Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
April 28, 2010
In This Issue . . .
1. The Kindler, Gentler Arguments Against Arizona's New Law
2. Could 2010 Make 1994 Pale in Comparison?
3. Talk Down the Economy? I Can't Even Talk My Toddler Out of the Bathtub
4. Addenda
Jim
1. The Kindler, Gentler Arguments Against Arizona's New Law
A few Republicans have come out doubting whether Arizona's tough new immigration law is a good idea.
Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio: "From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don't believe Arizona's policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion,' are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile."
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush: "'I think it creates unintended consequences,' he said in a telephone interview with Politico Tuesday. 'It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well.'"
Karl Rove: "'I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,' he said to the standing-room-only crowd at the Colony Cottage Recreation Center. 'I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way.' Still, Rove . . . objected to comments by critics including President Barack Obama that the law will lead to problems such as racial profiling by police. 'These are modern police forces that respect the rights of people in their communities,' Rove said. 'They're going to do it on the basis of reasonable suspicion that these people are here illegally, like they're driving a car with a Mexican license plate or they can't speak English or they don't have a drivers license.'"
Note the tone of all of these criticisms; there's no accusations of hateful motives, no demonization of the proponents; no public-art demonstrations using pinto beans in the form of historically infamous symbols. These guys just lay out their concerns that turning this law from words on paper to government action could take us places we don't want to go. Why, it's almost as if they actually want supporters of the new law to hear them out!
I wish the Arizona immigration law wasn't necessary. This has been a maddening issue for Americans, where a fairly basic desire of the public -- "Control who goes in and out of our country, let the good folks enter and keep the bad guys out" -- has been routinely ignored. Decades of little or no border control created serious, divisive tensions in communities far from our borders (here are fascinating cases from Hilton Head, S.C., and Northern Virginia). Not even 9/11 triggered much serious improvement in border security, and from the middle of the past decade to today, the governing class has tried to argue that some form of amnesty is necessary, with a bone or two being thrown to enforcement via "virtual fences." (Now we're told -- surprise! -- the virtual fence isn't working.) Only the open-borders absolutists can begrudge Arizona for trying to get dramatically different results from a dramatically different approach. Maybe it won't work, or will create new problems, but the state's voters have made clear that the status quo is untenable.
A lot of how this law works out will depend on the good judgment of the Grand Canyon state's law enforcement. But then again, that applies to every law. One bad cop, and all of the current temper tantrums comparing this to Nazi Germany will look less unhinged and more genuinely prescient.
On the other hand, cops already work with the knowledge that one confirmed case of racial profiling will ruin their career, cast suspicion on every officer in a department, and potentially cost that jurisdiction a small fortune in legal fees and damages. It's a safe bet that no officer in the entire state wants to be known as the next Mark Fuhrman.
Of course, I suppose cops could ask someone for proof that they have health insurance first, and then ask if they're in the country legally.
2. Could 2010 Make 1994 Pale in Comparison?
Pardon the painful imagery in this tweet from smart rightie tech guy and strategist Patrick Ruffini: "I think we need a full rectal examination of all seats off the normal target lists because I think it is going to be that kind of year."
I presume this is triggered by Gallup's finding that "those who say they are 'very enthusiastic about voting' this year show a strong preference for the Republican Party" to the tune of 57 percent to 37 percent. That's not just a better environment for Republicans than 1994; it's way better.
At Red State, Moe Lane breaks down the numbers and concludes, "The Democrats' problem is not that the youth vote is less enthusiastic about voting against Republican candidates: it's that their support from voters between 30 and 64 has apparently taken similar nosedives. And that over-65 voters appear even more ready to vote Republican this go-round."
Or maybe it's by the memo from Carville's firm declaring: "Health care's passage did not produce even a point rise in the president's approval rating or affection for the Democratic Congress. Virtually every key tracking measure in April's poll has remained unchanged, including the Democrats' continued weakness on handling of the economy." I concluded that the Democrats convinced themselves that they would get a bounce from passing Obamacare because they simply couldn't face the alternative.
So what long-shot seats would I be adding to Ruffini's target list? Well, this is the sort of thing that lengthy Campaign Spot posts are made of, but off the top of my head, I'd start with the Democrats who have represented Republican-leaning districts forever, like Chet Edwards in Texas, Jim Matheson in Utah, and Gene Taylor and Travis Childers in Mississippi. Then I'd wonder about either or both Democrats representing Maine, the open-seat race for Patrick Kennedy's seat in Rhode Island. Of course, after the special elections in Hawaii and in Murtha's old district in Pennsylvania, we'll have more empirical evidence of just how big a year this can be for the GOP.
3. Talk Down the Economy? I Can't Even Talk My Toddler Out of the Bathtub
The Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, showcases my video on signs of a lingering recession around my neck of the woods in Alexandria, Va., and shares my thought that it "might be kind of interesting if everyone started posting pictures and videos of the businesses that have closed down and that are still empty, along with the empty Saturn dealerships, etc., the more we get 'things are getting better!' rhetoric from the Obama administration."
Reader Eric Soskin offers a respectful dissent: "It's a terrible idea. You guys have a wide readership, and the last thing that people left unemployed by the combination of the business cycle, misguided policies, and excessive government need is for you to start talking the economy down, thereby encouraging your readers to stop going out to dinner, stop getting haircuts, stop downloading creative new iApps, etc."
Eric expresses a reasonable concern, although I think he vastly overstates my and even Glenn's ability to alter readers' behavior. In fact, I think "talking the economy down" is as ephemeral and hard to achieve as "talking the economy up," unless your name is Ben Bernanke. A strong case can be made that the sudden downturn in the economy in 2008 persuaded a lot of wavering voters to decide, "Okay, I've had it with Bush, this Obama guy seems smart, let's give him a shot." Since taking office, Obama and his team have been misjudging the economy and offering "recovery is just around the corner!" sunshine on a regular basis. I'd contend that not only do they not know what's just around the corner, but they don't even have that good a handle on what's going on now. (Did you know Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur called the recent testimony of Tim Geithner, Christina Romer, and Peter Orszag. "dismaying and out of touch"?)
I don't really know what our economic future holds, but the smart folks I read, coupled with the little bits of data I see every day, suggest that we're probably in for a modest, slow, sluggish recovery. Gas prices are inching up. Businesses are still dealing with the "uncertainty tax" about what they'll be paying for energy if cap and tax is ever passed, and how bad any additional tax increases from Obama will be. The financial, real-estate, media, auto-manufacturing (heck, most manufacturing), and construction sectors have all been walloped simultaneously, with few other non-government sectors capable of picking up the slack.
4. Addenda
Not to pick fights with one of those other usually good conservative magazines, but I've been wondering whether the quotes from anonymous sources that appear in The American Spectator's Prowler column were a little too good to be true since, oh, 2004. I know how tough it is to get Democratic sources to talk to conservative publications ("Hi, this is Jim Geraghty with National Review and . . . hello? Hello?") and yet, one disgruntled Democrat after another apparently picks up the phone and trashes their bosses to AmSpec's Prowler in vivid and colorful terms that confirm every conservative's worst suspicions. So I'm less than shocked that Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is categorically denying the latest jaw-dropping allegation from the Prowler: that his office sat on a report saying that the health-care bill would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, until after the bill passed.
Putting faith in a Prowler report requires caution and assessment of risk, much like handling flammable materials, or giving up three draft picks to get Tim Tebow. |
