All I Want for Christmas

If you really love me, you'll get me one of these:

Pro-Military Group Targets Berkley for Anti-Marine Stance

I wrote a little over a week ago that while the Berkeley City Council had rescinded its loathsome letter to the U.S. Marine Corps, it had failed to change policies it adopted to prevent the Marines from recruiting effectively in the city. The pro-military group Move America Forward is trying to make sure the city council doesn't get away with a cosmetic change, but is actually forced to live and let live, and to give the Marines the same free-speech rights that all other Americans have. They're airing the ad below in Berkeley, Sacramento, and nationwide on CNN and FOX:



In addition to the continued belligerence toward the U.S.M.C. displayed in the ad, the City Council continues to give Code Pink a special parking permit in front of the recruiting center from which to protest, as well as a weekly noise permit for the same purpose.

it's ironic that the liberals on the City Council are going to such great lengths to deny freedom of speech and freedom of association to the Marines, as well as to potential applicants. Guess some people are more deserving of civil liberties than others.

Increased Penalties for Hiring Illegal Aliens

Hhmm...

The Bush administration is rolling out new rules in the coming weeks that will impose requirements and fines on companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced Friday. One of the rules will increase civil fines by as much as $5,000, or 25 percent, for employers who hire illegal immigrants, Chertoff and Mukasey said during a news conference. The rule will take effect March 27. The minimum penalty for knowingly employing an undocumented worker will increase from $275 to $375, according to the Justice Department.

The maximum penalty for a first violation will jump from $2,200 to $3,200. And the biggest increase raises the maximum civil penalty for multiple violations from $11,000 to $16,000, the department said. Mukasey said the rule will mark the first time since 1999 that fines on employers have been increased.

An increase of nearly 50 percent in the maximum penalty? One would imagine that this would have to make employers consider more seriously whether it's worth it to hire illegal immigrants. Any immigration lawyers know how frequently these fines are applied?

Leave it to the Bush administration however, to offend conservatives even as it does something they're likely to support. According to the Kansas City Star, Secretary Chertoff gave an odd rationale for why this move was necessary:

The administration contends that the actions are needed in response to congressional failure to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” that would have given illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and created a large guest worker program.

So because there are not millions of illegal immigrants moving into the legal workforce, we must make it harder for employers to hire them illegally. I suppose that in a way, that makes sense.

Doesn't it sort of call into question the motivation behind the Bush comprehensive immigration proposal, though? It essentially says that the preferred answer to the illegal population was simply to make them all work eligible -- but as long as we're not going to do that, we're essentially compelled to enforce the law.

Not the best way to make people trust your bona fides on illegal immigration.

Inglis Can't Dance

I've long approved of Bob Inglis as an elected official. Now I learn that I approve of him as a dancer, too. You'll either love it, or conclude that he's deeply disturbed:



Inglis' lifetime ACU rating: 82 percent. Makes me glad I donated to the guy.

NRCC Outraises DCCC

This is a surprise:

The National Republican Congressional Committee narrowly outraised its House Democratic counterpart in January, ending a lengthy trend of losing the monthly money battles against the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In FEC reports filed last night, the NRCC reported raising $3.79 million in January, compared to the DCCC’s $3.72 million. The NRCC still badly trails the DCCC in cash on hand, banking just $6.4 million to the DCCC’s $35.4 million.

The same article points out that the Republican Senate campaign committee raised nearly as much as its Democratic counterpart in January. Recall too, (as I wrote yesterday) that the RNC continues to raise significantly more than its Democratic counterpart. When you look at the overall picture, the three Democratic campaign committees (DCCC, DSCC, and DNC) started February with an edge in cash on hand of about $28 million -- a big edge, but not overwhelming.

The Democrats think that 2008 will be a good year for them for several reasons: the better presidential candidate, the edge in money, and the high number of GOP retirements. But it's starting to seem that McCain may be the better candidate in the general election -- no matter who wins the Democratic nod. The latest round of fundraising reports suggests the Democratic money edge may be subsiding (with one notable exception). And while the Republicans will have more retirements no matter what, the vast majority will be seats where the GOP candidate is favored.

Taking Down 5 Year Olds

This sounds about right:

23

How many 5-year olds could you take out?

McCain Hit Piece Authored by Democratic Hack?

It's the New York Times, so that's not a bad assumption in general. But in this case, there's a specific reason to wonder about the partisan motivation behind the hit piece. Specifically, Marilyn Thompson -- co-author of the hit piece in the Times today -- previously accepted money from a group out to get Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, to research an attack piece against McConnell in the Lexington Herald-Leader. She was the editor of the Herald-Leader at the time:

In 2006, as editor of the Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky, Marilyn W. Thompson wanted her paper to undertake a major project examining Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's political fundraising practices and suggestions of influence peddling. When she realized her lean newsroom budget alone wouldn't cover it, Thompson got her Knight Ridder bosses' enthusiastic approval to seek a grant from the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. The California-based center provided $37,500 to underwrite the salary of reporter John Cheves, who took an unpaid six-month leave of absence to do the project, as well as to cover expenses.

Cheves was a staffer for Democratic Senator Ron Wyden at the time. At least this time Thompson's doing her own dirty work.

Barack Obama: The Next Reagan, or the Next Dukakis?

Many of my Democratic friends are thrilled at the thought that party revolutionaries may be on the verge of overthrowing the Clinton power structure and enshrining an inspiring young liberal as their party's nominee. I wonder whether they should be so excited about a candidate who may be well-positioned to lead the party to a Walter Mondale-style defeat.

First off, Barack Obama is clearly something new and exciting on the political scene. His rhetoric has inspired comparisons to Ronald Reagan (as well as a music video that's as insipid and cloying as Mmm Bop).

But when you get to the substance, he's more Mike Dukakis than Ronald Reagan. Fausta has a worthwhile compilation of his weaknesses, while Mickey Kaus entertains defenses against the charge that he is an unreconstructed lefty. He is the most liberal member of the Senate (to the left of his friend Ted Kennedy -- who's sure to be featured in attack commercials). He's a product of the Chicago machine, and so is vulnerable on ethic charges. He is out of the mainstream on partial-birth abortion. He is a high-tax candidate, whose plans are likely to scare Wall Street and the investor class more generally. He has a resume that's paper-thin. He opposes terrorist surveillance, and he's been inconsistent on Iraq, and now pushes for a speedy withdrawal -- despite improvements on the ground.

Barack Obama may be able to overcome his weaknesses as a candidate and win a stunning victory, but all the elements are there for a historic defeat. If Obama wins the nomination, he will face a real Republican opponent for the first time. While Hillary Clinton is forced to pull her punches to avoid upsetting the base, Obama will have to answer all of these charges.

Is he more likely to win a historic victory, or to join McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis as liberals from northern states who suffered landslide defeats?

F7: One Day to Stop Hillary (or Barack)

GOP online whiz Patrick Ruffini is working with Rightroots to address what they perceive as a critical weakness in the Republican presidential campaign: the lack of cash on hand. Whether Mitt Romney or John McCain wins the nomination (or even if it's Mike Huckabee), the candidate will be essentially broke. That's why they've come together to create February7.org.

The point of the effort is to raise as much money as possible in one day, with all of it to go to the candidate who seizes control of the nomination on Super Duper Tuesday. If it's unclear who the nominee will be, then the site will continue to collect pledges until the race sorts itself out.



Ruffini explains:

If we fundraise the same old traditional way — with fundraising events and direct mail early and banking on Internet enthusiasm late — we will lose. There is no way we’ll be able to get the money when and where we need it. On the Internet in particular, contributions come in late, often too late for the money to be spent effectively. We’re hoping to help frontload some of this money so that the candidate can use it against Hillary/Obama right away. When it comes to giving, early is the new late.

If the nominee is McCain, we still have to do this. His campaign especially is running on fumes financially, but they’ve shown they can be effective with an even a small amount of money.

And if it is Romney, let’s be clear: he is rich, but not Bloomberg rich, and he cannot self-fund the seven months until the Convention. Building organizations in 19 target states is a whole different ball of wax than building them in four. He will need unconditional buy-in from the base — financially and otherwise — in order to compete with Clinton/Obama.

The only candidate the Republicans have who most certainly doesn't need this kind of help:Ron Paul.

Is It Too Early to Select a VP Nominee?

Robert Stacy McCain offers up a new name for political junkies who must discuss the Republican vice presidential choice before we even get to Super Tuesday. His suggestion though, is an interesting one with some real potential:

I was very impressed with [Michael] Steele's performance on "Meet the Press" in October 2006. Steele ran circles around Ben Cardin, and Steele's subsequent defeat in the Senate race was more attributable to the situation -- running against an anti-GOP tidal wave in an overwhelmingly Democratic state -- than a reflection on Steele's performance as a candidate.

Like Romney, Steele is a "Blue State Republican" who has had to campaign and govern in an environment that is hostile to his conservative values. I've had the opportunity to meet Steele, and can attest that Steele's cheerful, upbeat -- dare I say, Reaganesque? -- conservatism is for real.

Given the current Democratic civil war over race, the selection of Michael Steele could help Republicans make a more serious play for the votes of African Americans than in any election in recent memory. Further, Steele earned a lot of fans among traditional Reagan conservatives, even as he ran a race in one of the most Democratic states in the U.S. In a year when the Republican candidate seems destined to have to work to generate some excitement, Steele would be a very memorable selection.

Senate Candidate Udall: Against Afghanistan Before He Was For It

I wrote earlier about the damage done by Al Franken to his Senate campaign this year. Turns out the Democrats have another Senate candidate in a critical swing seat, who appears to be doing the same thing.

Mark Udall is the likely Democratic candidate for the open Senate seat in Colorado (Wayne Allard is retiring). He is regarded as another of the Democrats' top recruits for a swing seat (polls have shown the race quite close). The race is sure to be a barn-burner, given that Colorado appears to be one of the most competitive states in the nation -- at all levels.

The NRSC however, points out that Udall recently declared Afghanistan to be the 'real central front' in the war on terror. That's a curious opinion, unless if you're prematurely declaring Iraq won -- which would be foolish at this point.

Whatever Udall's thinking, it's odd that he regards the war in Afghanistan as so important -- considering how many times he's voted against it:

• In 2003, Udall voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including funds for body armor, armored humvees, and health care for National Guard members and reservists.
• Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004.
• Udall voted against $453.5 billion in defense spending in 2005.
• In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• Udall voted against authorizing nearly $289 billion in Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001 defense funding -- including funds for six F-22 fighters.
• Udall voted to cut $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 defense spending.
• In 2007, he voted against protecting funding for homeless and disabled veterans from cuts, against increasing military housing funding by $275 million, against lowering college loan rates for graduates serving in the military or National Guard, and to prevent senior military officers from working at major defense contractors for a year after retiring.

(Click over to the NRSC site for specific vote citations.)

At least Udall will be able to benefit from the experience of others. Presumably he won't argue 'but I was for the $87 billion before I was against it.'

Labor Department to Crack Down on Union Pension Abuse?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Department of Labor has issued an unwelcome reminder to the managers of the AFL-CIO pension fund: while they may wish to use pension funds to advance political goals, the law forbids them from doing so:

The Labor Department letter addressed a reported AFL-CIO plan to promote shareholder proposals that press companies to offer more generous employee health-care benefits, and that would require companies to disclose political contributions so shareholders could see if support was being given to candidates who don't share labor's views on health care.

Before undertaking "to monitor or influence the management of corporations," the department said, fiduciaries "must first take into account the cost of such action and the role of the investment in the plan's portfolio, and cannot act unless they conclude that the action is reasonably likely to enhance the value of the plan's investments."

The Labor Department letter comes at an important time. A recent University of Chicago study showed that union-affiliated funds do indeed systematically exercise their proxies to support labor objectives rather than simply to increase shareholder value. This was already evident in unions' statements about their shareholder power, in corporate campaigns such as the attempted ouster of Safeway's leadership during its 2004 labor dispute, and the refusal of some union health and welfare plans to do business with Wal-Mart, despite its low prescription drug prices.

The Department of Labor is required to protect the interests of workers and Union members, not to turn a blind eye to efforts by Union bosses to steer member contributions to their favored goals. If legal action is required to get unions to comply, it would be welcome.

A Late Entrant to the 2008 Race

The Onion has the story:

After spending two months accompanying his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race, saying he "could no longer resist the urge."

"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."

We should have seen it coming.

Whither the Fredheads

Patrick Ruffini is conducting a poll on whom the Fred backers will support if Thompson gets out of the race. The big leader right now: Mitt Romney, with Giuliani in a distant second. Strong reason for Senator McCain to hope Fred stays in.

If Thompson elects to stay in the race, will it be seen as a tacit move in support of Maverick? At every turn, Thompson has been accused of being in the race more to help McCain than to win the nomination himself. One wonders if there's anything he can do at this point to escape the accusation.

Ruffini's poll seems to confirm one of the real oddities of Thompson's candidacy: almost all of his supporters express a real strong dislike for McCain. Considering the friendship between Thompson and McCain, and their similarities, it's bizarre that they have such different constituencies.

That's a big reason that there wouldn't be any point to Thompson endorsing McCain if he does get out; none of his backers can stand McCain, it seems.

Another thought: if Fred does end his campaign, does that mean I can no longer call it 'Fredstate?'

Conservatives Gain a Powerful Ally

I've written before about Freedom's Watch (over at the Weekly Standard). Today the Washington Post takes notice of them:

Freedom's Watch has loudly announced that there will be no limits to what it might do. From its $15 million summer ad campaign defending the Iraq strategy to its six-figure effort in the House special election in Ohio, the group has put Democrats on notice that its agenda will go far beyond the conservative principles of its largest financial backers.

"We're a permanent political operation here in town. We're not going to be Johnny One Note," said Joe Eule, executive director of the expanding group, a nonprofit organization that many are describing as the MoveOn.org of the right.

Read the whole thing. Freedom's Watch will be influential in the 2008 cycle, pushing conservative ideas and candidates. For Republicans, it will be a welcome change not to be savaged by 'independent' liberal groups, without support from the Right.

About that Fred Surge...

Jim Geraghty notices that the ARG poll shows a dramatic increase in support for Fred Thompson over the last few days:

Well, after yesterday's brouhaha over whether Thompson was really surging... American Research Group does show what I would all a real surge, rising from 13 percent in the poll taken January 15-16 to 21 percent in the poll taken January 17-18.

A finish like that - behind McCain with 26 percent and Huckabee with 36 percent, but beating Romney by 9, would be plenty reason to stay in the race.

So in Fred's favor, there's that.

On the other hand, I wrote yesterday about the potential value of online searches in telegraphing voter preference. If that predictor turns out to be accurate in South Carolina today, it may be Mike Huckabee who winds up the beneficiary. That's because looking at Yahoo buzz today shows the Huckster surging dramatically, while Romney and Fred fall off. Here's a clip of what it looked like at 11:15 eastern today. If it's too small to read, Huckabee has seen an increase of more than 9 percent over the last 24 hours in number of searches by South Carolina residents. In the same time period, Thompson and Romney have fallen significantly.

We'll know in a few hours whose packing it in -- if anyone.

Another thought: is this more proof of the influence of Patrick Ruffini?

Can a Robot Commit War Crimes?

The question has already been broached. And it has led to a session called 'When Robots Commit War Crimes: Autonomous Weapons and Human Responsibility,' at Stanford University's Technology in Wartime conference. The io9 blog -- whose blogger is also an organizer of the conference -- describes the question like this:

Now that the military is using autonomous surveillance/combat robots created by iRobot, the company behind the Roomba robot vacuum, a strange question emerges: What do we do if a robot commits a war crime? This isn't idle speculation. An automated anti-aircraft cannon's friendly fire killed nine soldiers in South Africa last year, and computer scientists speculate that as more weapons (and aircraft) are robot-controlled that we'll need to develop new definitions of war crimes. In fact, the possibility of robot war crimes is the subject of a panel at an upcoming conference at Stanford.

One of the participants in the panel has written about a study he's conducting to help better understand the ethical questions associated with the use of robots in warfare:

If the military keeps moving forward at its current rapid pace towards the deployment of intelligent autonomous robots, we must ensure that these systems be deployed ethically, in a manner consistent with standing protocols and other ethical constraints that draw from cultural relativism (our own society’s or the world’s ethical perspectives), deontology (right-based approaches), or within other related ethical frameworks.

We need to avoid mistakes like this guy:



Perhaps if all robots were programmed with three laws...

Flood the Grand Canyon?

Interesting. This is the first time I've ever heard of this:

Interior Department agencies want to release a high volume of water from Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Ariz., into the Colorado River in early March in hopes that higher water flows will move sand out of the riverbed and restore sandbars throughout Grand Canyon National Park.

Sandbars throughout the 277-mile length of the park provide critical habitat for wildlife and protect archeological resources. High water flows also create backwaters needed by native fish, including the endangered humpback chub. Since the dam began blocking water in the early 1960s, a number of native fish species have died off and non-native plants have taken root, significantly disrupting the canyon's delicate ecosystem.

Will John Kerry Face a Serious Challenge in 2008?

Read it at the Standard.

Soft Power?

Read it at the Standard.