Centerfield

Good for Rhode Islanders. Chafee is exactly the kind of Republican that I've always, always loved to support at the ballot box and beyond. Unfortunately the Oregon GOP rarily lets a comparable candidate through the ideological litmus test that passes for a primary election here.

One thing irks me about CNN's coverage. And it's something that others have trotted out vis-a-vis this RI primary too. They say that this was a test of anti-incumbency among voters. Hooey! This was about ideology and partisanship for Chafee's challenger and, based on the sound bites I heard, his supporters.

According to NPR this morning, Chafee won on the strength of cross-over disaffected Dems and Independents. And that seems to me to soundly quash the alleged anti-incumbency test spin.

Posted by: Kevin at September 13, 2006 10:47 AM

One of the better things about moving from California to Maine was the opportunity to be represented by Olympia Snowe rather than Barbara Boxer...

I'm glad to see Rhode Islanders stepping up to the ballot box and voting sensibly.

Posted by: Heather at September 13, 2006 10:50 AM

You must admit, Barbara Boxer is one of the luckiest politicians going. If the California Republicans would ever nominate even a moderately conservative (never mind a moderate) candidate, she would be long gone -- and the next time, the Democrats might be moved to nominate a moderate as well. But we keep getting stuck with candidates who are even further right than she is left (which ain't easy!), so she keeps getting elected.

Posted by: wj at September 13, 2006 12:10 PM

The Chafee victory is solid, but the GOP nominated a nut job for an Arizona congressional district to replace centrist Jim Kolbe over his preferred moderate successor.

Posted by: Mathew at September 13, 2006 01:07 PM

You know, all you guys have is alot of talk. Do you even LIVE in Arizona, Mathew? Or California? Border Enforcement is THE #1 issue of Arizona and California voters.

I understand that you probably make no distinction between conservative on, say, the religious issues vs. immigration and spending control, but there is a difference. Graf would be on the right side on these issues while backstabbing defectors like Kolbe undermine the GOP from within giving Democrats the only political cover they can get.

It's going to be an uphill battle for Graf, but the general election is going to be close, either way.

The biggest fraud has been perpetrated on California and Arizona, let alone all other American voters, by so-called immigration, "moderates," like Kolbe and McCain. Controlling the borders is important to voters across the spectrum but a small elite which supposes to speak for veryone else comes out and dares to BUY Republican primaries FOR themselves and against the voters in these constituencies. We saw it against BOTH Graf and Laffey this year. We saw it against Pat Toomey in PA in 2004. That money is SUPPOSED to go towards the general election in November for WHOMEVER the primary electorate decides to support. Not whomever the elites in Washington, D.C. decide on.

If you go back and look at the 1990's the California GOP's biggest success was the year the immigration Prop was on the ballot stripping government services to illegals. Gov. Wilson won a major victory in the Gov. race after being behind his Liberal opponent for months. It was also in that year the GOP won control of the powerful state assemby for only the 2nd time in like 40 years, except that again another elitest, "moderate, " defector once again spoke again for the whole party by defecting to the Democrats.

Unfortunately the party decided to wring it's hands over this for the past ten years and take the Liberal position which has lost them EVERY statewide election since then until Schwartzennegger.

If you actually look at Barbara Boxer's three elections, wj, you'd see that her toughest race was her first in 1992 against the staunchly Conservative Bruce Herschensohn whom she beat by ONLY 5 points. Once the GOP began falling all over itself to appease the open borders crowd you got the LOSING campaigns of Matt Fong in '98(by 10 points) and Bill Jones in '04 (by 20 points). BOTH immigration "moderates." In fact, this standard also works with California's OTHER Senator Diane Feinstein. After dispatching appointed Sen. John Seymour by 16 points (in the same election year Boxer won by only 5 over Herschensohn), Feinstein managed to win in '94 by only 2, that's TWO points, over the staunchly conservative Michael Huffington. And that's the supposedly moderate FEINSTEIN, not Boxer.

If you want to talk about the abortion issue, then I'll certainly bare you out, but when it comes to the immigration issue don't talk about nut-jobs Mathew. Because truth is, if immigration is the issue upon which Arizona votes in November, the "nut-job" vote is likely to pull Randy Graf over the top.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 13, 2006 01:55 PM

If the border was the #1 issue then Napolitano wouldn't be governor, but there she is, and she will likely be reelected. Then again I'm not in Arizona so you probably know better than I do...

Posted by: Susan at September 13, 2006 02:40 PM

You know, all you guys have is alot of talk.

Um, yeah, this is a blog. I thought that "alot of talk" was the whole point. Posted by: Todd Pearson at September 13, 2006 02:53 PM

Cavalier,

Here's the problem with trying to trace election results down to a single issue-- it requires an oversimplification of the political system which, by definition, means it's not as accurate as more comprehensive analysis.

I think calling Michael Huffington "staunchly conservative" definitely needs to be qualified. I still have his campaign literature somewhere in my garage, and I'd be hard pressed to call a man with his positions "staunchly conservative." The "staunch conservative" in that race was my neighbor Congressman, Bill Dannemeyer, who was resoundingly defeated in the primary (and subsequently faded away into obscurity).

Also, it's important to note that Huffington spent $28 million in his Senate campaign-- an effort that likely skewed the results of the election, at least as much as the issue differences between Feinstein and Huffington.

Finally, the gubernatorial re-election campaign of Pete Wilson (whom my mother was working for at the time) probably had a tremendous impact on turnout. You're right that immigration control-- specifically Proposition 187 that Governor Wilson used to resurrect his campaign that year-- played a major role in the election. But to boil the entire election-- and subsequent elections-- down to that single issue is intellectually irresponsible, in my opinion.

Posted by: Bobby at September 13, 2006 03:08 PM

The Chafee victory is solid, but the GOP nominated a nut job for an Arizona congressional district to replace centrist Jim Kolbe over his preferred moderate successor.

Well, no, the voters did. The GOP backed his opponent, Huffman. Dems rooted for Graf over Huffman (and many donated to Graf) on the assumption that he'd be a LOY easier to beat in November than pro-choice moderate Huffman. They're right, of course.

To quote Niven and Pournelle, think of it as evolution in action.

Posted by: Tully at September 13, 2006 03:41 PM

Then how do you explain the consistency of result, Bobby? Seems to me, moderates are scared these days not because they're afraid the GOP will lose taking the conservative position on this issue but because they're afraid the GOP will WIN doing so. And the GOP will be transformed forever.

The GOP can't win statewide in CA to save it's life these days. The assertion is made that this is because the GOP has moved too far to the Right. As I've indicated before I will stipulate that it's abortion position does NOT help this situation, however, we've seen abortion Conservatives come very close to winning who took the conservative position on immigration, while we've seen BOTH abortion conservatives and abortion moderates LOSE decisively who decided to abandon the conservative position on immigration.

What other issue comes closer to determining a common thread among these election results?

I think you're simply attempting to obfuscate the obvious relationship here. Even if immigration isn't wholly determinant it certainly seems to have the effect of making elections in CA at least close for the GOP if not winnable. If moderation is your barometer for what helps Republicans succeed I assert that you have little evidence to show for it. And little evidence to show that immigration is the cause of recent defeats.

I would be interested in your assessment of Huffington's positions at the time, however.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 13, 2006 03:50 PM

The GOP can't win statewide in CA to save it's life these days.

Schwarzenegger.

Posted by: Kevin at September 13, 2006 03:55 PM

As Kevin says, Schwarzenegger is hardly overwhelmingly conservative. And when he tried pushing a bunch of definitely conservative initiatives last year, they all got trounced -- not to mention that his personal popularity tanked. This year, he's sounding a lot less conservative, and cruising to re-election.

I admit that I haven't studied our Governor all that closely on immigration, so I may be wrong. Feel free to present evidence if I am. But my distinct impression is that he's a lot closer to the Senate bill's position on the subject than to that of the House bill. Which is to say, less conservative, rather than more.

It also occurs to me to wonder: if a conservative (isolationist, actually, but why argue over exact terms) position is so powerful in California, why do we have two Democrats as Senators, Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature, Democrats in almost all state-wide offices, etc.? One would think that Republicans would have long since ridden the immigration issue into office across the board.

Posted by: wj at September 13, 2006 04:23 PM

Kevin and WJ are both underwriting my point, Cav. For your assertion to be true we first have to ignore some distinct instances of reality-- for example, where moderate Republicans have won statewide elections in California, while conservatives did not. Then, once we've eliminated all races where the outcomes don't support your assumptions, we also have to boil down every election race to consist only (or perhaps just primarily) as a referendum on the immigration issue-- all other issues (local, county, state, and federal) must be excluded. And then once we've managed to simply the formula to such an elementary level-- and after we've eliminated conflicting-- then your assertion withstands scrutiny. That's hardly academic.

By the way, my position is NOT that "moderation is [the] barometer for what helps Republicans succeed"-- I don't know that to be true or untrue. If a formula for Republican victory exists, I don't know what it is-- I suspect, however, that it would be a rather lengthy equation taking numerous issues and factors into account-- everything from the economy and fiscal policy to social issues and governmental reform to concerns about the candidates' character, charisma, and personality... Not something as simple as your "immigration-trumps-all" position. You're looking for a single issue silver bullet that explain everything. I doubt such a thing exists. But maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by: Bobby at September 13, 2006 05:07 PM

One would have thought so, wj, except that the moderate internationalist wing of the GOP has control of the party at the moment. Success with the immigration issue would not be considered success to these folks.

1994 was the single most successful year for the GOP. As Bobby pointed out, that was the year of Prop 187 calling for the termination of much government assistance to illegals. It was the SAME year the GOP nearly took control of the State Assembly. If the immigration issue was vital to the re-election of the embattled Pete Wilson, as even Bobby will admit, then how much of a stretch is it to say that it was vital to the Republican success in the Assembly races? Especially since the GOP made a POINT of repudiating the successful Wilson approach after '94 and tanked commensurately.

I think the determining factor would be this: If the election problems of the GOP in the decade before Schwartzennegger were the result of defecting Hispanics then why didn't Wilson and the Republicans LOSE in 1994?? Why didn't Prop 187 lose?

California has embraced the Conservative approach to immigration. With Prop 200 in Arizona it's fair to say that Arizonans agree.

As for Schwartzennegger, it was Wilson's cadre that tutored him into the Governor's mansion. Seems to me Schwartzennegger is trying bridge the gap between the two camps, not siding with the McCain/Senate crowd.

I think you are correct, Bobby, that there are many issues working at cross purposes, but if we take 1994 as the dividing line we find mostly success before hand and mostly failure afterward. I never said, "immigration-trumps all." It doesn't always deliver victory but it demonstratively improves the position of any Republican regardless of their stance on abortion vis-a-vis those who later avoided it like the plague.

The Schwartzennegger ballot initiatives had nothing to do with immigration, otherwise we'd have a better barometer for determining the success of that issue which is what we're here assessing.

But if we take your standard for determining cause and effect Bobby, then we can't determine anything at all, can we? Seems more like throwing up roadblocks than evenly assessing intellectual merits of the issue.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 13, 2006 06:13 PM

...Schwarzenegger is hardly overwhelmingly conservative. And when he tried pushing a bunch of definitely conservative initiatives last year, they all got trounced -- not to mention that his personal popularity tanked. This year, he's sounding a lot less conservative, and cruising to re-election.

WJ gets to a crucial crux here. The Governator went far right with those initiatives, got slapped down pretty damn hard, did some course corrections and the recent polling speaks for itself. All this in a climate where the loyalist left simply have not and probably never will forgive him for ousting Davis. And yet he appears to be cruising to a comfortable re-election.

Posted by: Kevin at September 13, 2006 06:52 PM

None of which assesses the strength or weaknesses of the, "enoforcement first," immigration position, Kevin.

Outside of immigration California does seem to have become a left of center state. But it defies that definition in its support for the conservative immigration position.

Were Schwartzennegger to have decided what the party decided in the 90's (to abandon the Wilson position) and pledge to sign the bill for driver's licenses for illegals, you'd see Angeledes pull ahead of him shortly thereafter and win in November.

Conservatives and independents know that Angeledes will do just that which pulls the vaunted Reagan Democrats in Schwartzennegger's direction.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 13, 2006 07:09 PM

but the GOP nominated a nut job for an Arizona congressional district to replace centrist Jim Kolbe over his preferred moderate successor.

I'm from AZ but not the 8th. Several points. The primary results are still too close to call. Graf will not likely win in November given the bulk of the population in the 8th is Tucson, a fairly liberal city. Graf is focused on immigration. That's not surprising when you see the map of the district. The district encompasses all of the southeastern border of AZ. You won't hear stronger feeling about immigration than those from the small border towns. The Minutemen are welcomed there. Now, I don't agree with them but I can certainly understand the Republicans in that area voting en mass for a candidate who is vocally anti-illegal immigration.

Now we should point out that the conservative who lost in the Republican Gubenatorial primary in AZ was the strident anti-immigrant candidate. Although its interesting that he lost to the religiously conservative candidate who's gotten most of his recent publicity in AZ regarding abortion and same-sex marriage. So all conservatives aren't alike. (Although like Graf, Munsil will not likely win in November).

Posted by: c3 at September 13, 2006 08:25 PM

The primary results are still too close to call.

Nope. Graf by almost 6 over Huffman. Done deal, 99+% reporting. Graf is 3 to 2 to lose to the Dem in November. Huffman would've been the opposite, maybe even better.

Posted by: Tully at September 13, 2006 08:57 PM

Here's the problem with trying to trace election results down to a single issue-- it requires an oversimplification of the political system which, by definition, means it's not as accurate as more comprehensive analysis.

Who is doing that? I think he is a nut job all the way around. All primary voters did was cost Republicans another seat. Save the sanctimony. We are centrists here, we support moderate candidates, Graf isn't moderate and his opponent was.

For the record Cav, next time you even remotely mention an issues that isn't directly related to a state you don't live in, I am going to jump all over it like a fly on horse manure. In my estimation I don't need to live in Arizona to be able to decide that another wing nut was nominated for Congress in the 8th District. Furthermore, for a state that prides itself on being a sovereign entity, I sure hear a lot of whining about what the Federal government is doing regarding immigration. How many Phoenix business owners are paying illegal immigrants under the table?

I think Graf should follow in the foot steps of his fellow Arizonan John McCain, and actually propose to do something realistic to solve the immigration problem rather than make rhetorical Tancredo-like statements that have no chance of being made into public policy and are only meant to rile the conservative grass root base within his party.

Gabrielle Giffords for Congress... I'd rather elect the nut jobs that aren't in charge over those who currently are. Maybe we are at the point where accepting change for the sake of change is neccessary.

Posted by: Mathew at September 13, 2006 09:43 PM

Your point is well taken, Cav. But I personally disagree with your characterization that the "conservative immigration position" is necessarily conservative. I don't believe that it is. Nor do I agree with your implied belief that a desire to have border enforcement is necessarily even right of center. That it is widely understood in those terms is IMHO evidence that conservatives have done a masterful job in framing the issue to their political advantage rather than evidence that it is in fact a conservative POV on illegal immigration.

I haven't commented here much in a long time and so I don't recognize or remember your cyber-handle. But, Tully and the rest of the regulars here are familiar with me and I'm pretty sure that they'd not argue very hard if I characterized myself as ideologically slightly left of center. And yet I've always supported border enforcement.

Lastly, I would like to suggest that to the extent that Democratics oppose enforcing immigration law that they are in fact pandering for latino votes rather than following thru on an inherently liberal/progressive ideological plank. Likewise, I would suggest that the genesis of the Republican desire to make a big deal out of border enforcement was more about trying to minimize any electoral advantage that the Dems might acquire by pandering for the latino vote than it did with any inherently conservative ideological plank.

Posted by: Kevin at September 13, 2006 09:51 PM

We are centrists here, we support moderate candidates, Graf isn't moderate and his opponent was.

Personally I go for the Lesser of Two Weevils. :-)

Posted by: Tully at September 13, 2006 10:06 PM

Kevin, Pajamas Media is having a contest to label people like us. "Centrist" just doesn't cut it anymore. Check it out. (Shameless roundabout cross-post linkage warning.)

Posted by: Tully at September 13, 2006 10:08 PM

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom, Captain Jack.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 13, 2006 11:42 PM

I left my $1.02 worth in comments there, Tully. Potentially fascinating subject to debate. Potentially frustrating as hell too. LOL

Posted by: Kevin at September 14, 2006 01:03 AM

Cav,

But if we take your standard for determining cause and effect Bobby, then we can't determine anything at all, can we? Seems more like throwing up roadblocks than evenly assessing intellectual merits of the issue.

Sure you can-- much of the world can be examined, researched, and "determined" through quantitative and political analysis-- researchers at universities all over the country (having taken a page from the books of baseball's sabermetricians who revolutionized the field) are studying and researching all sorts of formulas and equations that use calculus to help explain the electorate's decision. They use comprehensive formulas that leave no stone unturned and test and control for all sorts of variables-- issues, candidate traits, electorate circumstances, money, endorsements, etc. etc. That's good analysis.

But you're not doing that. You're trying to peddle a simple formula that "if Republicans do X on immigration, they will win (or lose)," and I'm saying you're wrong. Certainly, immigration can and is a significant component of the equation-- but is NOT the equation itself (and, I would argue, that equation is constantly changing). There are other factors-- lots of other factors-- that must be acounted for, and far from just "throwing up roadblocks" what I'm saying is that we shouldn't give in to your oversimplified explanation for "how things work in the world."

If you want to believe that a single issue determines (or heavily determines) the outcomes of an election, and all other variables can be controlled and wished away by simply declaring it so, you're welcome to do so. But that's poor econometrics. Unlike you, I prefer to examine the entire landscape when I try to find my answers. If that means I can't identify any "single explanation" for common events, then that's the way it has to be. Correlation doesn't exist simply because we wish it so; it must be demonstrated through rigorous analysis.

Posted by: Bobby at September 14, 2006 02:40 AM

If I have understood Cav's argument correctly (and I may well not have), what he seems to be saying is:
There are a significant number of voters in California (enough to turn the results of an election) who are concerned about immigration and nothing else. To the extent that they will turn out and vote if it is an issue between the candidates, but not otherwise -- in short, that they see NO other significant difference between a Barbara Boxer and a moderately conservative Republican.

I'm sure that there are a few people like that, if only because in a state this size you can find a few people who believe anything. But enough to turn an election? I'm having trouble buying that bridge.

Posted by: wj at September 14, 2006 10:20 AM

"But you're not doing that. You're trying to peddle a simple formula that "if Republicans do X on immigration, they will win (or lose)," and I'm saying you're wrong."

I've stated my position twice and you've misrepresented twice. I'm saying that when the tougher stance on immigration is taken by the GOP candidate (for whatever office), on average, they do better. I didn't say they necessarily WIN. I said they do better. And when the moderate takes the tougher immigration position they DO win. The conservatives typically STILL lose, but by a MUCH narrower margin.

"They use comprehensive formulas that leave no stone unturned and test and control for all sorts of variables-- issues, candidate traits, electorate circumstances, money, endorsements, etc. etc. That's good analysis."

Yeah, maybe THEY do, Bobby, but you're using to it to try and muddy the picture. I take it that immigration just isn't very high on your list, so you don't follow its progress, or lack thereof. I DO. And it's pretty obvious that being tough on border enforcement (in CA at least) is a NET GAINER of votes, as opposed to support for amnesty. This is true enough that supposed-moderates like Diane Feinstein are even rhetorically, "tough," on border enforcement.

My sense is that this is the way it is in both AZ and NM where Democratic governors (Napolitano and Richardson, respectively) have talked tough as well.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 14, 2006 11:57 AM

"I think Graf should follow in the foot steps of his fellow Arizonan John McCain, and actually propose to do something realistic to solve the immigration problem rather than make rhetorical Tancredo-like statements that have no chance of being made into public policy and are only meant to rile the conservative grass root base within his party."

The assertion here seems to be that taking the McCain position is doable and the Tancredo position isn't. That voters won't go for it. It's difficult to know that for sure, because while the Senate voted the McCain position 2-to-1, the House gave a majority of its votes to an "enforcement-first" bill.

I think we will see in the next couple elections that the Tancredo position has alot more adherents among the independent middle than you believe.

Part of what I've been trying to get across here is what Kevin was kind of hinting at. The middle in this country isn't JUST Chafee-like moderates but ALSO Reagan Democrat independents that is much more conservative on some social issues while being moderate to liberal on economic issues, and typically more nationalistic than your typical Democrat or even Republican. They're independents, but they have a stronger aversion to the liberalism of the Democratic party than your typical moderate.

In many cases, as Kevin has asserted, they would not consider their positions to be conservative, especially when George W. Bush is considered to be the current standard of what a, "conservative," is. And considering the reach of the Tancredo position across the political spectrum into not just the independent vote, but also into the Democratic and even minority community votes, that may be worth considering.

In any case, while official Washington and it's cocktail-party set are pushing the McCain position, Tancredo and Co. are gaining strength among working-class Americans. That's what all the immigration hearings were about this summer: attempting to push the debate (and the Senate) towards enforcement-first.

I've not been terribly happy with the GOP over the last few years. They've entirely abandoned fiscal restraint. But in THIS election House Republicans represent the last line of defense against an immigration compromise that would have the effect of being an amnesty. Additionally, I will support Arnold Schwartzennegger as the Gubernatorial candidate who will NOT sign the bill to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

So I'll be voting Republican this year. It's simply too important an issue to compromise.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 14, 2006 12:44 PM

If we're talking just statewide elections in California, I think it's probably fair to say that taking the hardline on immigration was critical (if not decisive) to Pete Wilson's comeback victory over Kathleen Brown in 1994. Prop 187 definitely appeared to help energize the voters that saved his re-election campaign, which was why Wilson tied himself so closely to the initiative (he had always been considered rather moderate on immigration, much like Reagan and Kemp-- Ron Unz was the Republican's conservative candidate, especially on immigration and cultural issues, but he couldn't even get out of the gate).

On the other hand, Dan Lungren-- who was generally considered more conservative than Pete, including on immigration-- got trounced by Grey Davis (I think, 57%-38%) in 1998. The next time around, convinced that the moderate Riordan was more of a threat than the conservative Bill Simon, the Davis campaign issued attack ads against Riordan in the Republican primary and ensured a Simon victory; Davis, despite being intensely unpopular, managed to fend off Simon by five points. And Arnold (a moderate, not a conservative, on immigration issues) coasted to victory the first time, and appears likely to defeat Angelides in two months. Not sure if any of those elections support your thesis-- Lungren and Schwarznegger because it contradicts you (the conservative didn't do as well as the moderate, and the moderate did win the stateside election), and Riordan/Simon because there were a lot of other issues in play.

Now don't get me wrong, I do think that immigration is a vote-winner for what historians used to call "nativist" and "populist"-style candidates (and they don't necessarily fit into the classic conservative/liberal paradigm, as Kemp and Reagan both demonstrate on one end, and say Barbara Jordan on the other). It just resonates so strongly with American citizens, even if the issue is much more complicated than demagogues who use the issue for political gain want to suggest. But I don't think you can definitively say "Republicans do better" when they are "conservative" on immigration reform, because the evidence doesn't always seem to support that-- at best, recent elections seem to indicate that Republicans can use immigration for electoral advantage, but that "moderate immigration" Republicans also win stateside offices (Schwarznegger, Bill Jones) and "liberal immigration" Democrats win stateside offices all the time. That seems to throw the entire correlation into question.

Posted by: Bobby at September 14, 2006 02:39 PM

I'll have to do some more research on Lungren because I wasn't in CA at the time, but as I recall Lungren actually ran away from the immigration hardline.

Obviously this issue doesn't break down into the traditional liberal and conservative camps. Schwarzennegger may not be a tancredo-type on immigration but he's certainly not in the McCain camp.

No Democrat or Republican ever takes the open borders position. Instead, they ALL make a point of emphasizing their toughness. So it doesn't really matter what the candidate's position is, they ALL portray themselves as tough. Neither Lungren nor Simon campaigned on this issue, but rather pandered to the Latino vote as if it was racist to get control of immigration or said nothing at all on the issue. Many candidates still do.

Finally, this issue isn't complicated at all. It's terribly simple. It's only defending the McCain position and misrepresenting Tom Tancredo that get tricky.

For instance, how many times do amnesty-opponents have to mention the word, "attrition." It's an idea the public supports. Getting tough on businesses for breaking immigration law. That's what attrition is. And yet the supporters of the Senate bill constantly portray, "enforcement-first," as a deportation policy. "What about the 12 million already in the country? What about the 12 million already in the country? It's unrealistic to deport them. It's unrealistic." repeated again and again as if THAT were the issue. We don't need to change the policy for those that are here until we deal with controlling the border. THEN, we can fight over what to do with the illegals.

It's simple: secure the border first. No regularization OR guest worker program for illegals. NONE. Because otherwise the powers- that-BE expedite guest worker and amnesty, while soft-pedaling the enforcement. This EXACTLY what happened last time with Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986. Those pushing the Senate proposal have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy and underhanded on this issue.

I'd also add that if you look at current polling, a majority of the American people want legal immigration reduced into this country. If that's the moderate position, then hurray for that. Whatever it is. I endorse it.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 14, 2006 05:26 PM

Yeah, look, we're in agreement on securing the border. Regardless of whether you want more or less immigration to this country or how you think we should go about resolving the illegal immigrants already in America, a non-secure border isn't and shouldn't be an option in a world when non-state actors have emerged as a leading threat to US security interests.

And I agree that there's a major smokescreen going on here. CNN recently featured the San Diego Union-Tribune's Ruben Navarrette in one of their online columns who had this to say about the two issues:

Anti-illegal immigration activists object to that, claiming that you can't preserve national security without border security and that the two policy areas are intrinsically linked.

I cringe when I hear that. It suggests that, five years after the September 11 attacks, we still have trouble with basic concepts, like distinguishing between terrorists and immigrants.

Allow me to assist. One group takes innocent lives and wants to come here to do us harm. The other risks their lives to get here to do the cooking, laundry and gardening. The first step to being more secure is knowing the difference.

But if anyone's demonstrating their ignorance here, it's Ruben. Certainly, the migrant workers who have crossed the borders for centuries aren't out to destroy America or to harm the American people-- but that doesn't mean terrorists can't exploit the presence of an open border to slip into the country with those immigrants. That is where the linkage is, but Navarrette doesn't get it (or doesn't want to get it).

But I'll have to disagree with you about immigration being terribly simple. I really don't think it is. In fact, I think it's a very complicated issue with lots of interchangeable parts and difficult complexities, but maybe that might just have to do with the fact that we see the world differently, more black-and-white versus more shades-of-grey.

Posted by: Bobby at September 14, 2006 07:08 PM

Link to the Ruben Navarrette article on CNN that I mentioned above.

Posted by: Bobby at September 14, 2006 07:10 PM

My sense is that this is the way it is in both AZ and NM where Democratic governors (Napolitano and Richardson, respectively) have talked tough as well.

"Talking tough" on immigration is a more nuanced position. To say that the borders are in "crisis" and then declare a state of emergency (and in essence saying "its not my problem, its the feds fault" isn't necessarily a tough stance.) To put a further point on it, the Republican controlled state legislature passed a bill that would have earmarked state dollars to improve border sercurity. Janet vetoed it because it wasn't "enough money". So zero dollars are better than some dollars in a "state of emergency"?

Now remember, I'm pro- immigration and I generally like Janet (I'll likely vote for her) but clearly she's responding to the public opinion polls regarding illegal immigration and not really "getting tough" on immigration.

Posted by: c3 at September 14, 2006 08:29 PM

"state legislature passed a bill that would have earmarked state dollars to improve border sercurity. Janet vetoed it because it wasn't "enough money". So zero dollars are better than some dollars in a "state of emergency"?"

"clearly she's responding to the public opinion polls regarding illegal immigration and not really "getting tough" on immigration."

Not sure I'm following you, c3. If she's putting up a smokescreen to sound tough but really interested in blocking better border enforcement, is she really responding to public opinion?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 15, 2006 01:26 PM

"I think it's a very complicated issue with lots of interchangeable parts and difficult complexities, but maybe that might just have to do with the fact that we see the world differently, more black-and-white versus more shades-of-grey."

Maybe, Bobby. What is your sense of what makes it complicated? We may have different goals. Mine is to allow immigration law to determine who is in the country and who isn't. Building a border fence and then penalizing businesses that employ illegals is sufficient, I think, to get the country moving back in the right direction.

Is it the politics that you find complicated? The practicality of the atrition policy?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 15, 2006 01:32 PM

Well, if your objective is as narrowly (though legitimately) drawn as yours ("allow immigration law to determine who is in the country and who isn't"), then it does become more simple for you. But I think there's still lots of questions left unanswered-- such as its its likely effect on the economy, including the effect of rising prices and rising wages in agricultural/constructinon industries and how that might impact our global competitiveness, what happens to those "left behind," and many other issues. It's true you don't have to consider those issues under a simple model, but in a more complex world, we know that the American economy has been fuelled in part by the application of cheap, illegal labor, and we shouldn't pretend like it would have no effect on us today. As a minimum, we should know what we're getting into.

But even your solutions have to be worked out in detail, and the devil is always in the details. At Ranger school, they teach an adage that "an obstacle not overwatched by observers and direct/indirect fire is not an obstacle." That's because enemy forces encounter the obstacle, breach it, and because no one was watching, it winds up having no practical effect and doesn't support your tactical objectives. The border is a very, very long one, and "coyotes" are going to find the gaps in our coverage and put holes in the wall (or dig underneath it) in order to get their clients through. Unless we have a couple of Border Patrol agents in observation posts every half-mile or so-- which makes the logistics rather challenging and means multiplying the force by a factor of about 2500 or so-- a conventional border fence just isn't likely to have much of an effect.

A better idea, I think, is the "virtual fence" being constructed in the Tucson zone (full disclosure: one of the lead operatives in this experiment is a longtime friend of mine). Here it's a combination of ground surveillance radar and seismic equipment that scans the ground to detect people or animals walking the ground, paired with unmanned aerial vehicles that scan from the air (the Predator can loiter for 30 hours and take pictures from 25,000 feet, when its targets don't even know it's there). Then you have a smaller footprint of Border Patrol agents in all-terrain ground vehicles (and perhaps in some cases, helicopters) who can be vectored onto any location identified by the electronic equipment. (And conventional fences would be used in certain high-traffic areas).

As for "penalizing businesses that employ illegals," isn't that what we do now? Presumably that isn't having the effect that you want it to have, probably because of the ease with which counterfeiters can produce false documents. So how would we go about doing that? I've heard lots of "solutions"-- such as a national employment database combined with national identification cards-- and while I'm not discounting them, I do think we have to think hard about the consequences to regular citizens when glitches emerge.

So I guess I just see the world with the complexity of a multi-order system, and I'm distrustful of people telling me that "it's really simple," all we have to do is X, Y, and Z, and there will be no negative consequences to go along with what we do. Life doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Bobby at September 15, 2006 02:23 PM

Cav;
Prior to Prop 200 in AZ. Gov. Napolitano wasn't particulary excited about border issues. When Prop. 200 passed (and with a significant number of Dems and hispanics voting for it) she had "do something". Other than speeches, the Governor's major action has been to declare a "state of emergency" on the border (theoretically to get more federal dollars) and essentially say there's a problem AND the federal government isn't doing enough about it. I assume the Governor thought this would be "tough enough".

Well some conservatives in the state legislature "called her bluff" by passing a bill earmarking some state funds for tighter border security. The Governor veoted it because it wasn't enough. Several pundits asked whether nothing from the state for increased border security was better than something.

Now again, I'm pretty laisse faire regarding this issue. It does still bother me when someone plays politics with the issue. (And I think Bill Richardson in NM is doing the same.)

Posted by: c3 at September 15, 2006 07:49 PM

"So I guess I just see the world with the complexity of a multi-order system, and I'm distrustful of people telling me that "it's really simple," all we have to do is X, Y, and Z, and there will be no negative consequences to go along with what we do. Life doesn't work that way."

That does seem to be a recurrent theme among people posting on this website. Like the world is just too fragile to do anything dramatic.
It's like they say, "you have to break some eggs to make an omelete." In any case, we aren't anywhere near having the 11 to 12 million illegals OUT of the country so, let's not, "put the cart before the horse."

I like what you mention, Bobby, about the virtual fence. I'm for what works, so if we have to combine a real fence along with a virtual one in some places harder to cross, I'd endorse that.

Anyway, the current environment is very interesting in that the political elites of both parties run counter to the feelings of the electorate. Apparently feelings are SO strong that anti-illegal immigration candidates won about 1/3rd of the Democratic primary vote in two congressional districts including Jane Harman's and one other Republican district, I don't remember which. And THAT's without much funding, I'm sure.

I don't need to get all that scientific about it: the immigration issue is important to the future of this country and there seem to be alot of people who have strong feelings about it. It could just be wishful thinking on my part, however, my sense is that immigration is going to take center-stage in a manner the GOP and Democrats are not prepared for.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 18, 2006 01:50 PM

Thanks for your comments, c3. I believe I concur with them.

The Democrats look to be in the process of placing Nevada in between Iowa and New Hampshire for 2008 in hopes of elevating someone to the nomination who energizes the Hispanic community.

I wonder, however, if this won't backfire. We've seen that the most vocal on the immigration issue tend to be the, "immigration rights," crowd, but I wonder if there just isn't a huge backlash vote waiting to emerge on this. And WHO would THEY support? Nevada could end up energizing the campaign of some Republican on the OTHER side of this issue.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 18, 2006 01:59 PM