS and their announced conclusions are available as admissions in the following potential litigations: a) criminal prosecution for falsifying government records, b) defamation suits, and c) a pending case before the Federal Election Commission for wrongful coordination (hat tip Little Green Footballs). An independent prosecutor would owe no duty to CBS and have no concerns in this matter -- but the ethical responsibilities of a private lawyer in this investigation context make the disclosure process very dicey. You want to clear the air on the memos to help your client from a public relations standpoint, but you don't want to harm your client by helping adversaries in potential litigations.

So, how do we get an adjudication of the bias question? I doubt the FEC will touch it. I'm certain that President Bush will not sue for defamation, and I'm fairly certain his Justice Department will not indict anyone for falsifying government records. The only possibility I see is a defamation suit by Col. Kilian's estate against CBS. Normally, the press is exempt from liability for defamation unless the plaintiff proves malicious intent. Well, that is exactly the question Deacon wants answered, the one of intent. And in a civil suit context, the standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the Rather standard: by a proponderance of the evidence.

I bet CBS would pay a lot to not litigate that claim, which leads to ThoughtsOnline's piece on the merits of such a pursuit. The legacy of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite is at stake. MSM desparately wants to maintain the illusion that they are the epitomy of objectivity and the standard bearers of virtuous reporting. While many of us believe MSM has been stacking the deck and fudging on objectivity for years, a formal conclusion of bias renders their mission a fraud and has McCain Feingold ramifications (are news pieces "news" or disguised attack ads?).

My hunch is that more and more common citizens are ready to say the MSM emperor has no clothes; but rather than abdicate or be deposed, the emperor is going to have a makeover. News producers are frightened by the prospect of being blog swarmed, and they are going to be much more buttoned up on their fact checking. The stories they fail to carry and their balance will still be problems, but the role of blogs, Drudge, Daily Standard, Town Hall, Fox News will keep chipping away at the gap between what gets reported and what needs to be reported.

Compliments to Hugh Hewitt's BLOG

Part II of Evangelical Outpost's How to Start a Blog is here. In order to make Hugh's book more complete, BlogStorms is posting a series of compliments.