White House Already Planning Post-Surge Phase

The New York Times has heard that the White House has begun to structure a troop withdrawal for the middle of 2008, apparently to be used regardless of whether the current surge strategy succeeds or not. The plan envisions a significant continuing presence in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda, but an overall decrease as Iraqi Army forces take over security responsibility for Baghdad:

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.

One could see this in any number of ways. The US will not remain in Baghdad forever in any instance. If the Iraqi government refuses to institute reforms, we would leave anyway. If they do reform, we would also leave. As long as we have trained enough Iraqi Army forces well enough to keep order, we could leave at any time. We're just not there yet.

Critics will see this as an admission from the White House that the recent debates over war funding have eroded their position. That's foolish; no one proposed that we would have 150,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. Plans for a drawdown, especially in Baghdad, need to be developed now in order to maximize our gains from the surge during a transition period to Iraqi control.

In fact, this shows the long-term view of the Pentagon and most of the DC establishment. It acknowledges that our long-term enemy has to be removed from Iraq, and we need to tool our deployment there to fight the primary battle. It won't take 150,000 troops spread all over the country to fight AQI; we will need to focus on the Sunni areas of Anbar and Diyala. We have to continue to support the tribes who have allied themselves with us against the primarily foreign fighters. We can draw down significantly while focusing our attention on the insurgent hotbeds in these areas, as long as we can continue to train and support the Iraqi Army in its mission to secure the rest of Iraq.

We've had hints of this for months. Bush talked about this transition when he announced the surge strategy in January. Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke about the need to remain committed to the fight against the terrorists this week, while adjusting to the improving performance of the Iraqi Army and their increasing reliability.

We cannot leave Iraq altogether and fight Islamist terrorism. They're attempting to base themselves in western Iraq, with Syrian assistance. We can't fight that by deploying to Okinawa and leaving the region to the radicals. This planning takes that reality and adapts our military approach to it. It should come as no surprise at all that the Pentagon and the White House have already begun thinking about the next phase of the war.

Mugabe Cracks Down On Opposition

Zimbabwe police have arrested "scores" of political opponents of dictator Robert Mugabe and have raided the headquarters of the MDC. The arrests spring from a ban on political assemblies, even though this meeting took place entirely within the offices of the MDC:

Zimbabwe security forces raided the headquarters of the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change on Saturday and picked up scores of party youth attending a meeting, a party spokesman said.

"Armed police raided Harvest House (the building housing the MDC headquarters) and arrested about 200 youth and provincial staff who were holding a youth forum," MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa told AFP.

"This was not a street or open air gathering but a meeting in our own party offices to discuss civil issues and we are treated like an illegal or terrorist organisation."

Earlier, Amnesty International ranked Robert Mugabe in the same class as John Howard of Australia and George Bush. This demonstrates the abject failure of AI to distinguish between political opponents and real monsters. Mugabe has jailed, beaten, and murdered people just for the crime of opposing his policies. Where has that happened in the US? Australia?

The Soft Pathos Of Low Expectations

The Democrats finally passed something this week in Congress, 150 days after the start of the 110th session and the beginning of their leadership. They got a minimum-wage hike attached to a supplemental spending bill for the troops 108 days after they first took up the funding issue, indirectly getting the first of their 100-hour priorities passed ... just short of Memorial Day. And the most pathetic aspect of it is the self-congratulatory attitude of the Democrats in managing to eke this out:

The new Democratic Congress has finally banked a legislative win, fulfilling a promise to pass a $2.10 increase in the federal minimum wage and marking the first of its "Six for '06" campaign pledges to become law since the party's January takeover.

"We are making progress for the American people, governing effectively and getting results. Our work is not over, it has begun," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland.

"I've been here 26 years; I think this first five months may be the most productive five months that I've spent as a member of ... Congress," he said.

The most productive? Until this week, the only accomplishments that Pelosi & Co could highlight was (a) a funding bill left over from the last session, (b) a minor NATO restructuring plan that had no opposition, and (c) a number of bills that renamed federal property like post offices. The Democrats spent almost four months playing around with the Iraq supplemental, trying desperately to craft it in such a fashion as to force a withdrawal and blame it on George Bush, only to get outplayed by the White House.

Even this one accomplishment is hardly noteworthy. The Democrats could probably have passed the minimum-wage hike on its own months ago. All they had to do to get White House buy-in was to include tax relief for small businesses to offset the costs, which they did in this bill anyway. Bush indicated early in the session that he would not veto a package that included both, and the wage hike has enough Republican support to carry the day in the Senate.

Steny Hoyer tried hard to sell the first four months of this session as a proud moment in Democratic history, but it has been a complete embarassment. They folded on Iraq, they dithered on ethics legislation, and they accomplished almost none of their rapid-fire agenda that they claimed would pass within the first 100 hours of the 110th. Over 150 days later, most of it remains on the table, and the "Do-Nothing" insult they threw around freely during the midterms has stuck to them with a vengeance.

Maybe They Should Protest Their Education

Dallas-area high school seniors took to the picket lines today, protesting a decision that will keep them from participating in graduation ceremonies for failing a standardized test. Trimble Tech High School seniors who did not pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills exam will have to wait for July to retake the test, and in the meantime cannot graduate:

Students who had been planning to walk across the stage at graduation ceremonies this weekend were instead walking a picket line Thursday morning.

The Trimble Tech High School seniors marched in front of Fort Worth Independent School District headquarters to protest Wednesday's decision by trustees to bar students who failed the TAKS test from commencement exercises. ...

Crystal Martinez complained that while she finished at the top of her class with a 3.5 grade point average, she is now blocked from graduation by failing the TAKS test.

"We know we're not going to get our diplomas, but we just want to walk across the stage," Martinez said. "That's all we ask for right now."

Classmate Chloe Walker agreed. "I believe that I have at least the right to walk the stage with all my friends," she said. "I made it this far, and I have all my credits I need. I deserve to get my certificate of completion."

I'd have some sympathy for this point, if I hadn't seen this picture of the protest:

If these high-school seniors on the picket line can't tell the difference between "are" and "our", then perhaps they're not ready to graduate at all. These students have inadvertently made a much more profound statement about the nature of education at Trimble Tech, and underscored the need for standardized testing before graduation. (via Best of the Web)

So Now They Believe Saddamists And Islamists Would Work Together?

The release of Phase II of the review of pre-war intel has generated some odd comments from war critics. The same people who have told us over and over again that al-Qaeda and other radical Islamists would never have worked with a supposed secularist like Saddam Hussein now say "I told you so" when the pre-war intel warned of post-invasion connections between AQ and the Ba'athists:

The U.S. intelligence community accurately predicted months before the Iraq war that al-Qaeda would link up with elements from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime and militant Islamists to conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in that country, according to a report released today by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Two national intelligence assessments sent to the White House and other senior Bush administration policymakers in January 2003 also predicted that al-Qaeda "would try to take advantage of U.S. attention on postwar Iraq to re-establish its presence in Afghanistan," according to the Senate report. ...

"The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al Qaeda terrorists," Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va.), chairman of the committee and three other Democratic panel members wrote in additional views attached to the 229 page report.

AQ bears a resemblance to a pack of hyenas. They will descend on any carcass and attempt to feed itself on death and destruction. It didn't take a lot of imagination to think that AQ would attempt to take advantage of a transitional Iraq in order to set up shop to fight the Americans.

In fact, at one point, we made it clear that we would rather have them fighting us over there, against our military, than over here against our civilians. That's the forward strategy in the war on terror. We fought them and their allies in Afghanistan and chased them out of the country, too. They may want to reestablish themselves in Afghanistan as the report notes, but they haven't been able to do it -- and their Taliban allies have lost most of their leadership now.

Jay Rockefeller wants to use the report to show what a folly it was to invade Iraq, but part of the reason we invaded Iraq was precisely to avoid Saddam and his henchmen from partnering with al-Qaeda. These same intel agencies produced this prediction because they also had intelligence that Saddam and AQ had already established contacts with each other. With the Taliban a dead letter, the next obvious choice in the region for AQ was Iraq, which already had a bitter military dispute with the US going for 12 years.

Since Saddam had never complied with the cease-fire and the UN resolutions on many issues, and in fact continued to fire on no-fly patrols, a state of war already existed. With that in mind and with the intel that AQ and Ba'athists would be likely allies in the near future, the US acted to secure its flank in the Middle East by eliminating the source of the 12-year war that had been ongoing. And as it turned out, it was a good thing we did -- because we found out that our allies at the UN had been undermining the "box" that supposedly held Saddam for years, stuffing billions of dollars into his pockets and military hardware in his presidential palaces.

The CIA predicted this alliance before the invasion. That should put paid to the idea that no one but George Bush and Dick Cheney thought that al-Qaeda would work with secular dictators like Saddam Hussein and other Ba'athists.

CQ Radio: The Generalissimo

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we'll talk to Duane Patterson, the Generalissimo of the Hugh Hewitt show. Duane and I will discuss the immigration reform bill, the presidential race, and the victory of the Bush administration on Iraq war funding.

Be sure to join the conversation at 646-652-4889!

NEXT WEEK: We have big plans for next week. CQ Radio will not air on Memorial Day, but you can download any of the previous shows from the BlogTalkRadio channel. Tuesday, I'll have a recorded interview with Senator and presidential candidate John McCain on immigration reform and the war in Iraq.

On Wednesday, we'll air CQ Radio at a special time in order to air an exclusive interview with Mitt Romney from the campaign trail in Iowa. I'll be in Des Moines with the campaign as it swings through the heart of Iowa, and I will be reporting live from several events on my blog and at Heading Right. Keep checking back with us!

The Fading Of Federalism

The Cato Institute has released an intriguing analysis of the decline of federalism over the last twenty years. Part of the supposed legacy of the Reagan Revolution was a renewed commitment to federalism and its insistence on moving power from Washington DC to state legislatures. That renewed commitment has largely failed, and federal subsidies to states have exploded over the last two decades:

In recent years, members of Congress have inserted thousands of pork-barrel spending projects into bills to reward interests in their home states. But such parochial pork is only a small part of a broader problem of rising federal spending on traditionally state and local activities.

Federal spending on aid to the states increased from $286 billion in fiscal 2000 to an estimated $449 billion in fiscal 2007 and is the third-largest item in the federal budget after Social Security and national defense. The number of different aid programs for the states soared from 463 in 1990, to 653 in 2000, to 814 by 2006.

The theory behind aid to the states is that federal policymakers can design and operate programs in the national interest to efficiently solve local problems. In practice, most federal politicians are not inclined to pursue broad, national goals; they are consumed by the competitive scramble to secure subsidies for their states. At the same time, federal aid stimulates overspending by the states, requires large bureaucracies to administer, and comes with a web of complex regulations that limit state flexibility.

At all levels of the aid system, the focus is on spending and regulations, not on delivering quality services. And by involving all levels of government in just about every policy area, the aid system creates a lack of accountability. When every government is responsible for an activity, no government is responsible, as was evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The Cato summary uses polite language to say what should be said in blunt terms. The federal government uses subsidies to extort compliance with federal agencies. Federal subsidies are like crack cocaine to state legislatures -- one taste and they cannot bear the thought of detoxing. These subsidies come with implicit and explicit transfers of power to the federal government (transportation aid is a well-known culprit) and usually require states to spend their own money on federal priorities in order to receive them at all.

The Reagan Revolution did attempt to address this. A look at Figure 1 shows that the percentage of the federal budget devoted to state subsidies dropped from 1980 (15.5%) to 1990 (10.8%). By the time the Clinton era came to an end, it had reached a historical high (16.0%), about where it remains today. During this time, both Republican and Democratic executives and Congresses contributed to the problem.

How much money does this cost us? In each of the last seven years, we have spent more than $200 billion in subsidies to the states for non-health programs, in 2007 dollars. That exceeds the prior peak in 1975, at the beginning of the stagflation and economic ennui that led to the Reagan Revolution. In 1955, we spent less that $30 billion in 2007 dollars on state subsidies. In fifty years, we have quintupled the federal subsidy program.

So what kind of programs deliver these subsidies? Cato takes a browse through the extensive catalog:

Couldn’t state and local governments or the private sector fund those activities? Do we really need the federal government involved in school lunches, farmers’ markets, hunter education, seniors’ community service, airport improvement, and boating safety? If First Lady Laura Bush wants to give $24 million to libraries, shouldn’t she collect the funding privately, instead of imposing on taxpayers to pay for the Laura Bush 21st Century Library Program?

Another curious program is Sport Fishing Restoration. In fiscal 2006 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program handed out to state governments $290 million in grant money raised from various excise taxes and import duties. In 2000 the GAO criticized the program’s mismanagement and “culture of permissive spending,” but the agency seems to have since cleaned up its act. In 2006 federal administration costs for the program were $22 million, and it’s not hard to see where the money goes when you examine the program’s activities. For example, program officials at different levels seem to get together for frequent meetings in locations such as Las Vegas, Charleston, and Lake Placid.

Sounds a lot like pork, doesn't it? It operates on the same power principle. Once the federal government has the power to distribute funds like this, the only argument is where it will get directed. This leads to lobbyists gaming the system, states accommodating federal expansion of power to get their hands on the money, and all of the rest of the ills of Washington DC and American politics in general.

If Congressional reformers wanted to truly make a difference, they would attack the federal subsidies to state programs, and the vast amount of money that the federal government uses to extort power from the states. Cato provides a handy guide for that purpose.

Where's The Sample? (Update & Bump: Sample Found!)

The New York Times and CBS both tout new poll numbers that show George Bush's approval rating dropping and the demand for a withdrawal from Iraq rising. However, it also includes the rather contradictory result that Americans support continuing the funding of the war -- which raises questions about methodology that neither news agency answers:

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

Still, the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals.

CBS polling has long had trouble with sampling. They routinely oversample Democrats, and then weight the results so that it amplifies that bias. In the CBS report, they note that the pollsters oversampled African-Americans, which would make this trend even more significant.

The most eye-raising result is that Congress outpolls Bush by 6%. That's the first major poll in years that shows Congress with that much support, and the first one ever that has Congress outpolling the President. Rasmussen, for instance, has Bush's approval ratings hovering at its all-time low of 34%, down 5 points since April. However, they also showed Congress a week ago with its best numbers all year -- at 26%. Most polls have Congress lower than that, but NYT/CBS has them at 36%, and Bush at 30%.

Of course, we should be able to see the sample and determine if CBS and NYT gamed it. However, neither news agency has revealed the entire poll and its results. For some reason, they don't want their readers analyzing how they polled their respondents. As the professional analysts warned at the ONA conference, very little trust should be placed in polling where the specific methodology has not been disclosed.

No one doubts that Bush is unpopular, and that the war faces strong opposition here at home. But news agencies are supposed to report the facts, and those who engage in polling are supposed to do it cleanly, openly, and without bias. CBS and the New York Times have a long history of failing at those tasks -- and now they hide their methodology so that people can't hold them accountable. Like the ONA panelists, I recommend rejecting this poll altogether.

UPDATE & BUMP: The sample was found -- by Scott Rasmussen, of all people. The Republican/Democratic split is 29/37, despite party affiliation numbers nationwide that show the split about half as wide -- 30.4/34.3. Still, it's the highest representation of Republicans in an NYT/CBS poll in months. The last split was 24/34/36.

Even while underrepresenting Republicans, the poll shows one interesting result that neither news service headlines. Only 13% of Americans believe that the war should be defunded. That comes in question 94 of the survey. 69% want the war funded with some form of benchmarks, and 15% want it funded with no strings attached at all.

Fred Tries To Touch All The Bases

Fred Thompson continued his pre-campaign campaign for the Republican presidential nomination yesterday in Connecticut, giving a speech to a gathering of state Republican activists. Ryan Sager at the New York Sun attended the speech, and gives it rather high marks for both delivery and content, in contrast to his Lincoln Club speech in California earlier this month. Fred gave a rather flat delivery of a good speech in terms of content in that venue, but this time delivered on the enthusiasm that his efforts have produced among his supporters.

However, Fred seems to want everyone to love him, except perhaps Democrats. Despite scorching some fellow Republicans for the immigration reform compromise, he led off the speech by hailing Rep. Chris Shays for his work in Congress. As I explain at Heading Right, Shays hardly provides a model of conservative tenacity. He co-sponsored the House version of the BCRA, and the rest of his record doesn't appear to fit with Fred's conservative outlook.

I understand the political benefits of paying homage to the home-town politicians, but Fred may want to take care to understand the records of those he endorses in future appearances.

UPDATE: Commenters have brought up a couple of interesting points. First, I wouldn't have advised Fred to rhetorically slap Shays around while appearing in Connecticut. I just find it inconsistent for him to admonish Republicans for not being conservative enough on immigration while heaping praise on one of the more liberal members of the House Republican caucus. Maybe he could have avoided mentioning him at all.

This demonstrates how difficult it will be for everyone, Fred included, to campaign nationally in the age of New Media, YouTube, and instant national communication. One cannot tailor messages to particular audiences, which is a good development; it forces candidates to either be honest about their platform even where it may not be popular, or get exposed as a hypocrite. Part of the reason why Fred gets this level of scrutiny is because of his reluctance to commit. He gets better press than most of the candidates as reporters watch every move he makes to see if they can divine his intentions.

I like Fred Thompson a lot and am looking forward to his entry into the race. Until he does, we'll hang on every word -- and that cuts many ways.

Orange Crush

Ukraine's political crisis deepened today as President Viktor Yushchenko transferred command of security forces away from the Interior Ministry to himself, after the minister refused to relinquish his office. Vasyl Tsushko tried to seize the office of a fired prosecutor, only to lose control of the riot police altogether:

President Viktor Yushchenko has ordered Ukraine's 40,000 interior ministry troops to come under his command, amid a deepening political crisis. ...

On Thursday, President Yushchenko sacked the country's top prosecutor, Svyatoslav Piskun.

In response, Interior Minister Vasyl Tsushko ordered riot police to seize control of Mr Piskun's office.

Mr Yushchenko - who is commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army - subsequently accused Mr Tsushko of breaking the law.

Yushchenko says that the prosecutor should have resigned his seat in parliament when he took the job, as required by Ukrainian law. Yushchenko fired him in April, but Piskun refused to leave the office. He claims that Yushchenko fired him in retaliation for not pursuing charges against three members of the Constitutional court, and Tsushko attempted to back Piskun by blocking his removal.

Meanwhile, in the background, Yushchenko must deal with Viktor Yanukovych, his opponent in the Orange Revolution. Yushchenko called a snap election in April, which has now been postponed until June. Yanukovych would have preferred to work with the present parliament, so he has tried to stall the elections as much as possible. Yushchenko might play right into his hands by seizing control of the security forces; Yanukovych could claim, perhaps reasonably, that elections held while Yushchenko retains dictator-like power over security would not produce clean results.

It's a 180-degree turn for Ukraine's democrats. Two years ago, it was Yanukovych grabbing power and Yushchenko leading the people against the autocrats. With power slipping from his grasp and few allies left to sustain him, Yushchenko has unwittingly become what he fought in the political revolution. He may not have been left with any choice, but the results seem to indicate that Ukraine has not yet made itself ready for a stable and clean political system.

Look Who's Showing His Face Again

After an absence of almost four months from public life, Moqtada al-Sadr finally surfaced in the city of Kufa today. He did his typical anti-US, anti-Israel rant at Friday prayers, the first time he has been seen in Iraq since before the surge:

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr appeared in public for the first time in months on Friday and delivered a fiery anti-American sermon in the holy Shiite city of Kufa.

"No, no for the devil. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel," he chanted at the start of his speech. The roughly 6,000 worshippers in the mosque repeated after him.

Al-Sadr told the worshippers that "the occupation forces should leave Iraq," and condemned fighting between his Mahdi Army militia and Iraqi security forces, saying it "served the interests of the occupiers."

Al-Sadr had gone into hiding in Iran four months ago at the start of the Baghdad security crackdown, but U.S. military officials said early Friday that he had returned to the holy city of Najaf, where he has a house.

So why now? After all, Sadr had been mailing it in from Iran for four months, afraid that the US surge meant to target him personally. Even after he saw that it remained limited to Baghdad, Diyala, and Anbar and didn't involve Najaf, he kept out of sight and out of Iraq. It hardly presented a profile in courage for Iraqis, most of whose politicians and elected officers (including the Sadrists) remained where they were.

Typically, he sees an opportunity or two to feast off the misery of others. The AP reports that one rival on the Supreme Islamic Council of imams in Iraq has lung cancer and had to go to Iran himself for medical treatment. Sadr wants to replace him as leader of the council while he's weak. Also, many people question whether the Maliki government will survive, and even though Maliki allied himself with Sadr politically, Sadr wants to be in position to exploit Maliki's weakness as well.

One other point in this article bears criticism. Sinan Salaheddin, writing for the AP, asserts that the "Mahdi Army fought U.S. troops to a virtual standstill in 2004". That's ludicrous. The US beat the Mahdis badly enough that Sadr had to sue for peace through his rival, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. As part of that surrender, Sadr had to pull the Mahdis out of Kufa and Najaf and had to promise to work within the political system instead of conducting military attacks against it. The only "standstill" came when Sadr got trapped by the collapse of his militia in Najaf and had to cut a deal to survive.

That Wasn't So Hard, Was It?

The Democratic-controlled Congress finally accomplished something after over four months of the 110th's session. They managed to pass a supplemental funding bill for the troops in Iraq, even though it took them 108 days to figure one out -- and they managed to vote overwhelmingly for it:

Congress voted tonight to meet President Bush’s demand for almost $100 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, providing a momentary truce in a bitter struggle over war policy. ...

This ends a months-long impasse between the Bush administration and Democrats who took control of Congress in January. Many House Democrats were dissatisfied with the resolution and a majority of them — 140 — voted against the war spending bill. Eighty-six supported it.

Under a convoluted process, the war spending was supported mainly by Republicans on a 280-to-142 vote and later the Senate passed it, 80-14. A package of $17 billion in domestic spending and the first increase in the minimum wage in more than a decade was approved overwhelmingly by the House — 348 to 73 — with strong support from both parties.

The outcome, which came as a new poll showed the Iraq war is increasingly unpopular, brought Democrats under fire from opponents of the Iraq war who are angry about the concession to the president on a troop withdrawal timetable. But leading Democrats said they had little choice but to send the money to the Pentagon money or risk being accused of abandoning troops in the field.

The two votes came about because of the split the Democratic leadership proposed in the House. They wanted to have a vote on nothing but the funding, with just enough votes to allow the Republicans to pass it. As it turns out, they got more than 80 Democrats to vote for the funding, and then the GOP pitched in with the additional unrelated items.

In the Senate, they didn't even bother with that fig leaf. A majority of Democrats agreed to fund the troops without timetables for withdrawal. Only 14 opposed a bill that many Democrats promised they would never support, which they now have to explain to an enraged base.

The White House will sign this at the first opportunity. Why not? They spent the last four months fighting for this victory, and George Bush will want to ensure it lasts all summer long.

Coleman Amendment Defeated

The amendment offered by Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman to the immigration reform bill has gone down to defeat. As I noted yesterday, the bill would have removed the loophole that allows for "sanctuary cities" and require local law-enforcement agencies to cooperate on illegal immigration:

Senator Coleman’s legislation will not require local law enforcement to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Moreover, it does not require local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids or act as federal agents. Senator Coleman’s bill will simply give law enforcement officers the ability to inquiry about a person’s immigration status during their routine investigations, and in turn report their findings to the appropriate Federal authorities though already-established channels, as they are currently required to do by law.

The Senate narrowly voted the amendment down, 49-48, even though it had some Democratic support. Republicans voting against this common-sense amendment were:

Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

John McCain voted in support of the Coleman amendment. He has taken criticism for not making votes in the Senate, but he did vote in this instance to toughen the enforcement of existing immigration law. Sam Brownback (R-KS) missed this vote, as did Thomas of Wyoming.

That makes 9 Republicans who either voted against enforcing existing immigration laws or didn't bother to show up to defend the law. Any two of them would have passed this amendment.

CQ Radio: King Banaian

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we'll talk to King Banaian of SCSU Scholars about the economics of immigration and the recent CBO report. King and I both contribute to the Northern Alliance Radio shows here in the Twin Cities on Saturdays, something that we've done for over three years now. King is the chair of the St. Cloud State University Economics program, and his experience is not limited to academia. He has traveled the world as an economic advisor to nations like Ukraine.

He's also a hell of a guy, and a lot of fun in conversation. You'll want to call 646-652-4889 to join ours.

I See The Hate, But Where's The Crime?

An Illinois teenager has been denied bail until her trial for perpetrating a hate crime. The unidentified girl and a friend distributed a flier at school attacking homosexuality and pointed out at least one classmate as gay, which caused police to arrest the pair for disturbing the peace and charging them with a felony hate crime (via CQ commenter brainy435):

A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.

The girls were arrested May 11 after handing out fliers in the parking lot of Crystal Lake South High School that depict a male student kissing another boy and contain hateful language about gays.

Officials say the fliers targeted a male classmate, who is also a neighbor of the girls. The two girls had apparently been feuding with the boy.

Earlier today, a judge rejected bond for one of the girls, citing her home environment and already lengthy juvenile record — 13 run-ins with the cops. Instead of home detention, the girl will be held at the Kane County Juvenile Justice Center while the case is pending, according to the Daily Herald.

None of the media reports to which I've linked tell much about the actual content of the flier. Fox gets a little more specific in its description of "hateful language about gays," but none of them mention any specific threat. The charges arrayed against the girls don't involve a threat of violence, so presumably the flier just contained stupid, hateful insults towards gays in general and at least one student in particular.

If that's the case, then I don't see an actual criminal act. I do see an opportunity for civil tort action against the girls and their parents, as well as the school, on behalf of the student they humiliated in the flier. Otherwise, it isn't a crime to insult people -- and that's a good thing, too, because 75% of the blogosphere would have to surrender to the police.

This is the problem with hate-crime legislation -- and perhaps with terrorist legislation as well, as I noted in my earlier post about Jonathan Paul. Both of them specifically criminalize motive, rather than leave them as a component of an objective crime itself. Beating up any person should carry the same penalties whether hate motivated it or not, and should be prosecuted with the same vigor regardless of whether the victim is gay or straight. Similarly, terrorism as a civil crime (ie, not in the context of foreigners attacking the US) also creates a thought-police mentality that is pretty seductive to people determined to stamp out evil -- in their subjective opinion of it.

The logical extension of those efforts is to punish people for their speech in support of whatever evil, real or imagined, that society detects. Thus two teen-age malcontents get arrested for distributing a flier that insults gays. What's next? Do we incarcerate Jack Chick for his hate-speech fliers about Catholics? Do we arrest people and charge them with felonies for making supportive statements about al-Qaeda, even if they commit no other crimes in doing so, like financial support or passing along targeting information for attacks?

I'm starting to think that hate crimes and terrorism designators both take us down a dangerous road. If the criminal act doesn't carry enough deterrent through normal penalties, then increase the penalties for everyone who commits them -- whether it be battery, arson, or murder. Let the motivation prove the crime rather than become a crime in itself. Otherwise, we invite a thought-police mentality that will ensnare American liberty more than it does evil.

UPDATE: Illinois, not Florida; thanks to those who pointed out the error.

UPDATE II: Shaun Mullen and I find common ground, after disagreeing on hate-crimes legislation earlier. I specifically asked him for his reaction, and it's definitely worth the read.

UPDATE III: I agree with CQ commenter Unclsmrgol, who says that we should not have classes of victims as well as classes of perpetrators. I've rewritten the sentence to get it closer to my original meaning: "Beating up any person should carry the same penalties whether hate motivated it or not, and should be prosecuted with the same vigor regardless of whether the victim is gay or straight."

Rising Economy And Welfare Reform Didn't Hurt The Poor

A study by the CBO of a fifteen-year period shows that the poorest 20% of American families received the most benefit from economic growth. Earnings increased for this economic stratum by 78%, more than three times the increase of the next three quintiles (via Memeorandum):

It's been a rough week for John Edwards, and now comes more bad news for his "two Americas" campaign theme. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

The CBO results don't fit the prevailing media stereotype of the U.S. economy as a richer take all affair -- which may explain why you haven't read about them. Among all families with children, the poorest fifth had the fastest overall earnings growth over the 15 years measured. (See the nearby chart.) The poorest even had higher earnings growth than the richest 20%. The earnings of these poor households are about 80% higher today than in the early 1990s.

What happened? CBO says the main causes of this low-income earnings surge have been a combination of welfare reform, expansion of the earned income tax credit and wage gains from a tight labor market, especially in the late stages of the 1990s expansion. Though cash welfare fell as a share of overall income (which includes government benefits), earnings from work climbed sharply as the 1996 welfare reform pushed at least one family breadwinner into the job market.

Earnings growth tapered off as the economy slowed in the early part of this decade, but earnings for low-income families have still nearly doubled in the years since welfare reform became law. Some two million welfare mothers have left the dole for jobs since the mid-1990s. Far from being a disaster for the poor, as most on the left claimed when it was debated, welfare reform has proven to be a boon.

In fact, solid gains can be found among all levels of American economic strata. The worst performance over this period was an 18% gain in earnings by the middle 20%, which equates to an $8,500 increase in purchasing power -- after inflation. The top quartile showed a 54% increase, with the rich getting richer, but the rising tide lifted all boats -- and the smallest most of all.

How did this happen? Welfare reform and low unemployment returned people back to the workforce. Both acted to pressure employers to raise wages as the economy greatly expanded the number of jobs. The efficiencies of the American production model finally started delivering the better-scale jobs, and everyone moved up, especially the low-wage workers.

The findings by the CBO are rather remarkable. Female-headed households saw earnings double over this period as the number of them earning primarily through employment went up a third. The EITC helped, and it also kept pressure on qualifying households to earn through jobs rather than welfare. It demonstrates that the best welfare program is a paycheck.

This shows that a lightly managed capital market, a restriction on the crippling effects of government handouts, and a reduction in the tax burden creates more opportunities for all wage earners, including and especially those at the bottom. We have the data to show that we are on the right track, and that expansive and expensive government programs do not work.

UN Knew Of Terrorists In Nahr El-Bared

The eruption of Islamist terrorism in northern Lebanon has created a lot of media coverage but little focus on the refugee camp where it originated. The Nahr el-Bared camp is one of several run by the United Nations subsidiary organization UNRWA, which is supposed to keep arms out of the camps to maintain their refugee, non-combatant status. How did the UN miss this terrorist infiltration in Nahr el-Bared?

It turns out that they didn't. I explain at Heading Right that not only did the UNRWA know about the infiltration, they deliberately ignored complaints from the refugees at Nahr el-Bared.

Yes, Political Arson Is A Form Of Terrorism

I have sympathy for family members of people discovered to be domestic terrorists. After all, in many cases, they have no idea what their relatives were doing. The family of John Walker Lindh didn't urge him to go to Pakistan and get training from Osama bin Laden, after all. My sympathy ends when they assert that people who conduct violent acts for political purposes don't amount to terrorists, however.

Today's Los Angeles Times opinion piece from Caroline Paul is an example. Her brother, Jonathan Paul, awaits sentencing for arson in connection with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, and a terrorism component of his conviction could multiply his sentence. Caroline angrily denounces the application of terrorism in his case:

MY BROTHER IS considered one of the biggest domestic terrorists in the country. You probably haven't heard of him, and I think that's odd. After all, he's dangerous. He's trying to overthrow our country. He "doesn't like our freedoms," or so President Bush has said of terrorists in general, so I suppose that applies to my brother too.

Let me tell you a little bit about him. He likes the History Channel. He's a Trekkie. He cried (in secret) at the corny 1980s movie "Turtle Diary." He's good at fixing things. And, most important, he has devoted his life to stopping animals' suffering. To this end, he has broken the law. He crept into animal laboratories to free dogs. He dismantled corrals to release wild mustangs. He impersonated a fur buyer to film the treatment of minks. He put himself between whales and whalers despite warnings that his boat would be impounded and that he would be jailed. And nearly 10 years ago, he burned down a horse slaughterhouse in Redmond, Ore. It is for this final act that the U.S. government considers him among the ranks of Osama bin Laden, Eric Rudolph and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. ...

Don't let me give you the impression that I think arson is something to be taken lightly. I do not. The irony is rich in this case: I was a San Francisco firefighter for 13 years. I was angry and dismayed that my brother chose arson as a route to stop animal suffering. But "a classic case of terrorism"?

First, let's make something clear. Her brother Jonathan did not use arson to "stop animal suffering". He used arson to intimidate people into acquiescing to his political views. The ELF and ALF, and their political ally PETA, have not convinced enough people through the democratic process to adopt their radical agendas. Frustrated, they have committed arsons throughout the country, burning cars and facilities like this horse slaughterhouse in order to impose their will on society as a whole.

That's what makes this particular arson more damaging than just a fire. It undermines the entire basis for democratic government and the rule of law. It attacks more than just the slaughterhouse. If Jonathan Paul has his way, the only law will be that handed down by the interest group with the greatest proclivity for violence -- and that would completely undermine any form of rational self-government.

The anti-terrorism statutes exist precisely for this reason. Jonathan Paul and others of his ilk are a cancer on rational society. We cannot allow the Pauls of this world to simply burn down legal businesses simply because they offend his political sensibilities, nor can we allow violence in political action go unpunished or even unrecognized. When Paul set fire to the slaughterhouse because he could not get it shut down through democratic means, he became a terrorist -- and should pay the price.

Addendum: Intellectual honesty forces me to ask, however, what difference exists between this and the hate-crimes legislation that I opposed two weeks ago. Is there a difference? Are both forms of terrorism?

Hold On Tight To That Bundling

The Hill follows up on its reporting about sudden Democratic antipathy to cleansing the political process of lobbyist influence, focusing today on the issue of bundling. Despite the rhetoric of the last campaign, it turns out that many Democrats like lobbyist influence, especially those in leadership positions:

Powerful Democratic chairmen and subcommittee chairmen have relied on lobbyists to raise money during the first three months of this year, according to recent fundraising reports, which cast light on the strong opposition to lobbying reform legislation scheduled to reach the floor today.

Conservative Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition have been particularly leery of legislation that would require lobbyists to reveal in public reports the total amount of contributions they raise or “bundle” for lawmakers. Many Democrats voiced concerns at a closed-door caucus meeting on the lobbying reform bill last week.

“Instead of passing a bunch of little bills, I would rather have people here understand they should act how their momma and poppa taught them how to act,” said Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.), a Blue Dog Democrat who is undecided about whether to vote for proposed rules requiring lobbyists to report the contributions they raise for lawmakers.

Well, isn't that folksy! Instead of cleaning up Congress by tightening restrictions on lobbying and requiring full disclosure of fundraising efforts, Boyd just reckons that y'all oughta trust 'em to have been raised right by their folks. The Democrats embrace family values at last!

I guess it never occurred to Boyd that his job is "passing a bunch of little bills," as members of Congress. They campaigned on the promise to pass a passel of bills to clean up lobbyist influence, screaming about Jack Abramoff so loudly as to make people forget that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got plenty of Abramoff help, too. Instead, Boyd and the rest of the Democratic leadership want to allow lobbyists to pass a bunch of little bills -- $50s, $100s, and the like. William "Dollar Bill' Jefferson can even show them the proper method of storage.

Nancy Pelosi, to her credit, says she will put the bundling regulations on the floor today. We'll see how many Democrats -- and Republicans -- wind up supporting the push for sunlight and openness in reporting lobbyist contributions.

Finding The Right Motivation

Hamas has decided to enter a unilateral cease-fire with Israel and to stop the launching of rockets at Israeli cities. This sudden reversal after more than a week of constant barrage comes courtesy of an announced change in Israeli strategy -- in which they would target the political leaders of Hamas:

Israel's threat to target senior Hamas leaders in response to the Kassam rocket attacks from Gaza has prompted the group to agree to a unilateral cease-fire with Israel, Palestinian Authority officials said Wednesday.

"Hamas wants to stop the Kassam rockets. They are especially worried about reports that Israel may assassinate [PA Prime Minister] Ismail Haniyeh and [Hamas chief] Khaled Mashaal," the officials told The Jerusalem Post.

The officials were speaking shortly after PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Haniyeh met in Gaza City to discuss the possibility of declaring a unilateral truce with Israel. Journalists were not allowed to cover the meeting, which was held under tight security.

"At first, Haniyeh did not want to attend the meeting because of Israeli threats to kill him," said one PA official. "The venue and time of the meeting were only agreed upon at the last minute for security reasons. Hamas is taking the Israeli threats very seriously."

Hamas officials in Syria engaged in stand-up comedy when complaining about the new Israeli strategy. They called it "state terror" and an assassination threat against "an elected prime minister". They conveniently forgot to mention his status as the head of the organization that has chucked bombs at Israeli citizens for weeks, and really off and on for years. This announcement shows that Haniyeh could have stopped these rocket attacks at any time, which makes him a terrorist first and foremost.

Normally, a nation will avoid killing the political leadership of an enemy during wartime in order to allow for a clear line of command in case of surrender. Chaos can create even greater problems than the head of state can cause while remaining in power. In this case, though, Hamas created chaos deliberately. This gave the Israelis no incentive to keep the Palestinian leadership intact, especially those belonging to the terrorist organization.

Hamas apparently didn't see the change coming. Perhaps they felt that Haniyeh and his deputies had built some international standing, and that Israel wouldn't take the risk of attacking their political leadership. Instead, Israel proved that the political leadership has no daylight between themselves and the terrorist leadership, and that they have had enough of Hamas in any form.

The next time the rockets fly, Israel should just dispense with the warning and start taking out Haniyeh and his deputies from the top down. That will make it even more clear to the next set of terrorists that replace them.

UPDATE: Apparently, Hamas didn't learn its lesson:

More than 30 senior officials from the Palestinian militant group Hamas have been detained by Israeli forces in overnight raids in the West Bank.

Those taken, mainly in Nablus, include the Palestinian education minister, three lawmakers and three mayors.

The Israeli military said the detentions were made because the officials "supported the firing of rockets" into Israel, AFP reported.

AFP and the BBC report that the captures, which included the Education Minister, took place after intensive rocket fire resumed -- which shows that Hamas has no intention of conducting any cease-fire with anyone. This mission presumably intends to serve as a final warning to Hamas leadership. We'll see if that has any effect.

Team Hillary Dumping Iowa?

Hillary Clinton's campaign tried to do damage control after an internal memo revealed that they have considered stiffing Iowa caucus voters in January. Thus far, Hillary has not captured the imagination of Iowans, and her third-place status behind John Edwards and Barack Obama had at least one of her advisors considering a retreat:

Aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) scrambled late yesterday to control the fallout from a leaked memo advocating that she pull her campaign out of Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses, where she is trailing in polls.

The memo, written by Clinton deputy campaign manager Mike Henry, exposed a rift among Clinton advisers over her approach to the first real test of the presidential campaign. Henry advocated focusing the senator's resources on the Jan. 22 New Hampshire primary and the wave of states that follow with contests on Feb. 5.

Skipping Iowa would be a stunning move for the presumed front-runner; it is usually lesser-known and poorly financed candidates who are forced to pick and choose their primary battles. Clinton campaign officials quickly dismissed any suggestion that she would pull out of the state, characterizing the memo as "one person's opinion."

This seems stunning, considering the stature of the Clintons in the party. It's no surprise to see a national frontrunner trailing in Iowa; voters there have a reputation for going against the grain. What shocks is the idea that a former First Lady of a popular President would consider her position so poor in Iowa that she would consider withdrawing eight months before the caucuses, or that her team would.

The leak also raises questions, as the Post notes. The press hasn't gotten many leaks from the locked-down Clinton machine, so a leak of this memo indicates that some people may want to torpedo others. Presumably, someone in the campaign wants to damage Henry and doesn't mind dinging Hillary just a little while they're at it. The Clinton campaign says none of the senior advisors had even seen Henry's memo before the press got it. Factions, apparently, have formed and begun jostling for power in the Clinton campaign.

Everyone denies that Hillary would ever pull out of Iowa, and that makes sense. She has the money to compete, and she has the organization to stay close to Edwards and Obama. She doesn't need to win Iowa to win the nomination, but she has to score well; she can't afford to drop past third, and she really should aim for at least second place. Exposing the doubts of campaign advisors won't help attract more Iowans to their organization, and that will be the biggest damage of this release.

New Search Function At CQ

As many of you know, I have been working on some problems behind the scenes with script performance in Movable Type. Most of the issues have involved the comment script, although the central MT script has also created a few headaches over the past couple of weeks. During the two recent hosting moves, I upgraded the MT version from 3.2 to 3.35 to ensure that I have the most recent versions of these scripts running. Between that and some assistance from Hosting Matters on server allocation, we seem to have solved most of the problems.

One nagging problem remain, and it's a puzzler. The upgrade to 3.35 gave me access to an internal RSS feed on my activity log, and it revealed some odd traffic on my site. It seems that spammers like to run searches on their URLs on my blog, which explains why my search function slowed to a crawl and why that script was one of the ones locking up on the server. I have no idea why spammers want to run my search script over and over; maybe a CQ reader can explain it to me. All I knew was that I wanted to stop it.

Based on a tip, I decided to check out the Fast Search plugin for MT. It doesn't use the same scripting as the native MT search function, which should eliminate the spamming. It also does exactly what its name implies -- it makes searches on the blog lightning fast by adding a separate index table to the database. I've run several searches using this new interface, and it works extremely well, better than searches have ever run on the blog, even in the early days.

Hopefully, this will spell an end to the performance issues here at CQ. We're going to continue to keep a close eye on it.

A Tale Of Two Amendments (Updated & Bumped)

Note: I've changed the title of this post in order to address a second, critical amendment by John Cornyn. See the first update below.

The senior Senator from Minnesota, Norm Coleman, will offer an amendment to end the practice of "sanctuary cities" and demand compliance with immigration laws. Coleman wants to close the loophole various cities opened in the 1996 immigration bill that allows them to ignore the illegal status of people arrested by their law enforcement agencies:

In an effort to strengthen national security, Senator Norm Coleman yesterday introduced an amendment to the Immigration bill to make sure local law enforcement officials are able to communicate with federal law enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.

“In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities. This is not a matter of making state and local governments enforce federal immigration laws, it is simply a matter of closing this loophole that certain cities have created,” said Coleman. “This defies common sense, as the rule of law must apply to both legal and illegal residents. Moreover, we know how crucial it is to connect the dots in order to avert another terrorist attack in this country. The consequences of prohibiting information sharing are too great. To close this loophole, I have introduced an amendment that will ensure the lines of communication are open between local and federal law enforcement officials.”

Senator Coleman’s legislation will not require local law enforcement to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Moreover, it does not require local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids or act as federal agents. Senator Coleman’s bill will simply give law enforcement officers the ability to inquiry about a person’s immigration status during their routine investigations, and in turn report their findings to the appropriate Federal authorities though already-established channels, as they are currently required to do by law.

Coleman says that the impetus for this amendment comes from the capture of the Fort Dix Six. They had numerous contacts with law enforcement, and yet no one notified federal authorities of their illegal status. Not until a sharp-thinking clerk alerted the FBI about their jihadi videos did anyone realize the threat that had metastasized in New Jersey.

I believe Coleman supports the immigration compromise, at least conceptually. Coleman has a propensity to reach across the aisle for solutions, which he explained very well two weeks ago at an appearance at the University of Minnesota. However, this clear thinking shows why Coleman gives Republicans a strong voice in the Senate, and why many of us support him even when he wanders off the reservation from time to time.

It's time to end the "sanctuary city" phenomenon, especially since this compromise purports to clamp down on illegal immigration -- a claim that its details don't support very well at all. If the compromise fails, Coleman should introduce this as a free-standing bill in this session of Congress to demand that cities quit hiding criminals from the ICE.

UPDATE: John Cornyn has proposed an even more critical amendment, one that appears to have Democrats a bit flummoxed:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship subcommittee, on Wednesday introduced an amendment to the immigration bill to close a gaping loophole in the bill that will ensure the following individuals are either permanently barred from the United States or prohibited from getting any immigration benefit: members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers.

“The question I put to my colleagues is this: Should Congress permanently bar from the U.S. and from receiving any immigration benefit: suspected terrorists, gang members, sex offenders, felony drunk drivers, and other individuals who are a danger to society?,” Sen. Cornyn said. “I hope that every Senator would answer this question with a positive response.

Sen. Cornyn’s amendment also closes the loophole in the pending bill that allows legalization of those illegal immigrants who have violated court ordered deportations, or absconders.

This will address two key points on the Heritage Foundation's list of issues about the immigration proposal. It also creates an almost unbearable political situation. Who will go on record as endorsing the entry/normalization of gang members, coyotes, sex offenders, and other undesirables? Whoever votes against the Cornyn amendment will have to deal with election advertisements that say, "Senator X voted to allow known sex offenders and drunk drivers in your community."

Good luck rebutting those.

It also addresses the issue of absconders. These are people who have deportation orders that they have ignored until now. Heritage estimates that over 600,000 absconders would receive de facto pardons under this plan. Cornyn wants to restore the rule of law and the authority of the criminal-justice system by denying them profit from their refusal to obey a court order. It's another tough point for critics to rebut. If Cornyn can get his amendment to the floor, expect it to pass by an overwhelming margin.

Compromise Has Little Public Support

If the architects of the comprehensive immigration reform plan expected to reap political favor for their ability to reach a bipartisan compromise, they will find themselves disappointed. A Rasmussen study shows that a near-majority oppose the plan altogether, with the rest split between acceptance and uncertainty:

Initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday and Tuesday night shows that just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed while 26% are not sure. The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public. The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The next part of the report shows that Congress as a whole may have missed the pulse of the nation. Instead of focusing on normalization, they could improve their standing immensely -- in both parties -- by addressing border security as a primary and separate initiative:

The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters.

In view of these numbers, tackling the problem in an integrated manner is a huge mistake on both sides of the aisle. The notion that the border issue cannot be divorced from addressing the status of the extant illegals only seems to hold true inside the Beltway. In the rest of the nation, voters appear to easily distinguish between the two -- and probably wonder why their elected representatives cannot.

Since I still have a membership at Rasmussen, I have access to the crosstabs -- and they tell a very interesting story. Not a single demographic in the study favors this proposal, except under Race:Other. Democrats oppose it 51-28. Republicans oppose it 47-25. Men and women both clearly oppose it. Only people ages 30-39 come close to overcoming opposition, 34-32 in opposition.

But when the subject turns to border security, the numbers turn even more dramatic. Every single demographic -- race, gender, age, and political orientation -- has majorities that show border security as "very important". The only one below 60% is Race:Other again, but almost all of the others score in the 70s or higher. While a number of demographics score the importance of legalizing illegal aliens as at least somewhat important, it carries far less enthusiasm than border security.

The data is so compelling, one has to wonder why Congress hasn't realized that they could offer a win for everyone by focusing exclusively on border security as an entrée to immigration reform. They literally would please every possible constituency by doing so, and would almost overnight dial down the emotion over the rest of the issue. Only in DC could the governing class be so out of touch with the national mood.

UPDATE: The news is not all bad for comprehensive reform. From the Rasmussen summary:

Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.” The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include “strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States.”

It would seem that the key would be to win the confidence of the voters that this bill really does those things. If it does and it does it plainly and with border enforcement first (along with "a barrier along the Mexican border"), then there is obvious support for it. There's a lot more for handling this in two completely separate phases, though, which seems to undermine the notion that only a comprehensive plan can unite the nation. Clearly, a borders-only bill to start would have tremendous support, given the data here.

CQ Radio: Mark Tapscott, Robert Bluey

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we'll talk to two of my friends from the blogosphere and the media. First, we have Mark Tapscott, the editor of the Washington Examiner's editorial section and a first-class political analyst. Yesterday he wrote about the need to end careerism in Congress, which I partly rebutted and partly supported at Heading Right. We're going to discuss that with him today, and perhaps pick his brain on immigration as well.

In the second half of our show, Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation will talk about their new position paper on the immigration compromise. It argues in ten points how the compromise undermines the rule of law in America by pointing out the worst flaws in Title VI of the bill. We'll ask him to explain the concerns and where he thinks the bill will go in the next two weeks of debate.

Want to join the conversation? Call 646-652-4889! We'll take your calls during both segments.

Also, next Tuesday, we're expecting John McCain to join us in a taped interview. I'll keep you posted on the details, but circle the date on your calendars!

Addendum: BlogTalkRadio has been nominated to the AlwaysOn 100, a prestigious list of technology pioneers and Internet industry leaders:

As noted on their site, “The AO100 represents the best of breed from all the technology sectors we cover, and therefore is our most distinguished annual Top 100 competition”.

Needless to say we are thoroughly excited to be nominated for this prestigious award. Those familiar with this blog and Blogtalkradio will recall that not long ago, Blogtalkradio in fact won one of the coveted spots in the AlwaysOn Hollywood 100. This award, given by the editorial board of Tony Perkin’s AlwaysOn, recognized BTR as one of the top 100 private digital media companies in the world. Quite a heady thought!!

The latest nomination goes one step further to include all global private technology companies. Nominated companies include Digg, Facebook, Feedburner, Joost and Linden Labs. These are world class companies and it is an honor to be mentioned in the same breath.

You bet it is...

Joe Paterno, National Treasure

Remember when colleges justified the expense of their sports programs by claiming that they built character for the student athletes -- and it was still true for the premier sports, like football? I'm not sure if any CQ readers are that old, but I know one man who still believes it ... and he's the head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions football team. Joe Paterno wants to make sure that his team learns character along with pass protections and blitzing schemes (via Mitch Berg):

This spring, six Penn State football players were arrested and charged for crimes stemming from an off-campus fight April 1 in which at least 15 Nittany Lions were present. The charged included a couple of star players, although what apparently bothered coach Joe Paterno the most was how many of his kids were willing to be involved.

And so Paterno, 80 now but no less tough, no less disciplined, hatched a plan to set things right within his program. He'll let the local legal and student judicial process play out, but regardless he decided that to keep people from thinking his team was trash, it'll spend the fall cleaning it up.

According to Paterno, the Penn State football team will clean Beaver Stadium after each home football game this fall. It'll gather garbage, sweep stairs and maybe even hose parts down. ...

It's a job that usually goes to members of club sports on campus – say, rugby or crew – which do it to raise money so they can compete. Paterno said the clubs still will get the $5,000 for the job, but his guys, fresh off playing 60 minutes of major college football the day before, will do all the work starting Sunday morning.

It started as a personal conflict between Anthony Scirrotto and some passers-by who insulted Scirrotto and his girlfriend. That started a fistfight, which apparently left Scirrotto dissatisfied. He called some of his teammates when he found out that his antagonists would be at an off-campus party, and they crashed the party and started a brawl. Police arrested several of the team members, but more avoided getting caught.

Except by Paterno. When he heard the details, the lack of character and leadership among his team angered him, and he decided that they needed to learn both in a memorable way. And that's why the pride of Penn State will raise funds for other groups on campus by replacing them on cleanup detail after Penn State football games all season long.

Will he lose players over this? Possibly. If so, those who leave will only hurt themselves. Paterno obviously cares more about his players and their futures than he does about winning ball games, and any student willing to turn his back on that kind of coach deserves to get exploited somewhere else.

This is why, although I always root for Notre Dame, Joe Paterno is my favorite college coach of all time.

Democrats Split On Iraq Funding

As I noted yesterday, the Democratic leadership in Congress finally acknowledged the reality of their position yesterday and agreed to send a supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war without timelines for withdrawal. In doing so, they're claiming victory from a clause that they earlier derided as worthless, and their anti-war wing now threatens to part company with the present leadership:

Congressional Democratic leaders Tuesday dropped their insistence that the Iraq war-spending bill include a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal, clearing the way to end a lengthy standoff with President Bush.

The measure will include benchmarks that the Baghdad government must meet to continue to receive U.S. reconstruction aid, although the president will be allowed to waive those requirements. ...

The plan to link reconstruction aid to benchmarks, which was proposed by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was initially derided by Democrats, who said it was too weak to have any effect on the war.

But Tuesday, Democratic leaders sought to portray it as progress in their efforts to challenge Bush on the war. And they vowed to continue their efforts to try to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. This bill would fund the war through Sept. 30.

Democrats have included funding for Iraq war operations in the regular FY 2008 budget, however. That makes the issue less crisis-prone, and it also deflects some of the political backlash the Democrats have received from all sides on this question. It took more than 100 days for the Democratic-led Congress to finally produce a funding bill, a delay which held up the highly-touted AMRAP program that could have already saved some lives from IED attacks.

That loss of leverage has not gone unnoticed by the anti-war caucus, and neither has the Democratic surrender to George Bush on the funding bill. Those Senators and Representatives insist that the bill will require Republican votes for passage as they plan to oppose the supplemental:

Liberal Democrats who reluctantly have backed House leaders on the Iraq spending bill may defect due to the leadership’s decision to eliminate any timeline for withdrawal from the legislation. ...

“The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a leader of the Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s going to take Republican votes to pass it.” ...

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said he expects enough Democrats to switch that leadership vote-counters will lose the margin of victory they have enjoyed so far.

“I’m on the edge,” he said. “I’m not liking this. A lot of people have bought into the notion that you have to fund the troops. Funding the troops means more troops are going to die.”

I'm not sure where this threat is intended to go. Funding for the war always relied on Republican votes. As long as enforced withdrawal dates do not get included, Republicans will vote for the result, unless pork and amendments make it impossible to do so. That's as true as whether Bush would sign a bill. There will be enough Democrats to cross the aisle to assure passage.

In fact, the Democrats already recognize this rather empty threat, and they plan to attach the pork in a rather sneaky manner that avoids a floor vote. They will propose a clean supplemental without any extraneous spending or amendments, and expect to get all of the Republicans and a good chunk of Democrats to approve it. Afterwards, the Democrats will use procedural machinations to attach the minimum wage increase, hurricane relief, and agricultural pork. The need for the latter seems diminished, considering that it won't pay for the votes it originally intended, but apparently survived the negotiations.

That will pass the Senate tomorrow, and the House will probably address it later that evening or early on Friday. We can finally expect that Congress did something significant this session by Memorial Day, a shameful start to the new era of Democratic leadership.

A Whiff Of Baloney In The Air

The immigration compromise passed its first major test yesterday when the Senate overwhelmingly defeated an attempt to strip the guest-worker program from the bill. Byron Dorgan and Barbara Boxer led the charge to kill the key part of the bill, and all they could muster was 34 votes.

Over at Heading Right, I question what this portends. Harry Reid reversed himself to vote against a guest-worker program, and the unions want it stripped out of the bill. Even with the Majority Leader and the unions supporting the Dorgan amendment, it only got 34 votes from the Democrats. What does that mean? It means that these amendments could just be political cover -- which I explain at length at HR. Be sure to read the entire post.

Failing On The Culture Of Corruption Twice Over

All we heard from the Democrats during the 2006 midterm elections was how the Republicans had created a "culture of corruption". The GOP left itself open to those charges, without a doubt, by their profligate spending and individual cases of actual corruption, such as Bob Ney and Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Of course, the Democrats had William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson and Alan Mollohan, but they promised that all lobbyist influence and vote payoff systems would screech to a halt under Democratic management of Congress.

Yesterday gave us two examples of how the Democrats will fulfill this campaign pledge. First, the new Congress still can't get its own members to support even watered-down ethics legislation:

After scrapping most key elements of an ethics package meant to deliver on Democratic promises to bring unprecedented accountability to Congress, party leaders were still working into the night yesterday to sell their stripped-down bill to the rank and file.

With a vote on the bill slated for tomorrow, leading Democrats were fighting yesterday to keep its meatiest remaining piece, a provision unmasking the lobbyists behind bundles of contributions delivered to lawmakers.

But even that faced significant opposition from conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. ...

Resistance springs from a sea change in the business of politics in recent years. Nearly half of the members of Congress who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists, according to a study by watchdog group Public Citizen. That lure, combined with spiraling campaign costs and lawmakers' reluctance to reveal any links to K Street, have cooled enthusiasm for the lobbying disclosure bill, even as investigations stemming from lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence peddling continue.

Why don't they want to reveal the bundling lobbyists? Because they want the money. CBC member Sanford Bishop has been tasked with rounding up votes in the caucus, but he's finding it a tough slog. Bishop says members want ethics reform, but not at the expense of campaign contributions, which is somewhat akin to endorsing traffic lights but not tickets for violations.

Rahm Emanuel still believes that he can get the votes to make the ethics bill meaningful. He and Marty Meehan want to offer amendments for everything that the Democrats had to strip out of the bill to get even the meagre support they've received, but that seems like a long shot for success. Even the party leader on pork, John Murtha, calls the bill "total crap".

And he should know. Last night, the Democrats failed to hold him accountable for an egregious ethics violation, one in which he threatened to punish a Republican for challenging a pork project in Murtha's district:

House Democrats spared Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) from a parliamentary slap on the wrist by defeating a resolution aimed at reprimanding him for allegedly threatening to revoke another lawmaker’s earmarks.

Democrats successfully killed the privileged resolution by a vote of 219-189 as Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) joined Democrats to table the motion while Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) and Jim Cooper (Tenn.) voted with the Republicans. Thirteen lawmakers voted present. ...

During the vote, several Democratic lawmakers joked and laughed with Murtha as they sat in the so-called Pennsylvania corner of the House floor.

Why bother to even pass this ethics bill? Democrats have conclusively shown that they won't hold their own members accountable for violating the current set of ethics rules. Dana Milbank expands in his inimitable, snarky fashion:

Apparently, the credulous Rogers took seriously the quaint provision in the Code of Official Conduct stating that a member "may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a Congressional earmark . . . on any vote cast by another member." "There's not going to be any more go-along-to-get-along, 1950s-style American politics around here," Rogers told The Post's Jonathan Weisman. "I've had enough."

Maybe Rogers has had enough, but it is the considered sense of the House that the "go-along-to-get-along" method has merit.

The Democrats haven't even spent their first six months in power before reneging on their campaign promises. The culture of corruption is alive and well, just under different management. John Murtha reigns supreme over earmarks, and woe betide the Congressman of either party that dares to cross him.

That's what America wanted when it put Democrats in charge, right? And note that they still haven't delivered a single item on their 100-hour legislative agenda. They're not just a Do-Nothing Congress; they're also a See-Nothing, Say-Nothing Congress.

David All explores specific broken promises and reveals some Murtha financial connections to his defenders in the House.

American Muslim Youth And Suicide Bombing

The Pew Research Center completed an exhaustive survey of American Muslims and found a disturbing trend among younger Muslims. As ABC reports, as many as 1 in 4 Muslims under the age of 30 belive that suicide bombings can be justified in defense of Islam:

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."

This has some implications for American security. The concern centers on the "home-grown jihadi" phenomenon that has been seen in both Canada and Britain. Radical imams take advantage of the younger Muslims, especially those already feeling dislocation, and inspire rage at the countries in which they live. Canada managed to stop the Toronto cell before they could strike, but the London bombings show that these younger, vengeful Muslims can attack without much warning at all.

Still, the numbers are worse in Europe. In Spain and the UK, around 1 in 4 of all Muslims approve of suicide bombing in defense of Islam, and in France that number goes up to 35%. In Germany, the numbers are closer to the US. Clearly, while we have an issue with younger Muslims, Europe has a greater concern with their entire Muslim communities, which have tens of millions. Hundreds of thousands of European Muslims see their way clear to conducting terrorist attacks to defend Islam, a number which should deeply concern Europeans.

I would recommend that people read the entire study. It's a fascinating and in-depth look at a community that has received a lot of attention but not much study. Even though they tend to have very socially conservative views, they also trend heavily to the Democratic Party -- most likely as a result of the Iraq war, which they reject in higher numbers than the rest of Americans. They also oppose the war in Afghanistan, which indicates that they will not approve of any military action against Muslims regardless of the provocation.

They also tend to wallow in conspiracy theories. Only 40% believe that "a group of Arabs" committed the 9/11 attacks. Thirty-two percent either said they didn't know or refused to answer. Seven percent claimed that George Bush committed the attacks. Even Nigerians scored better on this question, with 42% acknowledging that Muslims carried out the attacks. Great Britain's Muslims scored the worst among Western nations on this question; only 17% believe the truth.

Interestingly, there tends to be a divide between native-born Muslims (mostly African-Americans) and emigrés. For instance, on the question of whether anti-terrorism policies single out Muslims, a thin majority of all Muslims say yes (54%). Native-born Muslims have a much bigger chip on their shoulders (72%), while recent Muslim immigrants seem to have the least amount of problem with it (40%).

Be sure to read through the entire survey, which can be found at Pew in PDF form.

The Brain Drain At The Top

The Taliban's offensive operations have ground to a halt due to a lack of mid-level commanders, and the loss of their highest-ranking military general has their troops despondent, the Telegraph reports. They had planned for a big push this spring to reverse their fortunes against the NATO coalition, but instead they have been set back on their heels with not much hope for future of their fight:

The Taliban's much-vaunted spring offensive has stalled apparently due to lack of organisation after dozens of middle-ranking commanders were killed by British troops in the past year, according to military sources.

The death last week of the key Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah at the hands of American special forces has harmed the Taliban's morale to the point that local commanders are having to tell their troops to "remain professional" despite the loss. ...

A spring offensive was ordered by the Taliban leadership based in Quetta, Pakistan, and was meant to be launched in late March.

But a lack of mid-level commanders has meant that there has been little co-ordination to bring about the offensive.

"They are getting strategic guidance from Quetta but this is not translating on the ground," a military source said.

Even the most successful of the Taliban contingents has its share of problems. In Helmand, where the American commander of the NATO forces had to force a tactical change to hot pursuit, the Taliban have an "irreconcilable" force of about 1,000 -- but they include a significant number of outsiders and part-timers. NATO forces in that area have stopped the practice of allowing cease-fires with Taliban elements, which allowed the "irreconcilables" to garner their strength, and they now have the same problems as the rest of the Taliban.

The failure of the spring offensive will probably prove fatal to the aspirations of Mullah Omar to seize power. He has lost three of his four top lieutenants in the past five years since his expulsion, and he has not even come close to winning. Without Mullah Dadullah and field commanders like Mullah Najibullah, Omar has little skill left in the field and fewer Afghans fighting for his cause. The fact that his hopes now hinge on a force made up largely of foreign fighters and part-timers in Helmand shows that his movement has dissipated.

They're giving it one more try this summer, but if the NATO forces continue with their new, aggressive tactics, the Taliban and Omar will face a very long winter. At some point, and it appears almost at hand, his men will either abandon him or betray him as they finally figure out that the war is over, and they lost it -- badly.

This Sounds Like A Class-Action Suit In The Making

Scientists have won FDA approval for a birth-control pill that halts the menstrual cycle altogether. The Washington Post reports that Lybrel will halt periods in 60% of women who take it daily, but some women's health advocates warn that the research did not go far enough into the effects that will have:

The Food and Drug Administration yesterday approved the first birth control pill that eliminates a woman's monthly period.

Taken daily, the contraceptive, called Lybrel, continuously administers slightly lower doses of the same hormones in many standard birth control pills to suppress menstruation. It is designed for women who find their periods too painful, unpleasant or inconvenient and want to be free of them.

"This will be the first and only oral contraceptive designed to be taken 365 days a year, allowing women to put their periods on hold," said Amy Marren of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which expects Lybrel to be available with a prescription by July. "There are a lot of women who think that's a great option to have." ...

"There may be important health consequences that we don't know about," said Christine L. Hitchcock, an endocrinology researcher at the University of British Columbia. "I don't think we understand everything that the menstrual cycle does well enough to say with confidence that you can abolish it and not have any consequences."

I have nothing against birth control. It should be available as an option for anyone who wants it. If women want to take a pill that will eliminate menstruation as well as ovulation, that's their choice. In some cases, it will allow women who have terrible problems with menstruation to lead normal lives. I see no reason for the FDA to reject it -- but they should take the time to discover what that means for women before approving its use, especially the long-term effect on the ability to conceive. From the description in the Post, it does not appear that depth of research has been performed.

This sounds like a class-action lawsuit just waiting for a few years and a couple of lawyers. Vioxx was supposed to be a wonder drug too, and the First Mate had taken Propulsid for a couple of years before its recall. Neither of those had the profound systemic effect described for Lybrel. If I'm still blogging in ten years, I'm going to bet that we will be discussing a massive settlement with millions of women as plaintiffs.

Well, This Takes All The Fun Out Of It

ABC News has revealed a top-secret order from George Bush that orders the CIA and other intelligence agencies to take action to undermine the Iranian mullahcracy. Needless to say, the revelation makes the mission almost impossible (via Hot Air):

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

The White House intended on using this plan to keep from having to use a military option to stop the mullahs from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. In fact, ABC reports that Dick Cheney preferred the military option, but that Bush overruled him in favor of the covert action instead. As I have written repeatedly here, a military strike is a lousy choice given the terrain, battleground, and options for targets in Iran as well as the political situation on the ground.

Thanks to the loose lips at Langley and ABC, that option may have to go back to the top of the list. Covert actions that appear on national television tend to lose the element of surprise, after all, and the Iranians can now take steps to block these actions. Undoubtedly they have been on guard in case Bush decided to use these options, but it certainly helps to have the American media broadcast it around the world.

Even now, some have objected to the non-lethal finding. ABC quotes Vali Nasr, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wringing his hands over possible "escalation". Iran already is using its proxy terrorist groups to destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and to threaten Israel -- and Nasr worries about "escalation"? It's high time we started fighting fire with fire.

Or, at least it was high time. Someone in the CIA or in the larger "intelligence community" can't keep their mouths shut. Thanks to them, we may wind up with no other option against Iranian nuclear ambitions except the military strike.

Pre-Emptive Stupidity At Falwell Funeral

Police arrested a 19-year-old student of Liberty University for bringing homemade gasoline bombs to the funeral of Jerry Falwell. The student, Mark Ewell, claimed that he wanted to disrupt any anti-Falwell protests at the funeral, presumably including those threatened by Fred Phelps:

The student, 19-year-old Mark Ewell of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.

Three other suspects are being sought, one of whom is a soldier from Fort Benning, Ga., and another is a high school student. No information was available on the third suspect.

Authorities were alerted to the potential bomb plot by a concerned relative of Ewell.

Stupidity knows no bounds. People who want to use violence for political purposes are terrorists. Fred Phelps and his merry band of homophobes have every right to protest, obnoxious as it is to do so outside of a funeral. Tossing bombs at Phelps and his crew (if they were Ewell's intended target) amounts to terrorism just the same as tossing pipe bombs at abortion clinics or planting explosives at universities. It also applies to any other organizations who would have shown up to protest outside the funeral, whatever their political or cultural positions.

It appears that no one bothered to protest at all. Neither did Falwell's funeral attract any of the GOP presidential candidates, who must have thought better of attending the funeral of so divisive a figure. Maybe the country moved past Falwell years ago, and so his funeral turned out to have no political significance at all.

CQ Radio: John Hawkins On Immigration

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we'll talk to John Hawkins of Right Wing News about the immigration reform package. He's advocating a turf war with Republican politicians who support the legislation, and we'll talk about the perils and pitfalls of that dynamic. We'll also pick his brain about the presidential race, especially in light of this compromise.

Want to join the conversation? Call 646-652-4889!

UPDATE: Great show - John's a great guest. Be sure to listen on the download.

I'll be on Rick Moran's show in just a moment -- be sure to tune in!

Terrorist Attack In Ankara?

It appears that someone detonated a bomb at a shopping mall in Ankara, Turkey's capital. Four people have died and dozens more injured in the blast:

Four people died and 56 were injured in an explosion in the Turkish capital of Ankara, Mayor Melih Gokchek told CNN Turk.

Police believe the most likely cause of the "major" explosion in the middle of a shopping district Tuesday was a bomb.

Ankara's governor, Kamal Onal, initially said the blast appeared to be an accident, but later said it could have been a bomb.

Police sources are telling CNN Turk that the explosion happened in a bus station in the middle of the Ulus shopping district in Ankara.

CNN Turk reported that the explosion occurred at the entrance of a building described as a seven-story shopping center. It occurred during the rush hour and when the area was packed with people.

The Turks have been debating the secular nature of their nation, a position which has angered Islamists, especially after their candidate was denied the presidency. Is this related? Right now, it's too early to tell, but it bears watching.

Sex Slavery Ring Exploited Illegals

Federal, state, and local authorities busted a sex-slavery ring here in Minneapolis last night, arresting at least 25 people and closing down eight brothels. The women involved all appear to have been illegal immigrants exploited by coyotes for their pimping business:

The women came mostly from Mexico and Central America.

When they arrived in Minnesota, the women had their passports and other identifying documents taken away and they were forced into a world of prostitution. In one night, two women serviced more than 80 men in a south Minneapolis house.

On Monday, in what might be one of the biggest such cases in Minnesota, 25 people were charged in federal court with running eight brothels. Eighteen of the suspects are illegal immigrants, according to an indictment filed in U.S. District Court.

This is a horrific case, and one which points out the need for strong border control. The men conned the women into crossing the border, and then they took advantage of their illegal status to force them into prostitution. The pimps forced one woman to service over 40 men in a single night.

How did the ring get discovered? In a tragic note, a slain police officer discovered the operation shortly before he got shot and killed by a drunk:

The arrests also were credited to slain St. Paul police Sgt. Jerry Vick, who two years ago this month was killed while doing undercover work.

St. Paul Assistant Police Chief Nancy DiPerna said that Vick had discovered a prostitution ring involving Mexican and Central American women. A foundation created in his name applied for a federal grant to continue that investigation after his death, she said.

This shows that border security affects the entire country. Minnesota sits 1,500 miles from the southern border, and yet the Star Tribune notes that human trafficking is a rising problem here. Last year, the legislature discovered that 43% of human service agencies in the state had provided assistance to victims of human trafficking -- and yet no one had ever been charged with the crime, at least until now.

Regardless of whether one agrees that normalization should accompany border security, the need for border control seems rather obvious. The ability of these coyotes to spirit women across the border to staff their brothels -- against the will of the women involved -- creates an almost incalculable cost of human misery and exploitation.

Competing Analyses On Immigration

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has this to say about the second study mentioned below: "The “competing study” that Captain Ed references is actually a companion study that has yet to be published by the Heritage Foundation. It is in the process of undergoing external peer review. On the basis of reviewer comments, substantial revisions have already been made. Heritage will post the study as soon as it’s final."

The Heritage Foundation has done excellent work in providing cost analyses for public-policy issues, and on immigration they have continued that work. Robert Rector has provided a look at the cost of low-skilled immigrants to the American taxpayer, which is a must read for anyone interested in the immigration debate. The executive summary paints a bleak picture:

In FY 2004, low-skill immigrant households received $30,160 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services). In general, low-skill immigrant households received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill immigrant households.

In contrast, low-skill immigrant households pay less in taxes than do other households. On average, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill immigrant households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid.

A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).

At $19,588, the average annual fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households was nearly twice the amount of taxes paid. In order for the average low-skill household to be fiscally solvent (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all means-tested welfare, and to cut expenditures on public education roughly in half.

Rector includes this amusing take on the notion that low-wage and high-wage immigrants tend to cancel each other out:

Finally, it is sometimes argued that since higher-skill immigrants are a net fiscal plus for the U.S. taxpayers, while low-skill immigrants are a net loss, the two cancel each other out and therefore no problem exists. This is like a stockbroker advising a client to buy two stocks, one that will make money and another that will lose money. Obvi­ously, it would be better to purchase only the stock that will be profitable and avoid the money-losing stock entirely. Similarly, low-skill immigrants increase poverty in the U.S. and impose a burden on taxpayers that should be avoided.

This would tend to argue against the inclusion of a guest-worker program as a component of immigration reform, and even more so against normalization altogether. The drag on taxpayers through social services is significant. Adding more than what already exists in the US will continue to press on entitlement programs, a portion of the federal budget already strained by unrealistic economic models as is.

However, a competing study from last year by some of Heritage's own scholars tends to argue against Rector's analysis of the impact on the overall economy. I'm not sure if this analysis was performed specifically for Heritage -- it's not on their website -- but it concludes that an enforcement-only policy would create a reduction in GDP and a series of blows to the American economy, based on last year's House bill:

We find that the Illegal Immigration Control Act would likely have an adverse effect on the nation’s economy, largely because it does not contain provisions that would increase the number of legal work visas (through either current visa classifications or a true temporary worker program). According to our simulations, between 2007 and 2016:

• Real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) falls by an annual average amount of over $50 billion.
• Total non-farm payrolls decline by an annual average of almost 2.1 million.
• The removal of undocumented workers from the labor force reduces the unemployment rate falls by an average of nearly a full percentage point annually.
• Real wages and salaries are not higher. Those with jobs may earn slightly more but the overall wage bill declines.
• Real personal consumption is on average lower over the 10-year period
• Non-residential investment declines by an annual average of roughly $30 billion over the 10-year period.
• Economic theory suggests, everything else being equal, that a reduction in investment spending means that over time we would expect lower labor productivity and real wages.

These findings suggest that an immigration policy that relies solely on securing the border and strict internal enforcement could result in less economic activity and fewer jobs for Americans. A true temporary worker program designed to allow immigrants to fill temporary jobs legally and return to their country of origin could help offset these negative economic effects.

Clearly, the economy has relied on inexpensive labor from the illegals to create other jobs and increase capital for investment. Removing the illegal labor with no provision for replacement will damage the economy, a fact that seems fairly plain even without the extensive analysis provided in this paper.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the cost isn't worth the policy. We may decide as a nation to take a significant hit to the economy as a rational trade for the other benefits of an enforcement-only policy. That argument could be made on the basis of national security or the value of the rule of law. If we acknowledge the costs as part of the equation for any policy argument, then we will have an honest debate on the sacrifices needed for each competing vision.

UPDATE: The file for the second study didn't copy to the server properly. I've fixed it now.

A New Call For Citizen Legislators

My good friend Mark Tapscott calls for a return to the term-limit revolution in his new Examiner editorial today. He sees a citizen legislature as the only solution for the pork-barrel politics used by today's politicians to keep and wield power. A "transpartisan" coalition could effect that kind of radical change by harnessing the power of the Internet and forcing the change through the states to bypass Congress for a Constitutional amendment.

Can we afford to turn out all of Congress during wartime? And if we replace them, what happens to the balance of power in DC? Over at Heading Right, I take a look at the benefits and potential pitfalls of a citizen Congress -- and the difficulties in getting there at all.

Getting Rich Off Of Poverty

It turns out that poverty can be a lucrative industry -- if one charges colleges $50,000 to talk about Two Americas. Carla Marinucci reports from her San Francisco Chronicle blog that John Edwards charged that much to speak at UC Davis in January 2006 on the topic of poverty (via Memeorandum):

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.

The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.

That amount -- which comes to about $31 a person in the audience -- included Edwards' travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records.

The California university footed the bill for his speaking fee, even though the UC system was already considering a 7% tuition hike to cover rising costs. That tuition hike will make it even more difficult for low-income families to access California's premiere university system. Interestingly, Edwards hit the public university for considerably more that he dinged the private Stanford University ($40K), and the private American Jewish University in the same month (also $40K, appearing with Newt Gingrich). If rising college costs at public universities impact the poor as Edwards complains, then why charge them almost 40% more for speaking fees?

But this is more than just the difference between the fees Edwards charges. How much more unseemly can Edwards get than making mid-five-figure speaking fees talking about poverty? That's not activism, it's exploitation. I'm not complaining about the fees themselves -- public speaking is a free market, as it should be -- but a man who has spent his public life as a scold on poverty (all eight years of it) who profits to this extent is no better than a revival-tent huckster. Edwards is the Elmer Gantry of the poverty movement.

Marinucci notes that this will give some ammunition to his competition for the Democratic primary race. Democrats should already be asking themselves why someone who runs on "Two Americas" and as a champion of the downtrodden feels it necessary to live in a 28,000-square foot mansion. Now that they know it got funded by $55,000 lectures on the evils of poverty, it should make the equation even more clear.

Ron Paul Boomlet To Implode In 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...

I have watched with some amusement as centrist, liberal and uncategorizable blogs attempt to herald Ron Paul as a reasonable conservative, especially after his statement in the last debate that claimed that American foreign policy invited the 9/11 attacks. That blame-America, 18th-century isolationist thinking appeals to a large subset of the voting population, and for the past week we have been treated to an avalanche of paeans to Ron Paul in the blogosphere.

However, Republicans have always known that Ron Paul is a loose cannon waiting to blow up in the face of unsuspecting followers. Some intrepid bloggers, such as Curt at Flopping Aces, have a few more examples of Ron Paul's "truth-telling" that will also surely get the endorsement of these same bloggers. Right?

Eleven years ago, the Houston Chronicle reported that Ron Paul's newsletter highlighted what he saw as a criminal community (emphases mine):

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Not enough yet? How about Paul's suggestion that the age of adulthood for criminal prosecution be lowered -- for blacks?

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

But, hey, Paul's paranoia isn't limited to African-Americans. He fears the Joooooooos, too:

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

This still may not convince liberals that Paul is nuttier than Aunt Mabel's pecan pie, but this next part will be guaranteed to end the Paul boomlet on the Left:

Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation "would explain certain mysteries" about the president's scratchy voice and insomnia.

How did Ron Paul explain these writings? He claims that he didn't write them himself, but his staffers did -- and it was "too confusing" to explain afterwards:

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”

Um, yeah. A politician sends out a newsletter filled with these kinds of paranoid rants, and then claims it would be "too confusing" to fire the people who supposedly wrote it in his name and explain that he didn't really believe in any of it. There's some real truth-telling for you!

So, who among Paul's recent defenders as "the only one ... who truly believes in individual liberty and actually believes everything he says" wants to tell us again why Paul is such a great candidate for President?

Anyone? Anyone?

UPDATE: Folks, real conservatives don't propose to create special distinctions of criminals based on the color of their skin. (Neither do real libertarians, for that matter.) Here's the entire text of Ron Paul's newsletter, and another snippet (emphasis mine):

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Anyone who thinks that a man with this in his past can get elected President (as opposed to, say, the Senate seat from West Virginia) is as deluded as Ron Paul. Anyone defending these statements marginalizes himself.

Britain Requests Extradition On Litvinenko Assassination

Britain has escalated its standoff with Russia over the assassination of former KGB agent Aleksander Litvinenko. Prosecutors filed murder charges against Andrei Lugovoi and demanded his extradition this morning:

British prosecutors on Tuesday requested the extradition of former KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi to face a charge of murder in the poisoning death of former operative Alexander Litvinenko, officials said Tuesday.

Lugovoi met Litvinenko at a London hotel only hours before Litvinenko became ill with polonium-210 poisoning. He has repeatedly denied any involvement in the case during interviews with the police and media.

The Interfax news agency on Tuesday cited the Russian prosecutor-general's office as saying it will not turn over Lugovoi to British authorities.

The politically charged case has driven relations between London and Moscow to post-Cold War lows. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett summoned the Russian ambassador and Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said the government expected full cooperation.

This will certainly mean more trouble between Vladimir Putin and the rest of Europe. Indicting Lugovoi amounts to an indictment of Putin himself. The radioactive isotope used in the assassination makes a strong case for government involvement, as it would take high-level access to get enough together for the massive dose given Litvinenko.

This comes as a reminder of Russia's increasingly strange behavior. Earlier this month, they almost broke off diplomatic relations with Estonia over a statue. Putin has cut off oil supplies to friend (Belarus) and foe (Ukraine) alike, all while making their energy exports unreliable for their major trading partners in Europe. Along with this earlier assassination of a Putin critic, it shows Russia to be almost a rogue state, run by a paranoid authoritarian.

Russia will not extradite Lugovoi. They have made that clear over the last few months. That puts the EU on the spot. Britain will insist on the extradition and will likely demand that the EU help facilitate it, or to collectively punish Russia economically for their refusal. If the EU does not respond, Britain may well lose enthusiasm for the collective just as the EU wants them to join the common currency. If they do support Britain, they will probably lose their oil imports once again, driving up costs in the EU economy.

Pandering to Putin would be the worst possible mistake for the EU. Expect them to make that choice.

We're Full Up On Lunatics, Thank You

The Lebanese government has ordered its army to finish off the Fatah Islam terrorist group holed up in the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp on its northern coast. They want an end to the al-Qaeda affiliate before it has a chance to grow out of control, not unlike the problem they already have in the south with Hezbollah:

Artillery and machine gun fire echoed around a crowded Palestinian refugee camp Tuesday as the Lebanese government ordered the army to finish off the Fatah Islam militants holed up inside the refugee camp in the country's north.

Artillery and machine gun fire echoed around a crowded Palestinian refugee camp Tuesday as the Lebanese government ordered the army to finish off the Fatah Islam militants holed up inside the refugee camp in the country's north.

The fighting — which resumed for a third straight day after a brief nighttime lull — reflected the government's determination to pursue the Islamic militants who staged attacks on Lebanese troops on Sunday and Monday, killing 29 soldiers. Some 20 militants have also been killed, as well as an undetermined number of civilians.

The Cabinet late Monday authorized the army to step up its campaign and "end the terrorist phenomenon that is alien to the values and nature of the Palestinian people," Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said.

Aridi overdoes it a bit in that statement. The terrorist phenomenon started with the Palestinian people, and Lebanon should know that better than most. They have conducted terrorist attacks since 1964, when they first formed the PLO under Yasser Arafat. Arafat got pushed into Lebanon and used the country as a base of terrorist operations for years, bringing the Israeli invasion and occupation until they finally flushed Arafat out of Beirut.

Still, Aridi needs to remain politically correct. Lebanon houses 400,000 Palestinian refugees in its UN camps, and they can get mighty restless. It's bad enough that they have to manage a terrorist occupation in the south, with Iranian and Syrian sponsorship of Hezbollah; they don't need another one in the north with AQ sponsorship.

The Siniora government has the right idea. One cannot negotiate for peaceful coexistence with terrorists. They need to eradicate this group before it spreads, a dynamic the Lebanese people have seen on a number of occasions now. If they have them trapped in Nahr el-Bared, they need to finish the job and wipe them out.

By the way, what happened to the UN in all of this? Nahr el-Bared is a UN refugee camp, and they're supposed to keep the inhabitants disarmed.

Guardian: Iran Pulling The Insurgent Strings In Iraq

Iran has decided to increase the pace and scope of attacks from insurgent groups they control and influence in Iraq over the summer. The mullahs aim to leverage the discontent of the Democrats in Congress to force an American withdrawal by the end of September:

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.

"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

So why are we hearing about this in the Guardian, rather than the Washington Post? After all, the sources here are American commanders on the ground in Iraq. The Guardian opposes the Iraq war, so they're not exactly philosophically inclined to promote the ties between Iran and the insurgencies in Iraq.

In a rational world, this would pressure the war's opponents to explain again how abandoning Iraq to the Iranians improves our security. The Iranians are up to their necks in the insurgencies, hoping to drive us out of the Middle East. The rush to accommodate them would render them ascendant over the region, especially if they complete their efforts to develop nuclear weapons. No other nation could counterbalance them.

Democrats Capitulate On Capitulation

Democrats in Congress have decided to forego their efforts to impose withdrawal timetables on spending for the Iraq war -- at least for now. The AP reports from its sources that the Democrats will offer a straight-up spending supplemental that also eliminates most of the pork from the bill, but retains the federal minimum-wage hike:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.

Let slip the dogs of netroots war! If you think the GOP has battered itself senseless over the last few days over immigration, you ain't seen nothing yet. Any hint of capitulation on the capitulation will bring loud screams from the people who helped the Democrats win a majority just to avoid this possibility.

I'd hold off celebrating for a couple of days, actually. This may well last only as long as the next news cycle. Expect to see a lot of "not me" in the headlines, as Democratic politicians insist that they will not support such a spending bill. It could develop enough momentum to stall the agreement.

At this point, though, the Democrats don't have much choice. They have been outmaneuvered for the moment by George Bush, who has hung on them their inability to fund the troops more than a hundred days after the request. The supposedly irrelevant lame duck has outlasted his opponents, who now nervously realize that they have to do something to fund the troops that Bush will actually sign. They'll use the minimum-wage hike (and its attendant tax incentives for small businesses) as a victory to cover their retreat, but Bush will get his funds and not the strings Democrats looked to attach.

Cloture Means You Never Have To Say You're Sorry (Updated)

For those who have tried reason, patience, and calm, the Senate will make all three a waste of time later today or tomorrow morning. Depending on which source one gets, advocates of the immigration reform compromise will seek cloture on debate in order to limit the discussion of the legislation -- and compound the impression that they are rushing for a reason:

If the reports of the scheduling of a cloture vote for tonight on the draft immigration bill are correct --I have read them, but haven't seen or heard any official comment on it-- the Republican senators who vote for it should expect lasting damage to their standing in the party. Very few --if any-- senators have read the final bill, and having spent hours this weekend studying the Friday night draft, I know the complexities here are far too great to puzzle out in even a couple of weeks' time. Demanding cloture today or even this week is a giveaway that the bill is fundamentally flawed. It will also be a lasting marker of contempt for their supporters' opinions on the part of those senators voting to end debate before it has even begun.

This bill has many complexities that have to be researched and analyzed before anyone can think about limiting debate. So far, I have not even heard that the legislation has been entered into the record -- so no one even has an official copy of the bill. That means that advocates want to press for approval before anyone reads it and has a chance to offer improvements. What exactly does that say about this legislation?

And what exactly is the rush? This proposal purports to solve a number of problems -- border security, the status of 12 million people illegally residing in our country, labor management for low-skilled jobs, and the creation of a vast bureaucracy to handle all of these projects. All address problems that have existed for 21 years. Can't we take a couple of weeks, at least, to peruse the bill to make sure it does it effectively?

And if not, why not?

This Congress has kept troops in combat waiting over 100 days for funding and supplies like the AMRAP armor that could save their lives. That's something that should have been completed in a week. It's beyond ridiculous to insist that Congress immediately pass something of this complexity with the barest of analysis, and it underscores the impression that we're being sold a bill of goods.

UPDATE: According to The Hill, the timeframe for debate now looks like three weeks. That's much better, and should be enough to allow Senators to take a very close look at a very complicated bill, and perhaps resolve the dealbreakers in the details.

UPDATE II: The Senate will not attempt to rush through the immigration reform proposal, as demanded by the original parties to the compromise. According to a source on Capitol Hill, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have agreed that the bill should get extensive debate and opportunity for amendments to address concerns on both sides of the aisle:

On the Senate floor just a couple hours ago, Senator Reid agreed to Senator McConnell's position, saying that 'at the advice of Senator McConnell', he thinks it would be in the best interest of the Senate to not try and finish the bill this week, and that we'll resume consideration after recess.

After winning that concession from the Democrats, Sen. McConnell said "“The other point I would make is that we shouldn't be in a hurry to finish this bill. Last year, there were 35 immigration amendments. 23 amendments were voted on before cloture and 12 were voted on after cloture. This is by any standard at least a two-week bill and I think any effort to finish up this bill one way or the other this particular week would be unsuccessful."

CQ Radio: NZ Bear And Immigration

Today on CQ Radio (2 pm CT), we'll talk to NZ Bear about the immigration reform package. NZ has helpfully transformed the proposed legislation into an easy-to-manage website so that all of us can grasp the details of the bill. NZ opposes this compromise, and I know most CQ readers also object to it. Conceptually, I think it could work -- but the bill doesn't quite match the concepts outlined in the announcement, either.

Do you want to get your argument out in opposition to the bill, or try to convince people it works? Be sure to call 646-652-4889 in order to get your side of the story on the air!

UPDATE: Tomorrow. we'll have John Hawkins of Right Wing News to discuss immigration, Duncan Hunter, and much more!

McCain Conference Call

I just completed a conference call with John McCain which meant to cover a wide range of topics -- but in the end focused almost entirely on immigration. Senator McCain clearly understood that the press reports of his sharp exchange with Senator Jon Cornyn had nicked his momentum somewhat, and he insisted that the exchange was overblown. He joked on a couple of occasions that he wished someone had YouTubed it so that everyone could see that it meant little, if anything.

McCain knows that this bill will be a tough sell on both sides of the aisle, but more so on his own. He says that he was "a bit disappointed" in the responses of GOP politicians to the compromise. He feels it addresses all of the party's key issues: it secures the borders, it provides triggers that keeps other aspects of normalization from coming into force before that, and it provides penalties for those illegal immigrants already in the country. He pointed out that a $5000 fine is not small potatoes for someone earning $15,000 a year.

Several bloggers questioned him on the specifics of the bill. I asked about the fence; some confusion had arisen as to whether the fencing in this bill came in addition to last year, or just reiterated last year's authorization. McCain confirmed that it did not add any new fencing over last year's bill, but said that electronic surveillance of the rural frontiers would work better than fencing, which would require far more foot patrols.

I also asked about the Bush administration's request to remove liability for previous unpaid income taxes, as reported in the Boston Globe this weekend. McCain said that he was unaware of it, and that he would oppose that change. He feels that illegals should account for all of their violations of the law if they want to achieve a legal status in the US. He also called that change "throwing fuel on the fire" and not at all helpful.

McCain also addressed the "immediate legalization" issue arising from the temporary ID cards issued on Day 1. He called it a probationary status, and a temporary status at that. Anyone who signs up for that must either progress to a Z-visa (for those choosing to reside in the US) or a Y-visa (for those who want to participate in the guest worker program). The temp status allows us to start identifying as many people as possible as soon as possible in order to benefit our national-security concerns -- but they cannot just remain in that limbo for long after the 18 months of border-security triggers come into play.

He also wanted to caution the GOP about recognizing the humanity of the issue. We could lose the Hispanic vote for a generation, despite their being a natural constituency of the Republicans due to their affinity to free-market principles and conservative social values.

A few other issues came up, notably the AMRAP armor upgrades for personnel carriers in Iraq. Here are my raw notes on those issues:

• AMRAP program – in the right place, or too much money too soon? It saves lives, and money should not be the main consideration. It works and we should get it deployed ASAP. He praised the DoD for its quick development and turnaround.

• Ron Paul, 9/11 was blowback, and prior investigations should be considered “cover-ups”. What can be done to prevent the Truther virus? He’s glad that people have the freedom to make these arguments, but it hurts when assumably credible people like Paul engage in conspiracy theories.

• Fred Kagan wrote that success should be calculated by how many of the tribal leaders switch to our side in Anbar and Diyala. McCain worries a great deal about the Maliki government. They have to act conclusively, and taking two months off doesn’t help. We need to get the fifth brigade into action in Baghdad, and we need patience and sophistication. Long, hard, and tough. Still believes this is the best strategy.

Other blogger takes: Outside the Beltway, Ann Althouse

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! I should have realized this would get the most attention:

Mitt Romney has been trying to make quite a bit of political hay out of the compromise immigration bill — he sees it as one of John McCain's key weaknesses as relates to the Republican base and a great way to differentiate himself as the One True Conservative in the race (at least until Fred Thompson jumps in).

Well, today, on a conference call with bloggers, Mr. McCain fired back at the former Massachusetts governor, who has (of course) held varying positions on immigration over the years.

"Maybe I should wait a couple weeks and see if it changes," Mr. McCain said of Mr. Romney's position on immigration this week. "Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard."

Hugh Hewitt calls it a "personal attack," but it points out that Romney has some credibility issues on this topic. Romney supported the McCain-Kennedy bill in its last incarnation, and in the debate said he's support normalization after border-security triggers were met, but now wants to become the leading conservative crusader against it. I'd say that McCain has a right to be irritated with Romney's posturing at this point, even if he should have rethought this quip. After all, Romney had no control over his contractor's decision to hire illegals, and in that sense Hugh is absolutely correct.

Mitt's Move

This far out from the primaries, most polling has little significance. It takes a national temperature for a process that plays out very carefully through selected states, and at a time when most people still have yet to see the candidates speak directly to them. However, the Des Moines Register knows how to poll Iowa caucus voters, and so far, Mitt's the man:

Mitt Romney has sprinted ahead of presidential competitors John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in a new Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucus participants.

The Des Moines Register poll shows Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, is the top choice of 30 percent of those who say they definitely or probably will attend the leadoff Iowa caucuses in January.

McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, nips former New York Mayor Giuliani for second place — 18 percent to 17 percent.

This should get more serious analysis. Mitt has hardly budged from his entry number in January, having hovered around 8% despite organizing far more effectively than his competition. This kind of response in Iowa could foretell a breakout summer for the former Massachussetts governor.

This poll excluded Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, though, and when the Register included them, it left the three frontrunners in a dead heat. That indicates an eventul run by either or both could seriously dent Romney's momentum. Assuming both run, it means a wide-open caucus for the Republicans, and perhaps a preview of a bruising primary run that might require a convention fight to settle.

The Democrats have another conundrum. John Edwards and his populist stands have resonated with Iowans, and have put him in the lead among likely caucus voters. Hillary comes in third, a very poor showing for a presumptive frontrunner (as with Rudy Giuliani for the GOP). Barack Obama barely edges her out for second place, again likely because of Obama's populist rhetoric. Unlike the GOP, though, the top three have no real competition, eating up over 70% of caucus voters between them.

Both national committees may be feeling a little nervous about the dynamics so far. It looks like the first wide-open presidential race since 1928 might turn into a real nailbiter all the way.

A Better Title: In Defense Of Our Rationalizations

I often receive books for review; in fact, I receive so many, I rarely get the chance to read through most of them. One recent arrival caught my attention for being out of the ordinary. In Defense of Our America comes from the ACLU’s Anthony D. Romero and acts as an apologia for the group’s often-controversial positions. I decided to take a read through the book to see whether it would present an interesting challenge to my assumptions.

Unfortunately, Romero and his co-author Dina Temple-Raston only present a disappointing set of half-truths and worse. Over at Heading Right, I describe why I put the book down for good after only one chapter, convinced of the dishonesty of the authors in their attempt to paint themselves as the saviors of the nation. If you're planning on buying this book when it comes out tomorrow, you'll want to read this post.

Iraqi Forces Repel Major Mosul Attack

Many have questioned the slow training and progress of the Iraqi Army and other security forces over the past three years. Training an army from the ground up has tremendous difficulties, and early on, they performed poorly. Iraqi units did not always engage when ordered, and pay issues and terrorist attacks drove many recruits out of the ranks.

Now, however, it looks like the Iraqi Army has become a formidable force for stability. In Mosul, they just turned back what looks like one of the largest-scale coordinated attacks on an Iraqi city yet seen:

Iraqi Security Forces countered several terrorists who targeted bridges, transition jails, police stations and a combat outpost with vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, sporadic small-arms fire and indirect mortar attacks throughout the evening.

“This was a total team effort on the part of the Iraqi Security Forces and emergency responders,” said U.S. Army Col. Stephen Twitty, commander of 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. “This Iraqi team showed the people of Mosul that they are resolute in their efforts to defeat this very cowardly, desperate enemy while protecting innocent civilians.”

The terrorists used VBIEDs as their primary tactic in two waves of attack. The car-bomb attacks took place at a Mosul police station and transition jail, while others tried to collapse two bridges in the city. None of them succeeded in anything but the explosions, and apparently the only casualties were the attackers themselves. They weren't suicide missions, at least not all of them, as more than one of the attackers were killed as they fled.

The second wave was smaller than the first, but the terrorists took more casualties. It opened with a VBIED attack on another police station, but the Iraqi police were able to clear the area before detonation, and again killed the attacker as he fled. The terrorists then opened up small-arms fire on several security targets in Mosul, but the only result was 15 dead terrorists and the end of the offensive. Sporadic mortar fire continued through the night, but none of it was coordinated with any other attacks, and even that dissipated eventually.

In their early days, some Iraqi units would have fled the city under that kind of pressure. The terrorists discovered that the morale among the Iraqi Army troops has improved by leaps and bounds since those days, and they intend to fight terrorists and insurgents. We have a lot more work to do, but we have built a solid corps of Iraqi units that will partner with us to bring stability as well as liberty to Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. All we have to do is show the same fortitude as the Iraqi troops in Mosul.

Ballbuster

Oh here she comes
Watch out boy, she'll chew you up
Oh here she comes
Shes a maneater...

The legend of Condoleezza Rice grows. Not only has she shown herself as a tough diplomat, she also can add "maneater" to her list of accolades. Apparently, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz, fancies himself as a man who can bring any woman to her knees inside of two minutes through his charm and good looks. He looked forward to meeting Rice for this purpose, according to a new biography of the Secretary of State:

The book describes in excruciating detail how Shaukat Aziz allegedly tried to impress Rice when she visited South Asia in March 2005, according to the newspaper.

Aziz "tried this Savile Row-suited gigolo kind of charm: 'Pakistan is a country of rich traditions,' staring in (Rice's) eyes," the biography's author Marcus Mabry writes, citing participants at the meeting. ...

"He bragged -- to Western diplomats, no less -- that he could conquer any woman in two minutes," writes Mabry, according to Dawn.

So how did Shaukat do with Condi? Well, perhaps "Shaukat" is Pakistani for "Casey", because he whiffed in his only at-bat:

"There was this test of wills where he was trying to use all his charms on her as a woman, and she just basically stared him down," the newspaper quoted Mabry, a senior correspondent with Newsweek magazine, as writing.

"By the end of the meeting, he was babbling. The Pakistanis were shifting uncomfortably. And his voice visibly changed."

Bear in mind that Dawn is the major newspaper in Pakistan, a primary source of information for people in the country. To have this story on the front page of Dawn makes Aziz a laughingstock -- and if this story is accurate, he deserves every ounce of ridicule he gets. It's good to know that Aziz uses major diplomatic initiatives as a pretense in order to get lucky. This time, though, it was Aziz and Pakistan that got screwed.

It did serve one purpose -- to remind Pakistan that we consider women as equals, not as chattel to be deceived and seduced. It also added an amusing anecdote to an already-impressive career. At least this Secretary of State knows better than to dance with megalomaniacs and self-important twits.

AQ Starts Trouble In Lebanon

Terrorist attacks and the government's response have killed more than 30 people in Lebanon overnight. At least one of the factions has ties to al-Qaeda, and some believe Syria may have quarterbacked these latest uprisings in an attempt to undermine the Lebanese government:

Government soldiers Sunday battled members of an Islamic group at a refugee camp near the Syrian border and in a nearby coastal city, with at least 33 people killed in the worst bloodshed here in almost a year.

A bomb went off before midnight in an affluent Christian neighborhood of Beirut, killing one woman and injuring five other people, relief workers said. It was unclear whether the explosion was connected to the earlier fighting in the north.

The heavy, daylong combat stoked fears among many Lebanese that neighbor Syria was involved and trying to foment unrest at a crucial time.

Throughout the day, Lebanese soldiers shelled the Nahr Bared camp, home to thousands of Palestinian refugees as well as the militant Sunni group Fatah al-Islam, which has been linked to Al Qaeda. About 10 miles to the southwest in Tripoli, Fatah al-Islam fighters barricaded themselves in an upscale apartment block and fought soldiers with grenades and machine guns for 10 hours before being overrun.

The militants, who have been accused of having ties with Syria, also battled security forces elsewhere in Tripoli and attacked an army checkpoint outside the coastal city, killing several soldiers in one strike, officials and witnesses said.

The involvement of al-Qaeda demonstrates the rising influence of radical Islamists in northern Lebanon. Previously, Hezbollah represented the Islamist faction in Lebanon, and they stayed almost exclusively in the south, where they claimed a mandate of protecting Lebanon from Israel. Now the UN refugee camps in the north, where Nahr-el-Bared sits on the coast north of Tripoli, have become infiltration targets for AQ as well as the normal Palestinian terrorist groups.

How much does Syria have to do with these new Islamist inroads? Everyone knows that Hezbollah is a Syrian client, but this is the first time that accusations have come out that Syria funds the Sunni-dominated AQ network. Fatah al-Islam is an offshoot of the Syrian-backed Fatah al-Intifada, which works to support the more secular partisans in the Palestinian Authority, and its leader denies any connection to Syria.

However, he may have some diplomatic reasons to hide those connections. Fatah al-Islam's leader Shaker Abbsi is wanted by the US in connection to the murder of our diplomat in Jordan in 2002. If Fatah al-Islam revealed its Syrian connections, then we would have a serious change in posture towards Damascus, one which Bashar Assad would prefer to avoid.

And where is the UN in all of this? It's their refugee camp which has fostered these groups and allowed them to operate openly. Shouldn't the UN be disarming people in refugee camps? Or have they abandoned that mandate, as they have abandoned others?

Everybody Hates The Compromise

Proverbially, a compromise succeeds best when it leaves all sides unsatisfied. However, the compromise which everyone hates usually fails, and that appears to be the case with the new immigration reform package -- and that spells trouble for any hopes of reaching a compromise at all. While immigration hardliners have found enough devils in the details to populate an entire plane of Dante's Inferno, immigration advocates apparently dislike the bill at least as much:

There is little doubt about how grass-roots organizations feel about a bipartisan immigration compromise reached in the Senate: They don't like it.

The New York Immigration Coalition issued a statement that called the proposal unacceptable, saying, "We say no to this deal." In California, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund vowed to oppose numerous provisions in the plan. In Massachusetts, an immigrant and refugee advocacy coalition said the deal was "immoral, unworkable and unacceptable." ...

But condemnations from supporters and opponents of illegal immigration were a sign that the bipartisan compromise, like the illegal immigrants it addresses, faces a rocky future. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, believes that the proposal's path to legal status is an amnesty that rewards lawbreakers.

Tancredo favors strengthening the Mexican border and, in the U.S. interior, cracking down so hard on illegal immigration at the workplace and in other areas that illegal immigrants would depart voluntarily.

Immigration advocates find two particular aspects of the bill highly objectionable. First, they consider the points system that favors English speakers racist. They complain that people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America do not usually speak English, and that the restrictions are meant to keep people of color out of the US. That's a rather stunning charge. It makes sense to place a higher value on applicants who speak the mainstream language of our culture just on the basis of the cost of assimilation. Supporting the cornucopia of languages for people already here who don't feel the need to learn our language costs us enough without deliberately adding to it, and it seems rather common-sensical to place a higher value on immigrants for whom we won't need to provide that kind of support.

Besides, isn't it a bit racist in itself to assume that people from those areas can't learn English, or don't know it already?

Their second objection also comes from the point system in its replacement of the family privilege. They want new citizens to retain the ability to sponsor their entire families for entry, including extended families, rather than subject them to the point system. My understanding is that the point system does grant points for those related to American citizens, but not as many as for education and language skills, and immediate family is not affected by the change. If so, then I fail to see the problem. If families want to qualify for entry, then the process is open for them as well, but just because one person qualifies does not mean their cousins should automatically get a pass. Immigration is not an entitlement, a fact that seems to have escaped more than a few people in this country.

However, the tenor of the debate raises grave concerns about our ability to fix immigration. Everyone agrees that the system is broken; in fact, that's about the only agreement to be found. The partisans have become so passionate and vociferous that any compromise will likely fail. Advocates will hold border security hostage, because they can do that much in Congress; opponents will block anything else. Both will consider anyone who tries to broker a compromise as either traitors or racists, and the end result will be more paralysis.

This particular compromise has plenty to oppose on both sides, and appears unworkable. If we're going to solve this huge, expensive problem, we're eventually going to have to find somewhere in the middle to meet. Right now, the visceral immediate reaction to this effort demonstrates that paralysis sells.

Flynt On Falwell

Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler Magazine, writes a remembrance of the odd friendship that he shared with the founder of Moral Majority, Rev. Jerry Falwell. His recollections should remind us that the personal and the political need not become inseparable. The story picks up after their joint appearance on the Larry King show, when Flynt had prevailed in a libel lawsuit:

I was in my office in Beverly Hills, and out of nowhere my secretary buzzes me, saying, "Jerry Falwell is here to see you." I was shocked, but I said, "Send him in." We talked for two hours, with the latest issues of Hustler neatly stacked on my desk in front of him. He suggested that we go around the country debating, and I agreed. We went to colleges, debating moral issues and 1st Amendment issues — what's "proper," what's not and why.

In the years that followed and up until his death, he'd come to see me every time he was in California. We'd have interesting philosophical conversations. We'd exchange personal Christmas cards. He'd show me pictures of his grandchildren. I was with him in Florida once when he complained about his health and his weight, so I suggested that he go on a diet that had worked for me. I faxed a copy to his wife when I got back home.

The truth is, the reverend and I had a lot in common. He was from Virginia, and I was from Kentucky. His father had been a bootlegger, and I had been one too in my 20s before I went into the Navy. We steered our conversations away from politics, but religion was within bounds. He wanted to save me and was determined to get me out of "the business."

My mother always told me that no matter how repugnant you find a person, when you meet them face to face you will always find something about them to like. The more I got to know Falwell, the more I began to see that his public portrayals were caricatures of himself. There was a dichotomy between the real Falwell and the one he showed the public.

This is the danger of judging people strictly on their public policy stands. Too often, policy debates get cast in terms of evil and criminality, and that approach too often dehumanizes people. Flynt got a chance to meet the real Jerry Falwell, and found a friend, even though Flynt disagreed with him on most every topic they discussed.

I've refrained from giving my personal opinion about Falwell out of respect for his family, friends, and followers, but the time seems right to discuss it now. I have always been conflicted about Falwell. I admired him for speaking on behalf of the values of millions of ordinary Americans about the degradation of the culture, even when I thought he went too far. He brought a clear voice to the fight against moral relativism, and at the same time allowed people of faith to argue for their values in the political square. He didn't want a theocracy, no matter what some of his critics conjured in their fevered imaginations, but Falwell wanted to make clear that values have a place in democratic political environments.

Unfortunately, Falwell too often took the easy and dehumanizing path himself. He notoriously blamed the 9/11 attacks on gays and lesbians invoking the wrath of God, for which he rightly apologized later. He referred to Ellen DeGeneres as "Ellen Degenerate" after she revealed her sexual orientation and tried to work it into her sitcom at the time. For that, he received well-deserved criticism and eventually a degree of marginalization. Calling people playground names and blaming an act of terrorism on one's domestic political opponents are foolish, immature, and ultimately self-limiting mistakes.

They do not amount to evil, though, and the gloating among some Internet commentators was far more vile. Falwell tried his best to argue for his beliefs and to work for the good of his community. He made plenty of mistakes, for which he should be held accountable, but they do not amount to evil by any stretch of the word -- and coming from moral relativists, the accusation is more laughable than offensive.

Falwell leaves behind a conflicted legacy, at once audacious and historic as well as needlessly divisive and cautionary. He will fascinate historians of later generations, and fascinated analysts of his own.

Getting To The Fine Print Of Immigration

As CQ readers know, I stressed the importance of keeping an open mind about the new immigration-reform compromise. With a minority in Congress and a legalization advocate in the White House, we would be lucky to get something that included any kind of border security at all. Jon Kyl and other conservative Republicans fought to get us the best deal they could, and their recommendation (especially Kyl's) should carry a lot of weight. That doesn't mean we have to just accept whatever is thrown at us, but it does mean we should examine it carefully before rejecting it out of hand -- and see if we can use this as a good start, because the status quo is unacceptable.

A few details have arisen over the weekend, however, that make me more uncomfortable with the compromise. The Bush administration insisted on removing a requirement to pay back taxes on money earned before legalization:

The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said.

An independent analyst estimated the decision could cost the IRS tens of billions of dollars.

A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes.

This is a huge mistake. It's one thing (and not a good thing) to put illegal immigrants ahead of those waiting in line legally to enter our country. It's another entirely to put them ahead of US citizens. Should we declare an overall amnesty on back taxes? If not, then why do illegals get preferential treatment?

The Bush administration claims it would be too difficult to determine what wages were paid while operating in the black market economy. Really? Perhaps the better solution would be to penalize the employers for whom these people worked if they cannot produce records of wages paid, in the amount we could recover for back taxes. If not, then we should come up with a standard penalty based on years in the US. After all, applicants for Z-visas will have to undergo a background check, which should reveal how long they have resided -- and worked -- in the US, and the penalty can be determined from that.

I also have to take notice that the men and women who secure our border, or at least attempt to do so, don't like this bill either:

The leadership of all 11,000 nonsupervisory U.S. Border Patrol agents yesterday criticized an immigration compromise by senators and the Bush administration as "piecemeal" legislation that invites future terrorist attacks and fails to secure the nation's borders.

"Every person who has ever risked their life securing our borders is extremely disheartened to see some of our elected representatives once again waving the white flag on the issues of illegal immigration and border security," National Border Patrol Council President T.J. Bonner said.

"Rewarding criminal behavior has never induced anyone to abide by the law, and there is no reason to believe the outcome will be any different this time," he said.

I don't think that their opinion should be conclusory, but it certainly bears attention. If the professionals on the border don't like the compromise, it behooves us to find out what they don't like and see if it can be fixed. If they don't see the border-security provisions as tough enough to make a difference, then we should insist they get strengthened. On the other hand, if they object to normalization as a concept, then perhaps they should also take a look at the composition of Congress and give us an idea how to do better. I think this objection has elements of both, but is more the former than the latter -- and that means we should take it seriously.

Hugh Hewitt is taking a hard look at the nuts and bolts of the language. Hugh's very much an advocate of the opposition on this, but he is finding even more objective reasons to be so. One very large problem is a waiver for processing Z-visas where background checks do not get completed in a single day. I'm not sure that any checks could possibly get completed that quickly. Does that mean that we have effectively eliminated them? Will we be giving Z-visas to MS-13 gangsters?

These problems amount to deal-killers, in my opinion. I'm on board conceptually, but this compromise needs a lot of work and amending in the Senate. National security requires that we find a solution as quickly as possible, but we need to peruse every single clause in this bill to make sure it matches the description given to the American public last Thursday. So far, it appears to fall short.

A Note On Fixes

Seems like this morning has been eaten up with the internal mechanics of the blog, but I want to add a couple of items to the update. As CQ commenters know, this all started out with problems in the comment scripting, although it went beyond that eventually. It turns out that MT users have some particular issues with comments, especially over a long period of time. The first, of course, is spam -- and when I dropped Typekey, I enabled other spam plug-ins to keep the spambots at bay. It turns out that I inadvertently made the problem worse, as Kevin at Wizbang! reports:

One of the features that keeps Wizbang running smoothly is the SpamLookup service that is a part of our blogging software. I actually use three products - SpamLookup, Akismet, and AutoBan to automate our spam prevention process. The three together work great; catching, removing, and banning the spammers automatically.

All of the sudden this week the comment process at all of the Wizbang sites went from blazingly fast to horrifyingly slow. There wasn't any good explanation since we're not really doing anything differently behind the scenes. After ruling out speed and server performance issues I went to work breaking down the comment submission process and all the dependencies. It turns out that the built-in SpamLookup service (which is on by default) uses a three different blacklist services for its lookups: bsb.spamlookup.net, opm.blitzed.org , and sc.surbl.org. A little investigation lead to this:

Please stop querying the opm.blitzed.org zone. As of May 2007 in order to reduce query load on our servers opm.blitzed.org is pointing at a blackholed nameserver -- queries will take a long time and result in a SERVFAIL.

The SpamLookup service was timing out (based on our observation it waited 20-30 seconds) trying to connect to opm.blitzed.org before the comment was successfully submitted.

Big thanks to Jim Lynch, Don Singleton, and others who pointed this out to me.

That's not the only problem, though. CQ commenters will never describe the comment process here as "blazingly fast". I doubt I'd get even a "leisurely pace". One reason we discovered is that MT wants to rebuild the entire comment table in order to add each comment. Hosting Matters found this workaround by Elise Bauer:

A few weeks ago I got a telephone call from my web host letting me know that "one of your Movable Type CGI scripts is using up half the resources of the server and would you please disable the script before we find it necessary to close your account?" Don't you just love news like that? Fortunately, it all got sorted out within a couple of hours; here's the scoop.

If you've had your MT blog for a while, since before version 3.2, you may have upgraded your MT installation, but didn't bother to make changes to the code in your templates. In the templates for one of the earlier versions of MT, if you use Typekey authentication, the Individual Entry Archive Template calls the comments.cgi script to invoke a javascript file that reads back to the commenter their name. Turns out that every time a page displays that includes a Typekey-authenticated comment, the CGI script will run. One of my sites is fairly high traffic, and starting some time last year I was getting over 25,000 requests to the comments.cgi script each day.

Read through the fix carefully. It is a problem even after you stop using Typekey for authentication. Elise's fix is what stops MT from rebuilding the entire comment table in the SQL database, and therefore keeps everyone a lot happier.

I think things should be back to normal. I'll be back to normal blogging later. If you are an MT user, drop a comment on this thread and tell me if any of this has been helpful.

First Mate Update

Over the last few days, I've received several e-mails reminding me that I have not updated readers on the First Mate's recovery. In this case, no news is really good news. She continues to recover at a nice rate. In fact, we're now seeing the transplanted kidney do an even better job of regulating her blood pressure. We've had to drastically reduce her medication intake over the last week to keep her from bottoming out, and it's possible she won't need any BP meds at all within the next few weeks.

Last night, before we started the really heavy lifting on the blog rebuild, we did something we hadn't done in ages -- went out for burgers and a movie. She has had to avoid sodium like Superman avoided Kryptonite, and she still has to be careful with it, but now she can start to enjoy occasional treats like Red Robin.

(Afterwards, we saw Shrek the Third, which we both enjoyed. Normally I'd write a review when seeing a new release, but a Shrek sequel doesn't require much analysis. If you liked the first two, you'll like this one.)

After the restaurant and the movie popcorn we ate, we wondered whether her BP would shoot up. It actually was low this morning. It's good news all the way around.

Also, the donor is doing much better. He had a slower recovery than any of us anticipated, but he's back to work and mostly back to normal. He'll need a while to recover his energy, but he's been very happy about the FM's recovery. Keep him and his family in your prayers -- he's one of the real heroes.

Dawn Of The Living Blog

As many CQ readers surmised, Captain's Quarters underwent some serious reconstruction last night -- as well as another host change. Pair Networks put forth a lot of effort the last couple of weeks, but the performance of the blog got increasingly worse on their servers, even as we kept upgrading the service level they provided. Yesterday it got so bad that I couldn't even get the scripts to build a post most of the day. I don't consider this a reflection on Pair, though, who did work very hard to find the trouble -- but I couldn't allow the blog to crawl to a halt.

I decided to contact my old hosting service, Hosting Matters. As I wrote earlier, the owner had contacted me shortly after I left, and after explaining what had happened, she apologized for the issues and had been assisting me with some of the back-end processes in the move. Since the move to Pair did not solve the problem, I asked if she would want to have me move back and see what they could do to help resolve the matter. She agreed and spent most of the night making the arrangements.

Right now, we're up and running on HM, although some people may discover that their DNS servers won't catch up (again) for a couple of days. Also, since we backed up the data around 4 pm yesterday, comments made after that time did not make the transition. Feel free to repost your thoughts; hopefully, we will have solved the comments scripting problem in the transition, or we'll figure it out soon.

I'll have more to say later, but I was also up most of the night and early this morning. In the meantime, thanks for all of your patience the last two weeks.