House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Flake-Gutierrez Amnesty Bill
Last Thursday the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing on the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty bill (H.R. 1645, otherwise known as the STRIVE Act). Chairwoman Zoë Lofgren (D-CA) began the hearing by stating she was personally disappointed when the Senate failed to enact "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation over the summer and vowed to continue working on this issue. Ranking Member Steve King (R-IA) decried the Flake-Gutierrez as amnesty and urged the witnesses to simply acknowledge that fact so that the debate could proceed openly.
The hearing had two panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Joe Baca (D-CA), Ray LaHood (R-IL), and Brian Bilbray (R-CA). The Second panel consisted of policy experts (including FAIR's Government Relations Director) and individuals involved in the immigration reform debate. Interestingly, Congressman Flake immediately acknowledged the unlikelihood that the bill would move this year or even before the next election. He then disputed Congressman King's claim that the bill was an amnesty and said the bill was not comparable to the 1986 amnesty because of the fines and other requirements. He argued that the definition of amnesty was an "unconditional pardon" and that this legislation represented nothing of the sort. Congressman Bilbray retorted that rewarding illegal activity was nothing if not amnesty and a sure-fire way to encourage more of it was to pass mass amnesty legislation such as the Flake-Gutierrez bill.
From the second panel, much attention was given to two witnesses, Mr. Tony Wasilewski and Mr. Eduardo Gonzales, both legal immigrants whose wives had been deported. Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) — who is both a Member of the Subcommittee and an author of the legislation — attempted to portray these individuals as examples of how the current system is unfair to aliens who violate the law. Julie Kirchner, Director of Government Relations at FAIR, argued that a legitimate immigration system is not one that rewards illegal aliens, but instead encourages those who come to the U.S. legally and wait patiently for years in their home countries in order to have their chance to live the American dream.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
"Mexico Does Not Stop at Its Border," Declares President of Mexico
"Mexico Does Not Stop at Its Border,"
Declares President of Mexico
On Sunday, September 9, Mexican President Felipe Calderon attacked efforts by the United States to exercise control the border, asserting that "Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." While this bizarre claim was ignored by members of the Bush Administration, various others in Washington attempted to decipher its meaning. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) read Calderon's "saber-rattling words" as "a renewed call by Mexico to colonize the United States." Meanwhile, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) issued a statement goading the Mexican president: "Perhaps Calderon should take a refresher course on geography, because Mexico does in fact end at the Rio Grande. . . ."
President Calderon also attacked what he termed "unilateral" measures by the United States government to enforce its immigration laws and vowed to redouble efforts on behalf of Mexican immigrants. "I'm sure the people of Mexico would be extremely grateful if Calderon showed as much concern over the well being of Mexicans unlucky enough to still live there as he does for the people who have successfully fled his country," responded Representative Tancredo.
Declares President of Mexico
On Sunday, September 9, Mexican President Felipe Calderon attacked efforts by the United States to exercise control the border, asserting that "Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." While this bizarre claim was ignored by members of the Bush Administration, various others in Washington attempted to decipher its meaning. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) read Calderon's "saber-rattling words" as "a renewed call by Mexico to colonize the United States." Meanwhile, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) issued a statement goading the Mexican president: "Perhaps Calderon should take a refresher course on geography, because Mexico does in fact end at the Rio Grande. . . ."
President Calderon also attacked what he termed "unilateral" measures by the United States government to enforce its immigration laws and vowed to redouble efforts on behalf of Mexican immigrants. "I'm sure the people of Mexico would be extremely grateful if Calderon showed as much concern over the well being of Mexicans unlucky enough to still live there as he does for the people who have successfully fled his country," responded Representative Tancredo.
Mexican Trucks Start Hitting the U.S. Highways
Mexican Trucks Start Hitting the U.S. Highways
On Thursday, September 6, the Bush Administration began granting authority to Mexican trucks to travel U.S. highways under a one-year pilot project. (http://www.dot.gov/) Pursuant to an agreement reached by the Bush Administration with Mexico in February, up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies that have met certain safety, licensing and other requirements will be allowed to operate anywhere in the country. (Department of Transportation Briefing, February 23, 2007) While this agreement was to go into effect within 60 days after it was announced, Congress delayed its implementation in May by adding a provision to the Iraq War emergency supplemental appropriations bill requiring the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report on the safety of the program before it could proceed. (See P.L. 110-28 § 6901)
The first Mexican trucking company allowed to travel inside the United States is Transportes Olympic of Nuevo Leon, which says it plans to use two trucks to carry goods within the U.S. Transportes Olympic sent its first truck across the Texas border early Saturday morning, where it underwent an inspection and then departed for North Carolina. (Houston Chronicle, September 8, 2007) Another 37 Mexican firms are presently set to obtain the U.S. driving permits. (Bloomberg, September 7, 2007.)
The pilot project with Mexico marks the first time Mexican trucks will be allowed to transport goods outside of a twenty-five mile border zone since the North American Free Trade Agreement authorizing this cross-border travel went into effect in 1994. The expansion of Mexican trucking under NAFTA was halted when then-President Bill Clinton refused to allow Mexican trucks to travel beyond a 25-mile border zone citing highway safety. In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. government to open all of its highways to Mexican trucks despite safety concerns. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
Opposition to the Administration's decision to push ahead with the Mexican Trucking pilot project is growing in various corners. Last week, dozens of truckers let by the Teamsters plus anti-illegal immigration activists protested the trucking program near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, holding signs that read 'NAFTA Kills' and 'Save American Highways.' (ABCNews September 6, 2007) In a written statement, Teamsters union General President Jim Hoffa criticized the Administration, calling the pilot project an "illegal program" that was "announced under the cover of darkness." Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), declared the project to be "another attack on the working people of the United States." (Bloomberg, September 6, 2007)
The Bush Administration defended the Mexican Trucking program, insisting it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. However, in a recent report, the DOT Inspector General said the Administration had no coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the test program, and that the motor carrier safety group needed to do more to help enforce the English requirement for drivers. (Associated Press, September 8, 2007)
The Teamsters, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen took further action to block the pilot program last week by filing a lawsuit seeking an injunction. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the petition. The Teamsters, the Sierra Club and other groups said they would continue their legal fight to stop the program because of "serious safety, environmental, smuggling and security concerns." (New York Times, September 9, 2007) Interestingly, Teamsters Spokesman Leslie Miller said American truckers were most concerned about sharing the roads with potentially unsafe Mexican vehicles, not the potential of increased competition from lower-wage workers. "We have nothing against Mexican truck drivers; it's the companies that exploit them that we oppose," she said. "We're absolutely not ready for this." (New York Times, September 9, 2007)
Opponents of the program are also hoping Congress will intervene. The House version of the Transportation Department Appropriations bill contains language that would halt the project on public safety grounds. The legislation comes before the Senate next week. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
On Thursday, September 6, the Bush Administration began granting authority to Mexican trucks to travel U.S. highways under a one-year pilot project. (http://www.dot.gov/) Pursuant to an agreement reached by the Bush Administration with Mexico in February, up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican trucking companies that have met certain safety, licensing and other requirements will be allowed to operate anywhere in the country. (Department of Transportation Briefing, February 23, 2007) While this agreement was to go into effect within 60 days after it was announced, Congress delayed its implementation in May by adding a provision to the Iraq War emergency supplemental appropriations bill requiring the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report on the safety of the program before it could proceed. (See P.L. 110-28 § 6901)
The first Mexican trucking company allowed to travel inside the United States is Transportes Olympic of Nuevo Leon, which says it plans to use two trucks to carry goods within the U.S. Transportes Olympic sent its first truck across the Texas border early Saturday morning, where it underwent an inspection and then departed for North Carolina. (Houston Chronicle, September 8, 2007) Another 37 Mexican firms are presently set to obtain the U.S. driving permits. (Bloomberg, September 7, 2007.)
The pilot project with Mexico marks the first time Mexican trucks will be allowed to transport goods outside of a twenty-five mile border zone since the North American Free Trade Agreement authorizing this cross-border travel went into effect in 1994. The expansion of Mexican trucking under NAFTA was halted when then-President Bill Clinton refused to allow Mexican trucks to travel beyond a 25-mile border zone citing highway safety. In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. government to open all of its highways to Mexican trucks despite safety concerns. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
Opposition to the Administration's decision to push ahead with the Mexican Trucking pilot project is growing in various corners. Last week, dozens of truckers let by the Teamsters plus anti-illegal immigration activists protested the trucking program near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, holding signs that read 'NAFTA Kills' and 'Save American Highways.' (ABCNews September 6, 2007) In a written statement, Teamsters union General President Jim Hoffa criticized the Administration, calling the pilot project an "illegal program" that was "announced under the cover of darkness." Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), declared the project to be "another attack on the working people of the United States." (Bloomberg, September 6, 2007)
The Bush Administration defended the Mexican Trucking program, insisting it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. However, in a recent report, the DOT Inspector General said the Administration had no coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the test program, and that the motor carrier safety group needed to do more to help enforce the English requirement for drivers. (Associated Press, September 8, 2007)
The Teamsters, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen took further action to block the pilot program last week by filing a lawsuit seeking an injunction. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the petition. The Teamsters, the Sierra Club and other groups said they would continue their legal fight to stop the program because of "serious safety, environmental, smuggling and security concerns." (New York Times, September 9, 2007) Interestingly, Teamsters Spokesman Leslie Miller said American truckers were most concerned about sharing the roads with potentially unsafe Mexican vehicles, not the potential of increased competition from lower-wage workers. "We have nothing against Mexican truck drivers; it's the companies that exploit them that we oppose," she said. "We're absolutely not ready for this." (New York Times, September 9, 2007)
Opponents of the program are also hoping Congress will intervene. The House version of the Transportation Department Appropriations bill contains language that would halt the project on public safety grounds. The legislation comes before the Senate next week. (Reuters, September 6, 2007)
FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT
FRED THOMPSON: FIRST LOBBYIST FOR PRESIDENT
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.
There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.
We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.
But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.
Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate, representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health Association.
Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts, he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002, Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died due to asbestos exposure.
Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.
Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.
But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco companies.
Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie & Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.
Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:
Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)
• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie Mae
• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group
• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal
• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group
• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group
• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie
• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist
• Tom Collamore
• Michael Toner
Registered Lobbyist Contributors:
• Katie Huffard
• Chris Lamond
• Jeffrey Bloemaker
• Patrick O’Donnell
• William Timmons
• William Hilleary
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
Other:
• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce
• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates
• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice
• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.
Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on September 10, 2007.
There’s a new first in the 2008 presidential campaign.
We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.
But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.
Thompson was a lobbyist for 20 years before he was elected to the Senate, representing the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association, the deposed Haitian President Aristed and the National Planning & Reproductive Health Association.
Although Fred bills himself as strongly against government interference and handouts, he also lobbied for Westinghouse in its bid for government subsidies for a nuclear power plant in Oak Ridge. After retiring from the Senate in 2002, Thompson went back to lobbying, earning $750,000 since then from Equitas, the British insurance company that wants to limit payments to the families of those who died due to asbestos exposure.
Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.
Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.
But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms. Aside from Thompson, there’s his wife, Jeri, who worked for the PR/lobbying giant Burson-Marsteller and law firm/lobbyists DLA Piper after she met Fred. Then there’s Ken Reitz, a senior campaign adviser, who works for 360Advantage — owned by two lobbying firms Burson-Marsteller and Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Reitz is the former CEO of Burson and became famous for creating the National Smokers Alliance — a faux grassroots group opposing tobacco regulation that was funded by the tobacco companies.
Fred’s first campaign manager, Tom Collamore, was a former tobacco lobbyist. He is one of the many Thompson staffers who was shown the door after disagreeing with Mrs. Thompson. Fred’s chief counselor is Michael Toner, an adviser to Bryan Cave Strategies, which represents Shell Oil and other corporations. Then there’s Tom Daffron, COO of the Jefferson Consulting Group that lobbies on homeland security issues. Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the Quinn Gillespie & Associates lobbying firm is also a close adviser.
Then there are the bundlers and donors. Public Citizen identified six Thompson bundlers as registered lobbyists, but the number associated with lobbyists significantly increases when the names of employees of lobbying firm, who are not necessarily registered lobbyists, are added:
Bundler/Lobbyists (amounts collected are not available)
• Richard F.Hohlt, a lobbyist for tobacco, nuclear energy, Chevron, and Fannie Mae
• Rachael Jones Hensler, lobbyist for the Nickles Group
• William Hilleary, lobbyist, Sommerstein, Nasy & Rosenthal
• Robert L. Livingston, lobbyist, The Livingston Group
• W. Timothy Loche, lobbyist, Smith-Free Group
• David Lugar, lobbyist, Quinn Gillespie
• Mach F. Mattingly, lobbyist
• Tom Collamore
• Michael Toner
Registered Lobbyist Contributors:
• Katie Huffard
• Chris Lamond
• Jeffrey Bloemaker
• Patrick O’Donnell
• William Timmons
• William Hilleary
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
Other:
• Johanna Hardy, Dir., Legislative Affairs, Rolls Royce
• Kirk Clinkenbeard, Potomic Advocates
• John Dowd, partner Akin, Gump which has lobbying practice
• Sarah Newman, employee, Cassidy and Associates
Sources: Washington Magazine, Center for Responsive Politics
So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.
Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?
IOWA VS. AMERICA
IOWA VS. AMERICA
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 12, 2007.
In America, Hillary Clinton holds a solid and enduring 15- to 20-point lead over Barack Obama, who, in turn, enjoys a 2-to-1 advantage over John Edwards, who languishes in third place. But in Iowa, Edwards is often in first place in the polls and, at best, Hillary is locked in a three-way tie with her rivals.
In America, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican field by 10 points while Fred Thompson edges past the ill-fated Mitt Romney and the snakebit John McCain. But in Iowa, it is all Romney all the time as the former Massachusetts governor, riding a wave of paid television ads, has first place all to himself and has been atop the Iowa polls for four or five months. Meanwhile, Arkansas’s former governor, Mike Huckabee, way down in the national polls, is surging in Iowa and now boasts 14 percent in the polls. Ahead of McCain, he is challenging Thompson and Giuliani in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
So which is reality? Is it the relatively stable national leads of Hillary and Rudy, or the three-way tie on the Democratic side in Iowa and the Romney romp among the state’s Republicans?
The theory is that with the obsessive national focus on the presidential race, which started as soon as the ballots were counted in 2006, the early states no longer are the only ones to get an overdose of the campaign early on. Thus they will conform, some say, to the national trends before long. But Edwards’s enduring strength and Romney’s surge in Iowa may challenge this conventional wisdom.
Edwards’s strong showing in Iowa is largely an historical artifact, the product of his efforts there in 2004 and the assiduous attention he has paid to the state ever since. As such, it’s probable that his strong performance will be overtaken by the national perception that the race is really between Hillary and Obama. As the two national front-runners begin to run ads in Iowa, they should be able to leave Edwards behind. Indeed, there is no reason not to expect Hillary to surge into the lead in Iowa as she already has in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But on the Republican side, the situation is more problematic. Romney’s surge is entirely Rudy Giuliani’s fault. Ineptly, his campaign chose not to advertise early on in Iowa and ceded the airwaves to Romney. Anxious to display the largest cash on hand, Giuliani made a possibly fatal mistake in letting Romney get a large and sustained lead in the first caucus state.
It remains to be seen whether Rudy and/or Thompson can play catch-up and challenge Romney in Iowa. If Mitt Romney wins in Iowa, he can probably expect to prevail in New Hampshire, where he is also well ahead.
It is one of the media’s blind spots that, while it discounts the performance of a presidential candidate in his home state (Tom Harkin, for example, got no bounce from winning in Iowa in 1992), it does not realize that, in media terms, Massachusetts and New Hampshire might as well be the same state. Most of the Granite State’s residents watch Boston television at night and are used to seeing ex-Gov. Romney in their living rooms on the nightly news, giving him an edge as significant as if it were his home state. In 1992, Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary and the media accepted it at face value, as they are likely to do if Romney prevails.
If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, will anti-Mormon prejudice and his flip-flop-flip on abortion bring him down, or will he cruise to the nomination?
It is also possible that something else is going on in Iowa. Jaded by the massive amounts of money spent in the state by presidential aspirants, Mike Huckabee seems to be developing a unique appeal as the candidate without money. As he said before the Ames straw poll, where Romney wrote out $35 checks for any of his supporters who wished to pay the obligatory poll tax and vote, “I can’t afford to buy you. I can’t even afford to rent you.” Huckabee’s second-place 18 percent finish at Ames might give an indication of a broader surge behind his candidacy as his electric personality, warm wit and sincere spirituality attract Republicans in droves. (In Texas, California Congressman Duncan Hunter may have shown a similar strength, winning the straw poll with 40 percent of the vote.)
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 12, 2007.
In America, Hillary Clinton holds a solid and enduring 15- to 20-point lead over Barack Obama, who, in turn, enjoys a 2-to-1 advantage over John Edwards, who languishes in third place. But in Iowa, Edwards is often in first place in the polls and, at best, Hillary is locked in a three-way tie with her rivals.
In America, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican field by 10 points while Fred Thompson edges past the ill-fated Mitt Romney and the snakebit John McCain. But in Iowa, it is all Romney all the time as the former Massachusetts governor, riding a wave of paid television ads, has first place all to himself and has been atop the Iowa polls for four or five months. Meanwhile, Arkansas’s former governor, Mike Huckabee, way down in the national polls, is surging in Iowa and now boasts 14 percent in the polls. Ahead of McCain, he is challenging Thompson and Giuliani in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
So which is reality? Is it the relatively stable national leads of Hillary and Rudy, or the three-way tie on the Democratic side in Iowa and the Romney romp among the state’s Republicans?
The theory is that with the obsessive national focus on the presidential race, which started as soon as the ballots were counted in 2006, the early states no longer are the only ones to get an overdose of the campaign early on. Thus they will conform, some say, to the national trends before long. But Edwards’s enduring strength and Romney’s surge in Iowa may challenge this conventional wisdom.
Edwards’s strong showing in Iowa is largely an historical artifact, the product of his efforts there in 2004 and the assiduous attention he has paid to the state ever since. As such, it’s probable that his strong performance will be overtaken by the national perception that the race is really between Hillary and Obama. As the two national front-runners begin to run ads in Iowa, they should be able to leave Edwards behind. Indeed, there is no reason not to expect Hillary to surge into the lead in Iowa as she already has in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But on the Republican side, the situation is more problematic. Romney’s surge is entirely Rudy Giuliani’s fault. Ineptly, his campaign chose not to advertise early on in Iowa and ceded the airwaves to Romney. Anxious to display the largest cash on hand, Giuliani made a possibly fatal mistake in letting Romney get a large and sustained lead in the first caucus state.
It remains to be seen whether Rudy and/or Thompson can play catch-up and challenge Romney in Iowa. If Mitt Romney wins in Iowa, he can probably expect to prevail in New Hampshire, where he is also well ahead.
It is one of the media’s blind spots that, while it discounts the performance of a presidential candidate in his home state (Tom Harkin, for example, got no bounce from winning in Iowa in 1992), it does not realize that, in media terms, Massachusetts and New Hampshire might as well be the same state. Most of the Granite State’s residents watch Boston television at night and are used to seeing ex-Gov. Romney in their living rooms on the nightly news, giving him an edge as significant as if it were his home state. In 1992, Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary and the media accepted it at face value, as they are likely to do if Romney prevails.
If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, will anti-Mormon prejudice and his flip-flop-flip on abortion bring him down, or will he cruise to the nomination?
It is also possible that something else is going on in Iowa. Jaded by the massive amounts of money spent in the state by presidential aspirants, Mike Huckabee seems to be developing a unique appeal as the candidate without money. As he said before the Ames straw poll, where Romney wrote out $35 checks for any of his supporters who wished to pay the obligatory poll tax and vote, “I can’t afford to buy you. I can’t even afford to rent you.” Huckabee’s second-place 18 percent finish at Ames might give an indication of a broader surge behind his candidacy as his electric personality, warm wit and sincere spirituality attract Republicans in droves. (In Texas, California Congressman Duncan Hunter may have shown a similar strength, winning the straw poll with 40 percent of the vote.)
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
THE DARK SIDE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S HEALTH CARE PLAN
THE DARK SIDE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S HEALTH CARE PLAN
The public face of Hillary Clinton's new health care plan is sunny, filled with choices for consumers and bright with promises for better health care for all. But a close examination of the proposal alongside other initiatives of Sen. Clinton in the past few years reveals a dark side she wants to hide from public view until after the election is over.
In her program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every "American" — but she has a rather expansive definition of "American." In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.
Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of her program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. (Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.)
Would Americans like to reward those whose only connection to our country is that they flouted our laws to come here with free health insurance for themselves and their children? Doubtless Hillary knows the answer is no, so she is determined to hide that aspect of her plan from the public.
Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from "cherry picking" healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.
In effect, her plan would turn "insurance" into "subsidy." The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary's program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.
Hillary says that her program would provide "universal" coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don't want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don't want to.
So Hillary's program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don't need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.
But the main defect of Hillary's program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, Bill Clinton's warnings of economic disaster if its share of our national income passed 12 percent back in 1993 sound almost quaint today. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.
It was Hillary herself who explained this concept to Dick in 1993. The reality has not changed. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.
For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.
Finally, Hillary seeks to finance the system by ending tax breaks for the wealthy, by which she means any household with $250,000 or more in income. Never mind that she has spent that money several times over. But why use income taxes to finance her system? Why not do what Democrats and Republicans are now pushing in Congress — to finance it by raising cigarette taxes? That way we get a double impact: higher tobacco prices cut smoking, particularly among teenagers, and reduce health costs and the revenues pay for her expansion of the system. The current Congress is passing legislation to raise cigarette taxes 61 cents per pack to pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Why not raise them $2 per pack to raise the $110 billion Hillary says her health care proposal will need?
In selling her program, Hillary seems to imply that she was under the hypnotic control of her advisers (presumably Ira Magaziner) in 1993 when she designed her previous health care reform. Now she says she is in charge. "I'm the decision maker now," she told The New York Times. "I have a plan that is 100 percent my plan." But what was the 1993 initiative but her plan, concocted in secret and foisted in toto on a Congress which wouldn't pass it?
Now she says she would not "have approached [health care reform] in the same way" as she did in 1993. Now she will be informed by "a greater dose of humility and empathy and understanding of what it takes to get things done in our political system."
That and a determination to conceal the true implications of her proposal until after she is elected.
The public face of Hillary Clinton's new health care plan is sunny, filled with choices for consumers and bright with promises for better health care for all. But a close examination of the proposal alongside other initiatives of Sen. Clinton in the past few years reveals a dark side she wants to hide from public view until after the election is over.
In her program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every "American" — but she has a rather expansive definition of "American." In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.
Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of her program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. (Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.)
Would Americans like to reward those whose only connection to our country is that they flouted our laws to come here with free health insurance for themselves and their children? Doubtless Hillary knows the answer is no, so she is determined to hide that aspect of her plan from the public.
Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from "cherry picking" healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.
In effect, her plan would turn "insurance" into "subsidy." The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary's program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.
Hillary says that her program would provide "universal" coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don't want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don't want to.
So Hillary's program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don't need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.
But the main defect of Hillary's program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, Bill Clinton's warnings of economic disaster if its share of our national income passed 12 percent back in 1993 sound almost quaint today. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.
It was Hillary herself who explained this concept to Dick in 1993. The reality has not changed. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.
For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.
Finally, Hillary seeks to finance the system by ending tax breaks for the wealthy, by which she means any household with $250,000 or more in income. Never mind that she has spent that money several times over. But why use income taxes to finance her system? Why not do what Democrats and Republicans are now pushing in Congress — to finance it by raising cigarette taxes? That way we get a double impact: higher tobacco prices cut smoking, particularly among teenagers, and reduce health costs and the revenues pay for her expansion of the system. The current Congress is passing legislation to raise cigarette taxes 61 cents per pack to pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Why not raise them $2 per pack to raise the $110 billion Hillary says her health care proposal will need?
In selling her program, Hillary seems to imply that she was under the hypnotic control of her advisers (presumably Ira Magaziner) in 1993 when she designed her previous health care reform. Now she says she is in charge. "I'm the decision maker now," she told The New York Times. "I have a plan that is 100 percent my plan." But what was the 1993 initiative but her plan, concocted in secret and foisted in toto on a Congress which wouldn't pass it?
Now she says she would not "have approached [health care reform] in the same way" as she did in 1993. Now she will be informed by "a greater dose of humility and empathy and understanding of what it takes to get things done in our political system."
That and a determination to conceal the true implications of her proposal until after she is elected.
new method to promote your political blog........
interesting new method to promote your political blog........
how will this John Reese's new venture be treated by Google / Adwords ?
very exciting new ideal
new blogrush
www.blogrush.com/r29559027
get traffic tfor your blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)