Posted on June 18, 2013 by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration, Marco Rubio

The Gang that couldn’t talk straight

Yesterday, it was revealed that an aide to Sen. Rubio made the following statement to Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker:

There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.

How did Team Rubio respond to this report? The usual way – dishonestly.

A Rubio spokesman claimed that the Rubio aide “was describing some industries’ response to unions’ opposition to temporary workers — he was not describing Senator Rubio’s position, which is that American workers can compete with anyone, and we need these programs to fill labor shortages in specific industries like agriculture.”

Unfortunately for Team Rubio, Lizza has now released the text of the relevant passage from his interview. Here is how it reads:

RL: Well their argument [presumably the unions’] is, what, that they have American workers for these jobs, they don’t need this program.

Rubio Aide 1: Yeah. I mean, one of the problems you have with this, “Oh there’s American workers who are unemployed.” There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly because. . .

Rubio Aide 2: But the same is true for the high-skilled workers.

Rubio Aide 1: Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.

Clearly, Rubio’s aides weren’t talking about what “some industries” say. They were expressing Team Rubio’s view of the limits of American workers “across every sector, in government, in everything.”

The lack of candor exhibited by Sen. Rubio and his staff throughout the debate on his immigration reform legislation has been appalling.

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Democrats, House of Representatives, Minnesota

Tell Dems: Stop scamming voters

The Democrats of the (Democratic) House Majority PAC are out with a seemingly ubiquitous Internet ad that blares:

DON’T LET STUDENT LOAN RATES SKYROCKET!

TELL REP. KLINE: STOP SCAMMING STUDENTS!

Usage note: “Ubiquitous” is an adjective that does not admit of comparison. It means present everywhere at once. Something is not “very” ubiquitous, or “relatively” ubiquitous. In this context, when I use the adjective, I am describing a stupid left-wing ad that appears even on Power Line (where I found the ad whose text I typed above) and other conservative sites.

What’s happening here? The Democrats of the (Democratic) House Majority PAC attacking Rep. Kline have a a big staff and a lot of money to spend. Turning to their site, I find that they have announced: With Bachmann out, Democrats target Kline’s seat. Ah, so that’s what’s happening here.

Both John Hinderaker and I live in Minnesota’s Second District, in which John Kline represents us in Congress. We’ve known John for a long time. We also consider him a friend. We think highly of him.

I’m sure I’m overlooking somebody, but offhand I can’t think of a Democratic congressman who’s fit to shine John’s shoes. He is, I think it can be said, a solid guy. During his long and distinguished service in the Marine Corps, John served as a helicopter pilot and earned the responsibility of flying Marine One. He also served as a personal military aide to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

In Congress John serves as Chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Now why would he want student loan rates to skyrocket? According to the Democrats of the (Democratic) House Majority PAC, John wants the interest rates on student loans to more than double! (exclamation point in original, of course).

The Democrats of the (Democratic) House Majority PAC to the contrary notwithstanding, I’m quite sure he doesn’t. Looking around online, I find that John recently explained his proposal on student loans in a column for the Rochester Post-Bulletin. The New York Times covered the introduction of John’s bill in the article “Bills would prevent rise in student loan rates.” John has posted a subsequent interview here. Please check them out if you have any interest in the issue.

Apart from the merits of the issue, we can learn a few things of interest from the Democrats’ attack on John Kline. Democrats don’t think too highly of the low information voters who make up much of their base. They believe the voters to be highly susceptible to inherently implausible claims of the Big Lie variety through constant repetition.

The Democrats of the (Democratic) House Majority PAC need a cartoon villain to raise money from their target audience. The withdrawal of Michele Bachmann from the field of available villains has set the Dems back on their heels. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the target in this case would know that the villainy attributed to John is entirely a projection.

John Kline is not a good target for Democrats to take out in 2014. If this is the best they can do, Republicans shouldn’t be in for too rough a ride holding their majority in the House. John defeated his Democratic opponent in 2012, a strong Democratic year in Minnesota, by 8 points. John is highly likely to do better than that in an off-year election. The Democrats of the (Democratic) House Majority PAC are whistling in the wind on this one.

Democrats of the ilk of the (Democratic) House Majority PAC feel free to lie with utter impunity. They know they will never be called on their lies by anyone who counts in their world.

Posted on June 17, 2013 by John Hinderaker in Beauty pageants, Media Bias, Obama administration

Miss Utah vs. Barack Obama and Jay Carney

The Miss USA pageant was last night; it was won by Erin Brady, Miss Connecticut:

There is an interesting trend toward the Northeast in Miss USA, as last year’s winner (and this year’s Miss Universe) was Olivia Culpo, Miss Rhode Island. But today’s news about the pageant focused less on Miss Brady than on Marissa Powell, Miss Utah. Miss Powell was the third runner-up, but she was deemed to have said something stupid during the question session. The New York Post’s account is typical:

Marissa Powell, a 21-year-old Salt Lake City native, strutted across the stage in a sequin-lined dress Sunday, drawing a question from panelist NeNe Leakes.

“A recent report shows that in 40 percent of American families with children, women are the primary earners, yet they continue to earn less than men. What does it say about society?”

Let’s pause there for a moment. This statistic, which has been widely misunderstood, simply reflects the fact that an enormous number of households are not headed by a husband and wife, but rather by an unmarried mother. Those households, as we all know, are likely to be poor, in part because single mothers are mostly uneducated and low-skilled, and in part because it is hard to make a lot of money while having sole responsibility for children. I’m not sure that this tells us anything about “society,” except that it has an extraordinary tolerance for illegitimacy. No wonder Miss Utah was stumped!

She defaulted to that old chestnut, education:

Powell nodded along, pondering her response.

She considered the right words. She paused.

Then she opened her mouth.

“I think we can relate this back to education, and how we are continuing to try to strive … to … [Think! Think! She smiles, caught on some meandering, tangential wavelength] … figure out how to create jobs right now. That is the biggest problem right now.

“I think, especially the men are … um … seen as the leaders of this, and so we need to see how to … create education better. So that we can solve this problem. Thank you.”

Creating education better … wha?!?

So, OK, Miss Utah’s answer was not her finest moment. But here’s my complaint: Miss Utah is a 21-year-old beauty contestant. Yet her answer to the question about female-headed homes was subjected to more criticism, and more searching scrutiny, than anything that has been said by Barack Obama or Jay Carney in press conferences over the last four years. And let’s not kid ourselves: Powell’s answer at least equalled the coherence of the average pronouncement from Jay Carney when he gives press briefings, or President Obama when he tries to wing it without his teleprompter. Or Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, any time they step in front of the cameras.

So, hey, should we be tough on beauty pageant contestants? Sure. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a press that scrutinizes the President of the United States and his principal spokesman with as much energy as it does the third runner-up in the Miss USA pageant?

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration

The immigration reform endgame

Earlier today, I discussed a way in which the House leadership could bring a comprehensive, amnesty-style immigration reform bill up for a vote without clearly violating the Hastert Rule (under which only legislation supported by half of the Republican caucus comes to a vote). The House leadership could accomplish this, I speculated, if the House passes its own, significantly different immigration reform measure and then, in conference, accedes to a legislation similar to that passed by the Senate.

In this scenario, the leadership would likely grant an up-or-down vote on the theory that the legislation deserves one now that the process has reached this late stage. The Senate-style bill would then pass the House with a few dozen Republican votes.

But wouldn’t Senate Dems have to make some concessions in conference? The answer, I think, is yes. So the question becomes, what kind of concessions.

Sen. Cornyn provided a clue in his exchange of tweets with Mickey Kaus. Cornyn told Kaus, “conference with House is endgame. Otherwise we are stuck on status quo.”

Cornyn’s objective is to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation, but to modify Schumer-Rubio to require a “90 percent apprehension rate” at the Southern border before legalized illegals can obtain green cards. He proposed such an amendment.

This wasn’t much of an “ask” by Cornyn. The 90 percent apprehension rate requirement is easily manipulated (no one really knows at what rate illegal aliens are being apprehended). Moreover, under Cornyn’s amendment illegal aliens become “legal” before the apprehension rate requirement takes effect.

Nonetheless, Cornyn’s amendment was a non-starter in the Senate. Harry Reid went so far as to call it a poison pill.

This is where Cornyn’s endgame kicks in. He understands (as do Reid, Schumer, Rubio, etc.) that the House is likely to pass something but unlikely to pass Schumer-Rubio as currently constituted. Thus, a conference compromise will become the order of the day.

At this point, I suspect, Cornyn’s approach will reemerge. It’s not much of an “ask,” so the Democrats might well agree to it. And because they have denounced the approach so thoroughly, it will look like they are making a major concession.

Thus, Republican negotiators will be able to declare victory of a sort, and agree to the legalization of illegal aliens before any border enforcement requirements (other than the submission of a plan) have been satisfied. In addition, the House leadership will have enough cover to proceed to an up-or-down vote, and a few dozen House Republicans will have the cover they need to vote “up.”

This scenario may not just be Cornyn’s endgame. It may be the endgame of (1) Harry Reid and the Gang of Eight and (2) the House Republican leadership.

In any case, I suspect that these two sets of actors regard it as an acceptable outcome. But most conservatives will not.

Posted on by Steven Hayward in Culture, Television

Another Totally Frivolous Pop Culture Post

So a week or so ago on my post on “Jay Leno For President,” I noticed that frequent Power Line commenter David Hill’s FB identification reads: “Works at Veridian Dynamics.”  No way!  This is almost as good as spotting the Fred Hirsch Social Limits to Growth reference on The Big Bang Theory.  Better Off Ted (the home of Veridian Dynamics) was one of my favorite short-lived shows (not as short-lived as Firefly, grump, grump), partly for its straight up satire of conglomerates like GE, as shown in this first 30-second video of their riff on the environment (sorry for the poor quality—it’s the only version out there on YouTube):

But there was also the fact that the show’s lead, Jay Harrington, was a doppelganger for my then boss, Arthur Brooks of AEI, including even their voices.  If I ever get round to writing a sitcom about Washington think tanks, Harrington will obviously have to play Brooks.  Check out 30 seconds of Harrington (“Ted”) in this promo video, and then check out Arthur Brooks, and you’ll see what I mean:

But wait!  There’s more.  Hill said I was the first person ever to notice his Better Off Ted reference.  But then another commenter, Philip Goerling, upped the game with a much more obscure pop culture reference, saying he’d thought about seeking a job at Yoyodyne Propulsion.  Now, you have to get up pretty early in the morning to sneak a Buckaroo Bonzai reference past me.  If you want to know how early in the morning, check out the green bumper sticker on my Volkswagen Eurovan:

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Iran, Obama Foreign Policy

Understanding Iran’s election

It really shouldn’t be difficult to understand Iran’s presidential election, assuming you pay attention to such things. If you get your news from the mainstream media, however, it might be close to impossible to understand it. As Paul demonstrates, going a little bit out of your way online you can quickly find just about everything you need to know about the election and the winner, one Hassan Rouhani. Take, for example, Avi Isacharoff’s “The regime wanted him to win.”

Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Leader remains the Supreme Leader. A Western diplomat who spoke to AFP described the list of presidential candidates as “not in shades of grey, but all black” and emphasized that “all candidates with a chance of winning are either related to the leader or to the security apparatus.”

A friend points out that Rouhani carries into office credentials stretching back to the Iranian revolution. He was an early follower of Ayotollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He joined Khomeini in exile in Paris and followed him into Iran. He subsequently moved through Iran’s political system. He was Iran’s top nuclear negotiator with the EU3 – Britain, France, and Germany – and his boasts of having prolonged those negotiations while Iran expanded its nuclear program became a key point of contention during the election.

The new man has his uses. He can make utterly meaningless noises that can be construed by the mental midgets of the Obama administration as “a potentially hopeful sign.”

You can take a good guess whom Prime Minister Netanyahu had in mind with his slightly more guarded reaction: “Regarding the elections in Iran, we do not delude ourselves,” Netanyahu said yesterday. “The international community must not be caught up in wishful thinking and be tempted to relax the pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program.”

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in Barack Obama, Poll

Obama’s approval rating plummets

President Obama’s approval rating is down to 45 percent, according to a CNN/ORC poll of 1,014 adult Americans. 54 percent disapprove of his job performance.

A month ago, the same pollsters found that 53 percent approved of the Obama presidency while 45 percent disapproved. Thus, his numbers have, in essence, flipped — a turnaround of 8 points if one focuses on the “approval” side.

Although the decline in Obama’s approval applies pretty much across-the-board — to the economy, foreign affairs, terrorism, the deficit, illegal immigration (where he is down 40-56) — the reversal is probably best explained by the accumulation of scandals that have emerged in recent months. The number of Americans who think Obama is honest has dropped 9 points over the past month, to 49%.

As for the NSA revelations, the picture is mixed. Only 35 percent approve of the way Obama is handling “government surveillance of U.S. citizens,” compared to 61 percent who disapprove. But 51 percent say he was “right” in “gathering and analyzing information on the phone calls of most Americans in an attempt to locate suspected terrorists.” Forty-eight percent say he was “wrong” to do this.

The concept, it appears, is considered less offensive than its execution by this president. President Bush fared somewhat better on both of these questions when they were asked in mid-2006. Miss him yet?

Obama’s most dramatic loss of approval has occurred among adults under the age of 30. He experienced a jaw-dropping 17 point decline among this cohort in just one month.

I bet the decline was even steeper among those recent Ohio State grads whom he urged to trust the government.

Young voters tend to be volatile voters. They also seem to have a libertarian streak. And, of course, they are only just beginning to encounter the real world in which they hope to thrive during the coming, challenging decades.

These Millennials are the answer to the following question that so preoccupies the Republican establishment these days: how can the Republicans ever win the presidency again without increasing their appeal to Hispanics?