While we're waiting for the Ewok to show up, give it a watch. more...

Posted by: andy at 09:57 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

I understand many of Drew's points, but let's not get sloppy about what's going on. Far from being previously unified, the Republican Party is coming face to face with internal fractures that have existed for some time.

Drew writes:

I think it's fair to say that the GOP is "forcing" immigration reform on the party. Now, you can show me polls saying Republicans support immigration reform and amnesty but that's not what they ran on. You can't claim to have a mandate after you pull a bait and switch.

Sen. Paul has always been libertarianish on immigration. Today's announcement is no bait-and-switch. His acknowledgment that there will be at a minimum a path to legalization (but, let's be serious, eventual citizenship) is merely recognition that immigration reform has come around once again to be the issue of the day. (See also: McCain, John.)

Note, the GOP coalition has always been fractured on this issue, with the business and fiscal cons urging immigration reform of exactly the flavor Paul -- and Sen. Rubio, for that matter -- are urging. Paul's statement that he doesn't support eVerify or any other mechanism to allow businesses to ascertain the work eligibility of applicants has been favored by business leaders for decades.

The RNC's acknowledgement of this reality in its autopsy report is recognition of electoral fact: voters do not want to deport millions of people. The only fight left is to figure out how to treat them since they're staying.

As for the party line on gay marriage, neither Priebus, nor the autopsy report, said Republicans who want to protect the traditional definition of marriage "have got to go."

Drew writes:

On same-sex marriage, Republicans who actually bother to vote in primaries and in most referendums have voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Yet now the party is saying, sorry, that's gotta go.

What Priebus said was that the party wouldn't kick out candidates who stray from that position. He also said the party wouldn't kick out those who believe they're defending marriage. The RNC's statement is inclusive, rather than exclusionary.

Sen. Paul's proposal to simply get government out of the marriage business was similar. And Sen. Rubio's resort to the federalism defense -- "let each state decide for itself" -- was like-minded recognition that the issue is killing us with young voters. An astonishing 81 percent of 18-29 year-olds support gay marriage. Even 51 percent of Republicans that age support gay marriage. Maybe a little inclusiveness won't hurt.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:46 AM | Comments (890)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

People have a tendency to think that things that have been around for awhile have always existed and will always exist. That's not true for anything, especially not politics.

After yesterday's release of the RNC's 2012 "autopsy" I think it's time to consider that the current GOP/center-right coalition no longer exists. On immigration and same-sex marriage the committee was essentially saying, the base of the GOP needs to move on to survive.

But who is going to agree to that and why would they?

Plenty of people will say that Romney was "forced on us" by "the establishment" and others reply "no he was elected by the party". I agree with the latter. But people in that camp need to remember, in order to win Romney had to move right (so did McCain before him) on immigration. Now the party is saying, tough we can't be there any more.

I think it's fair to say that the GOP is "forcing" immigration reform on the party. Now, you can show me polls saying Republicans support immigration reform and amnesty but that's not what they ran on. You can't claim to have a mandate after you pull a bait and switch.

On same-sex marriage, Republicans who actually bother to vote in primaries and in most referendums have voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Yet now the party is saying, sorry, that's gotta go.

Smaller government isn't even a unifying theme anymore. Look at the Huckabee/Santorum social-con wing of the party. They aren't for smaller government. Maybe those two will support less spending in some places but they clearly see a larger role for government in some areas of people's lives.

Rand Paul called for eliminating the Department of Education in his CPAC speech, while Marco Rubio talked about reforming how federal dollars are spent.

Paul and Rubio are also great stand-ins for the foreign policy debate the GOP is having.

And we can go on and on.

Obviously a big national party is never going to agree on everything, but what's the issue that gets 75-80% support? Tax cuts? Entitlement reform? Maybe but those aren't electoral winners. Gun rights is but that's an issue that crosses party lines. Opposition to ObamaCare? The House just passed a Continuing Resolution funding it.

Perhaps Jay Cost is right, Obama winning 51% of the vote isn't cause to throw everything out the window. Or maybe Romney and McCains 47-48% of the vote is the ceiling for the current GOP.

Where are the extra votes going to come from?

The "we need amnesty because Hispanics are "natural conservatives"" crowd at least have an idea. It's an idea not based in fact (it actually ignores the facts) but a bad plan will usually trump no plan.

The current GOP coalition hasn't always existed and new ones will come along.

Right now people think we can do addition by subtraction. They are willing to throw 'the other guys" overboard in hopes of bringing in new voters in greater numbers than we might lose. We need to find a way to add by adding.

It's time we accept that our problems require more than tinkering and do major surgery. If those of us opposed to amnesty don't come up with a better plan, it will happen and we'll be in even deeper trouble.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:57 AM | Comments (262)
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

Above-the-Post Update: Byron York asked Sen. Paul's office for clarification and it seems, the key difference for Paul's plan isn't on whether a path to citizenship will exist, but simply when it will. Paul's plan emphasizes that border security must come first and be annually certified by Congress.

I like the idea of securing the borders, since handing out benefits before the borders are secure simply incentivizes bad behavior. But, I'm not all that keen on a plan that requires an annual show-down in Congress.

Republicans should have learned from the last ten congressional show-downs with Democrats -- over things like the Bush tax cuts, the debt ceiling, the budget CRs -- that we never walk away from them having gained appreciably. More often Congressional and GOP favorability numbers plummet and the Democrats throw a big party because we almost always end up beclowning ourselves over a GOP wedge issue.

Note, Democrats aren't divided over immigration, just like they weren't divided over spending increases. But the GOP is divided on the issue. So actually programing in another annual occasion for the Democrats to hit the GOP on a wedge issue seems like a terrible idea to me.

Original Post:

Full text of the speech, as prepared, is below the fold. There is some discussion on whether Sen. Paul wants a path to legalization, a path to citizenship, and how these paths relate to his proposal for border security.

Sen. Paul's office is saying right now that Paul does not endorse a path to citizenship.

Some notable excerpts:

On outreach:

Republicans need to become parents of a new future with Latino voters or we will need to resign ourselves to permanent minority status.

The Republican Party has insisted for years that we stand for freedom and family values. I am most proud of my party when it stands for both.

On English language:

Republicans who criticize the use of two languages make a great mistake.

His plan:

The first part of my plan – border security – must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished.

[...]

My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work.

[...]

It would also enable us to let more people in and allow us to admit we are not going to deport the millions of people who are currently here illegally.

[...]

Conservatives, myself included, are wary of amnesty. My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line.

[...]

My plan will not impose a national ID card or mandatory E-Verify, forcing businesses to become policemen."

He's mum on whether, after having legalized by means of a visa, he proposes that the aliens in question be allowed to become lawful permanent residents and, eventually, naturalize like other LPRs. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:50 AM | Comments (238)
Post contains 2733 words, total size 17 kb.

Cue the sad trombone for poor Dianne Feinstein. When we last saw her, Ted Cruz was mercilessly beating her with a simple question that she could only respond to with emotional blather because logic and fact are lost on her. And now Harry Reid has delivered the most unkindest cut of all.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

6^th grade was a tough year for DiFi, but I'm sure liberal "journalists" will be there to console her.

Related: Magpul is set to pull up stakes from Colorado, Defense Distributed gets its FFL

Posted by: andy at 06:32 AM | Comments (304)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

• Rand Paul To Endorse Path To Citizenship Today
  
• Workers Saving Too Little For Retirement
  
• Colorado Sheriff Refuses To Enforce Gun Laws
  
• Two Girls Arrested For Threatening Ohio Rape Victim
  
• White House Refuses To Promise That Obama Will Cut Back On Lavish Vacations
  
• University Professor Goes Nuts
  
• Food Stamps For Illegals Survived The Sequester Chopping Block
  
• A History Lesson From Clarence Thomas
  
• VDH: Five Days Of Hope And Despair
  
• Beware Of The New Elites
  
• Iraqi's Celebrate 10 Year Anniversary Of The War The Only Way They Know How
  
• First They Came For The Cypriots
  
• China's Solar Companies Aren't Doing Any Better Than American Ones
  
• Magpul: If Hicknelooper Signs The Anti-Gun Bills, Then We're Leaving Colorado
  
• I've Read This Article Several Times And I Still Don't Understand What The Author Is Trying To Say
  
• Reaction From Philadelphia Mayor To That Article I Linked To Yesterday Is About What You'd Expect
  
• Hillary Hacker Outs Confidential Memos
  
• Bloomberg's Latest Nanny State Initiative Can Be Overturned Too
  
• How Is Chris Matthews Still On The Air
  
• RNC Strategy For African American Outreach
  
• Allahpundit's Review Of Last Weeks Walking Dead Episode Is Dead On
  

Thanks to David for the WSJ article.

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:01 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 206 words, total size 4 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

Sen. Paul will announce his plan on immigration today. Oh, excuse me, I was told yesterday that I have to use the term "illegal immigration" when I talk about this stuff because otherwise I'm letting my bias show. Well, anyway, Paul is signing on to the "pathway to citizenship" camp, though there's no indication he's part of the bipartisan reform talks currently taking place in D.C.

Jim Pethokoukis isn't that impressed with the GOP budget. But not for the reasons you might think.

California unemployment holds at 9.8 percent, the highest in America.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (370)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Math and Logic are Hard, Female Native-Americans Hardest Hit

Which is why MA Sen. Elizabeth 'Fauxcahontas' Warren wanted to know why the federal minimum wage isn't $22/hour. I'll leave it to the reader to identify the logic flaws embedded in her question.

Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions last week asked why the current federal minimum wage rate is only $7.25 and not $22 an hour.

"If we started in 1960, and we said that, as productivity goes up - that is, as workers are producing more - then the minimum wage is going to go up the same," the Massachusetts senator said during the hearing.

"And, if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So, my question is what happened to the other $14.75?" she asked University of Massachusetts professor of economics Arindrajit Dube.

Also hard: white man economics 101.

Instapundit: "They'll Be Coming For Hoarders and Wreckers Next"

If you have what the government wants and won't give it up, you're a hoarder. And if you're not on-board with the government's plans, you're a counter-revolutionary saboteur wrecker.

And now this: In Connecticut, a "Hoarder's Tax." "Rep. Betsy Ritter, a Waterford Democrat, not only has sponsored a "combined reporting" bill, but she has also proposed a hoarder's tax. This would place a levy on liquid assets - companies with a lot of money in the bank - and dedicate the proceeds to job creation programs."

And given the coming Great EU Bank Robbery in Cyprus be afraid when the Obama administration starts complaining about people and companies 'hoarding' money in bank accounts instead of 'investing' it in the economy.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:53 PM | Comments (626)
Post contains 1791 words, total size 16 kb.

For comparison: CNN is 55% news, 45% opinion, and FNC is 45% news and 55% opinion.

MSNBC is in its own class.

Posted by: Ace at 05:01 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

The single person who leaked the emails introduces himself (?), calling himself "Mr. FOIA," and explains his motivation.

I donÂ’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet itÂ’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.

ThatÂ’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didnÂ’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few wordsÂ…

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two werenÂ’t the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldnÂ’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newbornÂ’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We canÂ’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend itÂ’s not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, IÂ’d have to try. I couldnÂ’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

No game-changers yet found, though one email from one climate researchers notes his skepticism about Mann's methods:

2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann
et al did (I donÂ’t think we can say we didnÂ’t do Mann et al because
we think it is crap!)

This doesn't sound like "the Science is settled (TM)" to me.

In another exchange of emails, Michael Mann writes to a researcher asking him if the "rumor" is true that he's preparing a "non-hockey-stick" reconstruction of past climate -- that is, one that will re-acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period, which Mann had purported to read out of the climate record through his hockey stick.

There's nothing really incriminating there, but it is nice to see a climate researcher essentially tell Mann, "The Warm Period existed, no matter how inconvenient you may find it, and we have proof it existed. Deal with it."

(Though I do find it interesting that Mann asks about this "rumor," and when the researchers does him a favor and provides a long and thoughtful response, he responds:

Thanks for your message. IÂ’m forwarding this to Ray and Malcolm to reply to
some of your statements below, mike

I don't know. Seems to me a "look forward to reading it!" was in order, given the length of the thorough response.

But I sense Mann wasn't looking forward to it at all, but was instead peevish about the whole bother of scientists challenging each other's work. But perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (204)
Post contains 858 words, total size 6 kb.