The Texicans

The last time immigrants swarmed into Texas and then demanded their rights, they won.

Bush just wants ta have fun?

As described in this report in yesterday's New York Times, President Bush has embarked upon a charm offensive directed at the White House press corps. Tim Grieve, writing for Salon, has a great piece on it, as does Joe Strupp, in Editor & Publisher.

I'm proud of the New York Times for passing on such a rare opportunity to schmooze with the chief:

Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief for The Times, said in a statement last night: "The Times has declined this opportunity after weighing the potential benefits to our readers against the prospect of withholding information from them about the discussion with Mr. Bush. As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials."

Reporter-guests are not allowed to describe their visit to the residence to the rest of us, so be sure to wear your sunglasses and turn up the spin detector when you take in the news now.

Why Bush went to war in Iraq

Helen Thomas asked just the right question:

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it? Link.

Since then, in discussions about the latest-revealed memo on the subject, written by David Manning, Tony Blair's top foreign policy adviser, pundits and experts have taken various stabs at providing an answer, but no answer has been found. In the process, the war in Iraq has been blamed on Cheney's influence, on "the neocons," on Bush's desire for Armageddon -- you name it.

But they are all wrong. It was Karl Rove's war.

I haven't a doubt in the world that Rove made a calculation that 9/11 gave them the opportunity to lock in the Bush administration for a full two terms, because it is axiomatic (and there's no doubt he knows) that Americans will not change Presidents in a time of war.

There is plenty of evidence to support my contention: Remember Andy Card's saying "you don't bring out a new product in August"? Remember how quickly Bush got his tax cuts right after 9/11? Remember the found computer CD with PowerPoint details for running the next campaign around the war? And of course, how many times have we been reminded that Bush is a "war president"?

Cynical sacrifice of our young troops for political gain? You tell me. I think Helen Thomas knows it, too.

Illegal immigration = unemployment?

Underlying the push for legalizing, one way or another, undocumented workers has always been the claim that “Americans won’t do those jobs.” If you can convince me, I might support a “guest worker” or “temporary green card” solution, or even the proposal to allow some people to earn legal status and/or entry onto the path toward citizenship.

But to do that, two things must be done: First, Congress must create a meaningful minimum wage that will apply across the board, from strawberry pickers to kitchen help (and I will gladly pay more for berries and meals if that happens), and then enforce existing laws against hiring undocumented workers — and let’s just see what happens to our economy then!

Anyone paying attention knows that there are many, many unemployed in America; some are unskilled, others have been laid off and their skills are no longer sought after in their local economies. Not to mention the hundreds of Gulf Coast residents uprooted from home and work by Katrina! These people cannot live on wages of $3 or $5 an hour, so yes, they won't take the jobs that undocumented workers seem happy to have.

However, enforcing existing laws isn't that simple anymore, because of the problems of determining whether someone is legal, since it is so easy to counterfeit documents; it might even come down to national identity cards. I personally have no problem with making biometric national identity cards available to all citizens or legal residents wishing to apply for them (as opposed to making them mandatory or having to produce them on demand to just anyone who asks). After all, we already have to provide driver’s licenses to board flights or receive medical treatment (or to drink in Waxahachie!).

Where I differ with those opposed to the concept of a national ID card is that while it would be undisputed evidence of identity, I propose that carrying it would be absolutely voluntary.

I came to this conclusion after finally conceding that my social security number has become that de facto, rendering almost meaningless the argument against it. And the argument for becomes more compelling not only because it could document the right to work in the US, but also to make access to public transportation easier and more secure.

Finally, an exit strategy!

You heard it here first: Pretty soon President Bush will tell the Iraqis, "OK, we have to go now, sorry; Iran has become a real gathering threat and we're gonna need all of our troops to deal with that!"

Assessing the politics of censure

Too many folks are spending too much time worrying about whether it would be good or bad politics for this or that player to support/oppose Sen. Feingold's censure motion. Ad nauseum, until we stand to forget what we were originally talking about: Bush breaking the law.

How about "sometimes a censure motion is just a censure motion"?

How about giving due consideration to (a) Did the President break the law? (b) If so, should he be informed of Congressional (i.e., the people’s) displeasure, if indeed it exists? and (c) Should he be served notice that he’d best not do it again?

If the answer to all three questions is Yes, then certainly censure is the very least that should happen.

Takin' it easy . . .

Bush's message: a little late

I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.

Obviously, Bush wasn't referring to his decision to occupy Iraq . . .

More bad news

Headline in today's NYTimes:

Wall St. Cheers Phone Deal; AT&T to Cut 10,000 More Jobs

Guess we know whose side Wall Street is on . . .

Ralph Reed: Stinky-poo!

All these years Southern Christian Conservatives may have been downwind from the source, but they naturally assumed it was just "something dead" in the neighborhood.

Ralph Reed, former poster boy for the Christian Coalition, has "just learned" that he worked with Jack Abramoff on behalf of gambling interests. Uh-oh.

First the money was sent by eLottery to Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist, who knew both Reed and Abramoff from their days as college Republicans.

Norquist then wrote a check for $150,000 to a group called Faith and Family Alliance of Virginia Beach. Faith and Family Alliance wrote a check for the same amount to Reed's Century Strategies.

And you know, of course, that he is running for Lt. Governor in Georgia . . .