The best technology is the one you don't think of as technology? Jim Manzi thinks so:

What’s so funny about this is that CFL proponents (or more precisely, proponents of laws that would make it illegal for you to use incandescent bulbs in your house) often refer to “inefficient incandescent technology that has barely changed since the invention of the tungsten filament nearly a century ago.” This profoundly misunderstands technology. The best technologies last hundreds or thousands of years, and become so much a part of the built environment that we don’t even think of them as technologies anymore: books, stone houses, woven shirts, fire. The fact that incandescent bulbs have lasted as long as they have and that a law is required to make people give them up probably indicates that it is a great technology.

Romney's out? It seems like a sudden decision.
UPDATE: The text of Romney's speech withdrawing him from the race. He says he's withdrawing for the sake of party unity and to ward off a potential Obama/Clinton presidency:

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox claims that most "illegal immigrants" from Mexico have no interest in becoming US citizens:

Fox said most illegal immigrants from Mexico don't want to become U.S. citizens and plan to return to their homeland someday because "they like better tacos, tortillas and chilies than hot dogs or hamburgers." He thinks a temporary guest worker program would solve many problems.

John McCain's "Hispanic Outreach Director" Juan Hernandez (a former adviser to Fox) has also said that immigrants to the US from Mexico should not/will not "assimilate."

Mark Krikorian has four questions for John McCain on immigration.

Do-over? Howard Dean seems to be pushing for Florida and Michigan to have another Democratic primary vote; the delegates from these states, which were both won by Clinton, currently are not supposed to be seated at the national convention because the primaries were held too early based on DNC rules.

Jim Geraghty has a breakdown of the upcoming GOP February primary votes and their various policies.

One law for all a nation's citizens? The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't think that's such a good idea:

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

Some wonder if such a divided legal system might ultimately widen cultural rifts in the UK.

The Bush administration plans to reform part of the agricultural "guest worker" program to make it easier for foreign workers to come to the US:

The proposed changes to the program, which would relax the requirements for the H-2A visas granted to foreign farmworkers, come against a backdrop of growing anger over illegal immigration and tension among the presidential candidates over the issue.

The new regulations could be a boon to growers, who have long complained that the program is too cumbersome and leaves them little choice but to turn to illegal immigrants.

The simplified rules are certain to generate outrage among anti-immigration activists, who say the program steals jobs from Americans. At the same time, advocates for farmworkers charge that under the new rules, growers could exploit workers by paying them less than they do now.

The proposed changes, which would take effect after a 45-day period of public comment, would modify how foreign laborers are paid and housed, and slightly expand the types of industries that can use the program. The administration would also ease the standards farmers must now meet to show they have tried to hire U.S. citizens first.

Romney sounds like he's not giving up yet.

After Super Tuesday: A Lot of Little Races: Or, Is a Brokered Republican Convention Still Possible?

Some are predicting a brokered GOP convention. Some are saying McCain's guaranteed a win. Who's right? Who knows? I sure don't, but here's one possible route to a brokered convention (Note: Possible does not mean probable):

While it may be very hard, if not impossible, for Romney or Huckabee to get an absolute majority of delegates before the convention, it is also possible, in a three-man race, that McCain may still not get an absolute majority, either. McCain’s people are claiming 775 delegates (of the 1191 needed for a majority) and say that 963 are left outstanding. McCain needs to win over 400 (around 40%) of those remaining delegates to get a majority. Has the deal been sealed? Not necessarily.

While, at this point, it seems likely that McCain will win the Republican nomination, particularly with a possible McCain-Huckabee alliance, it is also possible that Huckabee and Romney could together prevent McCain from getting an absolute majority. To do so, they will (combined) need to win nearly 60% of the oustanding delegates.

Virginia with 63 delegates is the only remaining sizable winner-take-all primary state. The rest are some variant on proportional-voting primary systems and caucuses. Louisiana (47d) and Kansas (39d) are both closed primary votes and both include conventions as part of their delegate-selection process; LA also has a proportional primary vote. These caucus states might be in Romney’s favor since he seems to run stronger in caucuses. McCain's present numbers rely heavily on winner-take-all states. The proportional open states cut into the ability of Romney and Huckabee to rack up big numbers, but they also cut into McCain's ability to get big boosts, too. McCain seems very likely to get a number of votes and delegates from those states where all delegates are assigned proportionately, but Romney and Huckabee are likely to score some delegates there, too.

Where could be the real turning point for a hard-fought campaign? Those states following a winner-take-all by Congressional district method of delegate allocation. What right now might be Romney/Huckabee’s best strategy to deny McCain a majority of delegates in those states: to run less a general state-wide campaign and more a number of little congressional campaigns. A number of the upcoming states are winner-take-all by Congressional district: Ohio (88 delegates–March 5), Maryland (37 delegates–Feb. 9), and Wisconsin (40 delegates–Feb. 19). Mississippi (33 delegates–March 10) also relies upon Congressional districts for assigning some delegates. Winner-take-all by Congressional district can lead to candidates with a broad but diffused level of popular support from gaining delegates. For example, McCain won California 42-34, but it looks like he might get 160 delegates to Romney's 10 due to CA's winner-take-all by Congressional district. Numerically close races statewide need not lead to close delegate counters under winner-take-all by CD. If Romney and Huckabee sufficiently concentrate their efforts, they could cut into McCain's delegate counts in these states.

Texas, the biggest outstanding R state, with 140 delegates at stake, has a complicated method of vote distribution. It all depends on if any candidate receives a majority in each Congressional district or statewide:

Each congressional district elects three delegates, for a total of 96.
--If one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in a congressional district, that candidate wins all three delegates.
--If no candidate wins 50% of the vote, but two candidates win 20% or more of the vote, the candidate with the higher vote total wins two delegates and the candidate with the lower vote total wins one delegate.
--If one candidate wins 20% or more of the vote but less than 50%, and no other candidate wins 20% of the vote, the candidate with more than 20% of the vote wins all three delegates.
--If no candidate receives more than 20% of the vote, then the top three vote-getters receive 1 delegate each.

Forty-one delegates are elected statewide, making a cumulative total of 137.
--If one candidate wins a majority of the votes statewide, that candidate gets all 41 delegates.
--If no candidate wins a majority of the vote, but at least one candidate receives 20% or more of the vote, the delegates are awarded proportionately among the candidates receiving 20% or more of the vote.
--If no candidate receives 20% of the vote, all 41 delegates are rewarded proportionately.

50% and 20% are major thresholds for Texas. Congressional-district campaigning could be especially salient there.

McCain’s relying on open primaries as a way of helping him power past Romney. But will Democrats vote Republican when they have their own hard-fought election? Could Romney’s/Huckabee’s dropping out help Obama? A non-contested GOP primary might free up more independents, who often seem to favor Obama. With open primaries, could some of the GOP switch to vote for Clinton?

It’s hard to predict many of these states because there doesn’t seem to be, according to RCP, any recent polling for most of them. Absent any knowledge of public opinion, it’s hard to tell if this district-based strategy could even work. Still, it seems as though it might be structurally possible for Romney/Huckabee to deny McCain a majority of convention delegates.

There's another question: what would a brokered convention ultimately mean? McCain and Huckabee seem to have an alliance, so Huckabee could just throw his delegates to McCain in exchange for a VP nod.

But, if it did come to a brokered convention for the Republicans, things could become very uncertain. Different states have different rules for how bound delegates are to their candidates. Arizona, for example, does not seem to bind its delegates; Texas's delegates are bound for 3 ballots. This site seems to have a reliable breakdown of delegate rules for each state.

This has been a pretty topsy-turvy election cycle so far--why should the fun end now?

(All delegate counts for this post are based on Real Clear Politics's count. Primary allocation rules are based on this helpful index.)

Mickey Kaus wonders how much present "campaign finance reforms" favor large corporations over grass-roots political organizations:

American Apparel, giant L.A.-based maker of mostly crappy t-shirts, has apparently sent an email to its employees urging them to vote for McCain or Obama because Hillary has shown an insufficient "committment" to immigrant legalization ... P.S.: You mean a huge, rich company can send an email urging its captive audience of workers to vote for Obama, but if I spend $1,001 starting a Web site or handing out leaflets on the street for the same purpose I have to pay a lawyer to register with the federal government as a "political committee"?

Strategy question: Numbers USA is urging its members to vote in certain states for Mike Huckabee in order to stop John McCain. But there does seem to be some hint of an anti-Romney McCain-Huckabee alliance, so does it really make sense (from their perspective) for their strategy to support Huckabee--particularly in states where Romney's pretty close to McCain/Huckabee? Like Tennessee or Missouri...
A stronger showing on Super Tuesday could give Huckabee more of a motivation to stay in, and, if Romney decides to keep fighting for the nomination after today, won't that presence of Huckabee represent a continued risk of splitting the non-McCain vote? Which is what McCain/Huckabee may want....
UPDATE: Gallup offers some statistics showing that pro-Huckabee forces may be more likely to break for McCain than Romney. But I think it partially matters which aspects of the Huckabee coalition may favor McCain over Romney--particularly in close states. But there are other ways Huckabee can hurt Romney, too. His persistent attacks on Romney don't seem to have helped Romney too much...

Signs of a McCain-Huckabee alliance multiply. Ambinder at the Atlantic reports on the West Virginia GOP caucuses (which Huckabee won):

But sources say that representatives for John McCain called many of his reps in WV and asked them to vote for Huckabee...in order to thwart Romney on the second ballot.

Ron Paul's people also seem like they may have swung for Huckabee, too, in WV.

Real Clear Politics has a number of state polls posted for Super Tuesday primary states. California seems like it could be close for both parties. Some polls have Clinton ahead and some polls have Obama ahead; among Republicans, sometimes McCain leads and sometimes Romney.

Romney wins the GOP Maine caucuses by a sizable margin.

Robert Novak says that President Bush is upset by Romney's position on immigration.

Poll confusion: Rasmussen has a 30% McCain/30% Romney/21% Huckabee national poll; Gallup has a 44% McCain/24% Romney/ 16% Huckabee national poll. Various state polls also show considerable variation. Who's right? Time will tell....the numbers are changing fast and furious....

McCain plays the expectations game: says that the race for the GOP nomination may be over by Super Tuesday. Huckabee continues to attack Romney, saying that a vote for Romney may be "a vote for Hillary Clinton" and insinuating that Romney may have "bought" Sean Hannity's endorsement (H/T Hot Air). Romney's not giving up yet....

Some Arizona citizens challenge John McCain on immigration.

The New York Times reports on La Raza's new campaign, We Can Stop the Hate, which aims to curtail certain types of "hate speech." La Raza claims the use of "code words of hate"--which include mentioning fears that the Mexican government wants to reconquer the US Southwest and discussing the risk of disease and crime that "illegal immigrants" may present--as preparing for possible violence against "immigrant" (both legal and not).
In a speech at the National Press Club, La Raza president Janet Murguia seems to come close to advocating (if not outright advocating) some form of censorship:

Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech. And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we’ve got to draw that line. And that’s what we’re doing here today. And we need to make sure that network executives will hold their people accountable and not cross that line.

She mainly seems to be calling for the owners of various broadcast outlets to monitor what their anchors and other talking heads say--which seems removed from government censorship. But, at one point, she does say that Pat Buchanan should be able to write as many books as he wants but he "should not have access to the public airwaves." Whether cable is considered part of the "public airwaves" or not, who is Murguia saying should prevent this access? Businesses or the government? The New York Times thinks she's advocating censorship ("Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights"), and Mark Krikorian implies the same thing. Could Murguia be pushing for government oversight over television outlets a la the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Ron Rosenbaum writes in defense of the incandescent light bulb.

While sneering at the "freedom equals light bulbs argument," Dan Niel laments the decline of the incandescent light bulb:

The passing of any technology provokes nostalgia. I’m sure someone bemoaned the rise of the push-button phone and eulogized the rotary dialer (What a beautiful sound, the “shickity-shick” of a well-spun number. . . .) But the Edisonian light bulb is a more fundamental thing—so much the proverbial better idea that it came to symbolize the eureka moment, the flash of insight, when it appeared over a cartoon character’s head. The fact is, how we light the world inevitably affects how we see the world. I predict we’re going to miss the soft, forgiving light of the incandescent bulb with its celestial geometry.

I predict a more harshly lighted future.

Of course, the rise of this "harshly lighted future" (compact fluorescent light bulbs), should it come to pass, will be primarily achieved through government coercion in the banning of contemporary-technology incandescents. The overtaking of oil lamps by light bulbs did not occur through government prohibitions but through the desires of the free market.

Meanwhile, the rise of CFL presents its own environmental challenges. One "green" consumer group estimates that the USA's use of fluorescent lamps could, if bulbs are not properly disposed of, lead to the poisoning of 20 million acres of water a year due to the mercury contained in florescent bulbs.

The Washington Post has video of part of the immigration exchange between Clinton and Obama at tonight's Democratic debate. Obama at one point seemed to say that raising concerns about the "undocumented" displacing or driving down the wages of the native-born or legal immigrants is "scapegoating"; Clinton thinks that there are some economic implications for "illegal immigration." Hot Air has more about the debate over drivers licenses for the "undocumented."

UPDATE: Scapegoating Then?: Mickey Kaus points out that Obama used (in 2006) to assert that a massive influx of the "undocumented" drove down the wages of some; he thinks there might be electoral reasons to avoid saying this now....

This kind of rating goes only so far, but, according to a survey of votes done by the National Journal, Barack Obama has the most "liberal" voting record in the US Senate, placing his record to the left of self-described "democratic socialist" Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). As Obama has missed a number of controversial votes, these ratings (which only consider the votes he did cast) may be partially misleading...

Parsing McCain's words: It seems as though McCain may have now said that he would oppose or at least vote against) the immigration bill that he had earlier support. See this Hot Air clip (around 30):

HOOK: Senator McCain, let me just take the issue to you, because you obviously have been very involved in it. During this campaign, you, like your rivals, have been putting the first priority, heaviest emphasis on border security. But your original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here.

What I'm wondering is -- and you seem to be downplaying that part. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

MCCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate...

HOOK: But if it did?

MCCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.

However, the CNN transcript offers a different transcription of McCain's response:

MCCAIN: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.

"I would not" vs. "It would not." It sounds like an "I" to me (see around 00:34 or so)...Also, McCain could be being extra tricky: he "would not" vote in favor of the bill because, he believes, the bill would not come to the floor; you can't vote in favor of a bill that's never on the floor.

Still, McCain seems to have a very hard time saying clearly how he now feels about previous McCain-Kennedy immigration bills, and, just a few days ago, he seemed to say that he would sign McCain-Kennedy if it came across his desk as president. He mainly emphasizes instead that the bill won't come across his desk--without saying what would happen if McCain-Kennedy-like legislation did come across his desk.
Kaus wonders:

P.S.: I don't quite understand why McCain can't just say, "No." (He could then give the same little talk about securing the borders, etc.) Unless, of course, the real answer is "Yes." ...

The past of the future (or the future of the past): A Washington Post reporter claims that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)'s endorsement of Barack Obama was in part driven by anger over Hillary Clinton's discussion of political events of the 1960's:

Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.

I think the headline on this (Bill) Clinton piece is a little misleading: "Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming." Jack Tapper is saying that Clinton says we have to "slow down our economy"--and that " something of a contradiction there" in his talking about slowing down the economy and also talking about how "green" technology can create jobs. (As a side note, Tapper himself thinks " a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy.") However, if you look at a bigger portion of the speech, it seems as though Bill Clinton wasn't arguing in favor of slowing down the economy at all (or at least not explicitly arguing that way). Time for the (dreaded) "context" (emphasis mine):

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

It seems to me like Clinton was laying out various strategies for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. One, which we could adopt, would be for the wealthy nations to choose to slow down their economies--except, as Clinton points out, that wouldn't work because other, poorer countries like the PRC and India would not stop their economic growth (and the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions). Another plan (the one Clinton supports) would be to find "clean, efficient, green" technologies that allow for both economic growth and environmental protection. Now, Clinton might be wrong about these choices and his proposed solutions might ultimately slow down the economy, but it seems to me that he's not arguing that we should slow down our economy. Indeed, he's explicitly arguing against that proposition.

Wyoming's legislature considers an immigration-enforcement measure. This news story alludes to a possible domino effect for the passage of state immigration-enforcement laws:

And when one state tightens its laws, nearby states apparently feel compelled to act as well to avoid receiving a flood of displaced immigrants.

Concerns are raised that some of the tax rebates of the new economic stimulus package may go to the "undocumented." Senators Baucus (D-SD) and Ensign (R-NV) pledge to change the bill to prevent such benefits going to the "undocumented."

UPDATE: Mark Krikorian has more details about tax policy and immigration.

McCain's victory in Florida is still bubbling through the blogosphere and beyond. The Corner's fighting over/intensely debating a possible McCain candidacy. Malkin's raising some sharp questions about McCain. David Brooks criticizes Romney and proclaims that "the big conservative issues [e.g. immigration and tax cuts] did not bark, once again." Hot Air offers a few thoughts. Stephen Hayes reports that McCain has said that he's not too interested in "reaching out" to talkers such as Rush Limbaugh. For his part, Limbaugh is now invoking the specter of 1976--citing "conservative" disappointment with Ford and Ford's subsequent loss in the general election.
Aspects of the right seem to be weighing the risks of a Republican loss if McCain becomes the nominee and the risks of a Republican victory if McCain becomes the nominee.

With Edwards dropping out of the Democratic race for president, the chances of a brokered Democratic convention seem radically reduced. Either Obama or Clinton is very very likely to receive enough delegates to claim the nomination.

UPDATE: However, superdelegates could still make the convention at least a little uproarious if neither Obama nor Clinton have a commanding majority of primary delegates. As this WaPo story points out, superdelegates can switch their allegiances at any time. With 800 superdelegates (and 2025 delegates needed to gain the nomination), there's still a fair amount of room for uncertainty.

Some interesting exit poll results for the Florida GOP primary in no particular order:
McCain relied on independent voters (or "independent voters"? UPDATE: see here and here) to put him over the top; he split Republicans with Romney 33-33.
Only 29% of Florida GOP voters support a "path to citizenship" for the "undocumented"; 46% of that 29% went to McCain.
Romney won a plurality of those voters who believed that either illegal immigration or terrorism was the most important issue of the election. McCain won a plurality of those voters who believed that either Iraq or the economy was the the most important issue. The economy is important to those who voted in the GOP primary: 45% of voters said it was the top issue.
The Crist endorsement seems important; a significant percentage of voters said it was influential.
On the age question, Romney won a plurality of voters age 25-39 and 50-64; McCain won those in their 40's and those 65+.

This Hill story has some details on John Edwards's potential strategy for a brokered Democratic convention. Edwards advisers say he'll have enough delegates to be meaningful:

Prince told reporters in a conference call that in “a worst-case scenario” Edwards would control 20 to 25 percent of the Democratic delegates heading into the convention. He predicted that Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would each have 35 to 40 percent of the delegates, well short of half the 4,049 needed to win the nomination.

The race could leave Obama and Clinton with nearly the same number of delegates because complex rules would divide delegates evenly among candidates who win more than 30 percent in the congressional districts that make up each state.

And there's a wrinkle for Democratic delegate rules--they're not necessarily bound to any candidate:

At the Democratic convention this August, delegates will be allowed to vote freely even if they are already pledged to a candidate, Wayne explained. But he expected that Edwards’s delegates would do his bidding.

Wayne said that Edwards’s delegates have been “hand-picked” because of their loyalty.
“That loyalty would probably extend to the convention, though Democrats have a rule that would not impose loyalty,” he explained.

Most experts predict that a brokered convention isn't very likely. But, after New Hampshire, the pundit class is increasingly embracing the slogan "Anything could happen."

In his State of the Union, Pres. Bush challenges Congress to "reform" immigration policy:

The other pressing challenge is immigration. America needs to secure our borders. And, with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing work site enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings.

We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border. And by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents.

Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy.

(APPLAUSE)

This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm.

We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved, and it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.

Is this "lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy" code for "guest worker program"? After all, we do already have plenty of ways for "workers" to come to this nation.

Mickey Kaus says it's OK to go after McCain for his connection with Juan Hernandez, and Michelle Malkin raises some questions about McCain's national finance co-chair and posts an email reporting a voter's exchange with McCain over Hernandez.

Barack Obama sounds like he's going to try to increase his support in California through a combination of policy promises/preferences and identity politics:

The Illinois senator is differentiating himself in three key areas: driver's licenses [for the "undocumented"], a promise to take up immigration reform his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago.

With 77% of Americans opposing drivers licenses for "illegal immigrants," some wonder how much this strategy will help Obama with voters...

Based on some anecdotal evidence, Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law seems to be increasing the wages of some as the "undocumented" leave the state:

Two out of three men who apply at Ironco, a construction firm that specialises in buildings and parking garages made with heavy steel, are Hispanic or foreign-born Hispanic, the company said.

Ironco has raised steel fitters' wages 30 percent from a year ago, according to Bailey. "We've raised wages, competing for a diminishing supply (of workers)," he said. "We?ve been on a campaign of quality improvement, training, scouring the waterfront, so to speak, for American vets, ex-offenders trying to find their way back into society."

So it seems as though, with this increased scrutiny, Ironco has turned its attention to US veterans and those with a criminal record and engaging in investment in developing the skills of individuals.
(H/T: Mark Krikorian)

McCain's motivations: Over at the Corner, inspired by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)'s criticism of John McCain, they're trying to find anecdotes of McCain's behavior behind the scenes at the Senate. One staffer's offering some specific details on McCain's cloakroom hostility to votes on English as a national language. These backroom anecdotes can be revealing in a number of ways. Will any other details come forward about McCain? The other candidates?

McCain stands behind the "grand bargain"--said he'd sign McCain-Kennedy immigration bill as president.

Does Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) support Barack Obama in part because of Obama's work on the "grand bargain"? The Boston Globe thinks so:

Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

Obama, who supports drivers licenses for the "undocumented," has pledged to push "comprehensive immigration reform" in his first term as president and called last year's debate over immigration policy "both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights." Will he use the same rhetoric if he becomes president?
"Comprehensive" "change" marches on....

The world of blogs is snapping with reports that Juan Hernandez, adviser to former Mexican President Vicente Fox and former director of the Office of Mexicans Living Abroad and aggressive defender of the "grand bargain," seems to be Hispanic Outreach Director for John McCain's presidential campaign. Hernandez has that title in this copy of a McCain press release. Hot Air has a picture of Hernandez backstage at a debate with Meghan McCain and Mark McKinnon, one of McCain's top advisors, and also has some background information on Hernandez. Malkin has a lot of other information on Hernandez and a roundup of blog reactions. Via WND, the McCain campaign admits that Hernandez is affiliated with the campaign--though it's already trying to distance itself from Hernandez, saying that he isn't paid by the campaign and does not play a "policy role."

Many of Hernandez's critics are claiming that he is an opponent of the assimilation of Mexican immigrants and has made remarks that may cast doubt the persistence of a sovereign, independent US identity. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) narrated one conversation with Hernandez thus (e.a.):

TANCREDO: I had a great argument one time with a gentleman by the name of Juan Hernandez who was at that time the minister of that ministry that I just mentioned, the Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States.

And I asked him that very question. What he told me the purpose of his ministry was to push people into the United States, it was to—by the way, it was also AFC work with them so that they did—he was with the community, he said. He was three days a week in the United States, four in Mexico.

By the way, he himself is a dual citizen born in Texas, university—teaching at the University of Texas and on the Vicente Fox cabinet. And he said, “I work with the community in the United States, the Mexican community because I don‘t want them essentially going native on us. We want them continually tied emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they‘ll continue to send money home.”

And I said to him, that does not sound like—you know, you‘re doing something that‘s actually the act of an unfriendly government.

CARLSON: Well, of course, it doesn‘t in any way serve American interests. It undermines our country in a pretty direct and direct and obvious way.

TANCREDO: Tucker, his response. Let me tell you his response.

CARLSON: Yes.

TANCREDO: At the end he goes, “Congressman,” in an incredibly condescending way. He goes, “Congressman, it‘s not two countries; it‘s just a region.”

Though we only seem to have Tancredo's word on this conversation, a number of Hernandez's public statements might not allay the fear of some. He has said that he believes and hopes that the "Mexican-American" population (from the third-generation to the seventh) will think "Mexico first." He has also said, according to various reports, that his old boss Vicente Fox believes that there are at least 123 million Mexicans: "100 million within the borders [of Mexico] and 23 million who live in the United States." This 23 million would seem to include US citizens (Hernandez is himself a dual US-Mexican citizen).

In a 2001 interview with the Devner Post (mentioned here), Hernandez elaborates on immigration policy and the need to maintain a separate Mexican identity for Mexican immigrants (blocked by archive wall, emphasis added):

In an interview Tuesday, Fox adviser Juan Hernandez, director of the new Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad, said he'll approach Owens in Denver on Thursday with the following requests:

Let undocumented migrants apply for driver's licenses. Colorado law currently bars licenses for undocumented workers. Other states such as Utah allow them. 'We're talking about safety on the roads, that's all,' Hernandez said, adding that with driver's licenses, migrants could buy insurance. 'Mexican workers want to be good citizens,' he said.

Give migrant children who graduate from high school the same access as legal residents to higher education. Texas recently passed legislation letting undocumented Mexicans attend state colleges and junior colleges.

'It's possible' that Colorado could enter into an agreement on this with Mexico, said Jeanne Adkins, policy and planning director for the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Research on costs is in progress, Adkins said. Legislators 'probably have to enter the picture at some point.' Owens 'wants a lot of the background information before making a decision.'

Grant undocumented migrants access to health care beyond emergencies. Some hospitals won't accept migrants seeking prenatal and other basic care. 'This is a human right,' Hernandez said.

[...]

That's because Mexicans working in the United States 'are going to keep one foot in Mexico,' Hernandez said. Four leading mayors in the central state of Guanjuato once worked as undocumented migrants in the United States, he noted.

Migrants also should engage politically in their U.S. communities, he said. 'But should they assimilate? They are not going to assimilate in the sense of dissolving into not being Mexican.'

Hernandez presented a document defending "multiple belongings":

Sending countries should not see the process of migrants’ incorporation into receiving societies as an identity threat and should allow for dual or multiple belongings, nationalities or citizenships, and the ability to exercise their political rights, wherever they may reside.

Receiving countries should not consider these continued residual attachments as threats to the full incorporation of new immigrants into the host society, but rather, should acknowledge that by permitting these multiple attachments, they not only facilitate social incorporation, but also enrich their societies.

Along with Tancredo's claim that Hernandez said that the US and Mexico are not two countries but one "region," this YouTube clip (go to around 0:20 or so) shows Hernandez saying that the US, Mexico, and Canada should become a single "bloc"--though he does distinguish this bloc from being one nation.

So some questions: Does Hernandez deny what Tancredo said he said? Has he changed his mind about assimilation? Does John McCain support Hernandez's principles about assimilation? Does McCain also want a Canada-US-Mexico bloc? This controversy, along with "grand bargain" partisan Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)'s recent endorsement of McCain, seems likely to reignite the concerns and opposition of those who were already skeptical about McCain's stance on immigration.

UPDATE: Malkin investigates the ties between the "Reform Institute," George Soros, Hernandez, McCain, and McCain's campaign manager.

Ace (at Ace of Spades) posts a questionnaire on immigration Sen. Sessions (R-AL), one of the leading opponents of the "grand bargain," has prepared for presidential candidates.

A partial presidential roundup:

Thompson's out.

Kaus warns against historical-political determinism.

Clinton goes after Obama's past statements about single-payer health care.

Flush with his South Carolina victory, John McCain insists that he hasn't changed his position on immigration policy. Keeping "comprehensive"? He seems to say that the border should be "secured"--and it seems like it might be "secure" if border state governors say it is secure...Kaus, for one, is skeptical about this approach...

Hot Air wonders how much a friend Mike Huckabee is of the First Amendment; he's now saying (or seeming to say) that he'd like to ban much political speech unless it is approved by a given candidate:

I personally wish that all of this was outlawed. I think that every candidates should speak for themselves, and that every thing that involves the candidate's name or another candidate's name should be authorized and approved by that candidate, otherwise it shouldn't be spoken....

The point is that candidates can't force these special interest 527 groups to stop. I wish we could.

There's a new fight going on between the Clinton and Obama camps over a pro-Obama Spanish-language ad attacking Clinton for not "respect[ing] our people."

The New York Times wonders about the possibility of a brokered convention for Republicans in 2008--though it puts a dower spin on the effects of such a convention for Republicans. See also David Freddoso's article on the possible roads to this brokered convention for Republicans; Freddoso thinks that a brokered convention could benefit Republicans.
It seems to me that, the more likely people think a brokered convention could be, the more likely a brokered convention will be. After all, even if you're running a distant third in the delegate count, you can still, under a brokered convention scenario, play the kingmaker--so why don't you stay in as long as you can to strengthen your hand? The more candidates stay in, the more likely they are to collect enough votes to keep a single candidate from having a sufficient majority.

Though Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) may be trying to circumvent the state legislature to grant in-state tuition to the "undocumented," only 33% of Massachusetts residents, according to a recent poll, think that the "undocumented" should get in-state tuition--62% think that they should not.

Hot Air unravels some of the relevant law cases for the ACLU's claim that sexual relations in public bathroom stalls are protected by a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

Some analysis of the Democratic debate last night on "gun control."

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (D) aims to create a two-tiered drivers license system: one for legal residents, the other for the "undocumented." Hot Air wonders if the plan will go the way of NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D)'s failed similar plan.

Glenn Greenwald and Mark Steyn find common ground.

Instapundit's not too happy with a ban on incandescent lightbulbs.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) wants in-state tuition for "illegal immigrants" very badly and is trying to think of ways to bypass the state legislature (which has earlier killed a bill that would grant in-state tuition) so that he can provide in-state tuition. One plan, according to the Boston Globe:

Patrick said his legal team is weighing whether the state could grant the lower rate by passing a regulation, which would require approval by the 11-member Board of Higher Education. Patrick's comments, in response to a question from an audience member, came two years after an in-state tuition bill failed in the Legislature, and amid a debate over illegal immigration in the presidential race.

Paying in-state tuition would save illegal immigrant students thousands of dollars. At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, out-of-state tuition is close to $10,000 a year, compared with about $1,700 a year for residents. Out-of-state tuition runs as high as $8,430 a year at a community college compared to about $700 a year for residents.

Some members of the legislature are outraged by this plan. This proposal comes in the wake of a new plan Patrick has announced that would further centralize power for education policy in the governor's office.

Though Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) is boasting about the death of the "famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb" due to the recently passed energy bill (which has efficiency requirements that would, within four or so years, ban present incandescent bulbs in the place of compact florescent bulbs), some Americans with certain conditions skin might not be so well served by a ban of incandescents.

A UK coalition of charities and activists known as Spectrum and the British Association of Dermatologists are pleading with the British government (which has regulations that would seemingly ban incandescents by 2011) to allow incandescent bulbs to be available to people with certain skin conditions. For some, continual exposure to compact florescent lights can be very dangerous--even leading to skin cancer:

Dr Colin Holden, President of the British Association of Dermatologists, said: 'It is important that patients with photosensitive skin eruptions are allowed to use lights that don't exacerbate their condition.

'Photosensitive eruptions range from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer. It is essential that such patients are able to protect themselves from specific wavelengths of light emitted by fluorescent bulbs, especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can't venture out in natural sunlight.'

Another UK group is also claiming that compact florescent bulbs can trigger migraines and have other unpleasant consequences for some:

Last year it was claimed that the "green" bulbs can cause people with epilepsy to experience symptoms similar to the early stages of a fit.

There have also been complaints from people with lupus, a chronic immune disease that causes pain and extreme tiredness.

GE is working on a newer incandescent model that would meet future US energy efficiency requirements, so perhaps, for the US at least, some of these concerns (including mercury poisoning) might be made moot.

In any case, these stories do bring into focus an interesting nexus of global environmental aims, governmental requirements, public health, and private well-being. Some of the British activists are asking for incandescents be made available to those afflicted with certain skin conditions; could licenses for "famously inefficient" incandescents be next (especially if GE's new technology doesn't come through)? A black market for light bulbs?

Kaus has a rundown of various theories about Clinton's victory over Obama in the NH primary--and why the latest polls for that race turned out so wrong.

Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani clash over the meaning of "amnesty."

A new poll claims that 58% of the residents of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas find "illegal immigration" to be a "major problem."

Ruben Navarrette:

Of course, there is always the chance that Americans -- especially those in their teens and 20s -- will step in and fill the void by leaving their air-conditioned homes, video games, and $3 coffees and going to work in 110-degree weather.

But whom are we kidding? That's just more wishful thinking.

Noontime high temperature in July and August in Baghdad (where thousands of Americans in their teens and 20s are spending a lot of time): 120 degrees.

The Washington Post reports on the way immigration has affected the Republican primary campaign:

"This is the most volatile issue I have measured since busing in 1972," said Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster. "It's not like abortion or gay rights, which may touch some people or offend the moral values of some. This is something that affects everyone."

Hart compared the issue of immigration to the treaty returning to Panama the Panama Canal, which drew a visceral response in conservative circles and turned President Gerald R. Ford's GOP nomination campaign in 1976 from a cakewalk to a dogfight.

"It's been like boiling water," said Al Cardenas, a former Florida Republican Party chairman and a co-chairman of Romney's campaign in the state. "It's an issue that was in the back of Americans' minds that needed to get fixed. It wasn't a priority until numbers got out of hand. Then Congress took it up, put it on the front burner, and when nothing got done, the voters turned exasperated. Can we live with such a significant breaking of the rule of law and not be morally outraged?"

Blogging will be very light this week....

Various state immigration enforcement laws could lead to "undocumented immigrants" going to more hospitable states as well as their home countries:

While some illegal immigrants are simply self deporting, others are moving within the United States to avoid federal immigration raids and pro-enforcement measures passed by a patchwork of state and local authorities.

Among them are undocumented immigrants in Marshalltown, Iowa, where Mexicans and Central Americans workers at a Swift & Co meatpacking plant were arrested during coordinated immigration raids across six states a year ago that netted hundreds of employees.

Moses Garcia, a U.S. citizen who came from Mexico 18 years ago and knew many of the families affected by the 2006 raid through his church and real estate work, said most of the workers have left to other states, not back to Mexico.

"They feel like they are not welcome here," Garcia said. "They go to Minnesota, Atlanta, Nebraska, California."

After the murder of a policeman by an "undocumented immigrant," Scottsdale, AZ police are now checking the immigration status of all those they apprehend and turning over to federal authorities those in this country without proper legalization. (Via Drudge)

Are the reports about the "death" of "Christian Canada" a little exaggerated? Michael Valpy attributes this "death" to 60s feminism (and Hot Air's got this story as a headline), but some recent data may trouble the fundamental assumption of Valpy's piece. Some recent polls done for Project Canada 2005 suggest instead that organized religion may be enjoying a partial upswing in Canada since 2000. According to one study, weekly religious attendance in Canada increased from 22% to 25% between 2000 and 2005--the first time the Project Canada pollsters have noticed an increase since they started keeping data in 1975. Moreover, weekly attendance amongst 15-19-year-olds increased from 18% in 1991 to 22% in 2000. Some more interesting data about religious participation (or a lack of religious participation) here.

The Huckabee campaign is now denying to John Hawkins that Huckabee's immigration proposal has a "touchback" component.

Malkin draws attention to the fact that the newly-signed energy bill that would ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs (with a few exceptions) as we now know them by 2012 in favor of florescent light bulbs. As Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) boasts, "In this bill, we ban by 2012 the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb." Proponents of this measure argue that this ban would lead to lower energy consumption and a "healthier" environment.

As Malkin points out, this ban brings even further into focus some of the dangers posed by compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs--dangers that private and governmental agencies have yet to address fully. For many, the (relatively) high levels of mercury contained in florescent bulbs is perhaps the most striking environmental and public health risk. If bulbs break, they can release dangerous levels of mercury into the air around them. NPR has an interesting story on some of the attempts to cope with the mercury risks of CFL bulbs. Disposal of the bulbs can be especially tricky:

"The problem with the bulbs is that they'll break before they get to the landfill. They'll break in containers, or they'll break in a dumpster or they'll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens," says John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, the trade group for the people who handle trash and recycling.

Skinner says when bulbs break near homes, they can contaminate the soil.

The NIH has a summary of some of the health risks posed by mercury contamination:

Elemental (metallic) mercury and all of its compounds are toxic, exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage or fatally injure the brain and kidneys. Elemental mercury can also be absorbed through the skin and cause allergic reactions. Ingestion of inorganic mercury compounds can cause severe renal and gastrointestinal damage. Organic compounds of mercury such as methyl mercury are considered the most toxic forms of the element. Exposures to very small amounts of these compounds can result in devastating neurological damage and death. For fetuses, infants and children, the primary health effects of mercury are on neurological development. Even low levels of mercury exposure such as result from mother's consumption methylmercury in dietary sources can adversely affect the brain and nervous system. Impacts on memory, attention, language and other skills have been found in children exposed to moderate levels in the womb.

A CFL bulb that breaks in the home can lead to level of mercury for that room well over the safety levels established by authorities--and such a breakage can be very expensive to clean up.

There are even divisions within the environmentalist movement over these bulbs and their mercury level; some environmentalists think that such CFL bulbs shouldn't be purchased due to their high mercury content.

But there could be hope yet for incandescents: GE has announced that it hopes to introduce more efficient incandescents by 2012 that could meet future efficiency requirements.

A federal judge sounds skeptical about an attempt to stop Arizona's new immigration enforcement law from going into effect on January 1:

The legal effort to block what is widely considered the nation’s toughest law against employers who hire illegal immigrants may be headed for a setback in Arizona after a federal judge said Tuesday that he was not inclined to stop the law from going into effect Jan. 1.

Judge Neil V. Wake of the Federal District Court in Phoenix said he would issue a ruling by the end of the week. But he said that the business and civil rights groups that had challenged Arizona’s law had erred by not initially suing the county attorneys who will enforce the law, which he suggested protects the rights of law-abiding workers.

The hearing was part of a feverish legal effort to block the law, which penalizes employers who knowingly hire illegal workers by suspending their business license on a first offense and revoking it for a second.

The latest spending bill doesn't sound like it will be too helpful in forging a bipartisan atmosphere of trust for Congressional attempts at immigration reform--it changes some of the aspects of the border fence provisions passed last year:

The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for "two layers of reinforced fencing" and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Steve King (R-IA) aren't happy with the changes, and Minority leader Boehner's already placing blame on Congressional Democrats--though Sen. Hutchison (R-TX) seems to be one of the motivating figures behind this change.

An interesting AP story on the role of immigration (and the way immigration intertwines with other issues) for the Republican presidential primary race.

A showdown (with video!) between Linda Chavez and Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart over Prince William County's new immigration measures. Chavez raises doubts (mainly through insinuation) about the motivations of PWC. Stewart calls her an "illegal immigrant apologist" and brings up one of Chavez's pro-"grand bargain" columns from earlier this year.

Iowa Rep. Steve King endorses Fred Thompson. He emphasizes the "rule of law" as one of the reasons for backing Thompson.

Even though it doesn't go into force until January 1, Arizona's new immigration law already seems to be having an effect:

Businesses and immigration groups say they have already tallied some of the effects of the law.

Advocates for immigrants contend that, at a minimum, hundreds of people unauthorized to work have left the state or been fired. Some school districts have at least partly attributed enrollment drops to the law. Though the housing slump and seasonal economic factors make it difficult to pin down how much is attributable to the new law, illegal workers say employers are checking papers and are less inclined to hire them.

“They started asking everybody for papers one day, and those like me that didn’t have them were fired,” said Luis Baltazar, a Mexican immigrant who worked for a paving company until a few weeks ago and was soliciting work at a day labor hiring hall here.

Another immigrant, Jose Segovia, said work had plummeted in the past few weeks, more so than in the four previous Decembers he spent in Phoenix. “Some of my friends went back to Mexico,” Mr. Segovia said, “and I am thinking of going, too, if it doesn’t get better here.”

Some are saying that Bob Latta, elected to the House in a special election on Tuesday in Ohio, transformed a race in which he was pretty much tied with his Democratic opponent into one where he won a 14-point victory through a sudden focus on immigration and border security.
And the Politico has more on the influence of immigration in this election cycle.

New(ish) UK PM Gordon Brown has signed onto a new EU treaty that would radically reshape the EU power structure and, critics say, increase the power of EU bureaucrats at the expense of national sovereignty. Many say it's similar to the earlier EU Constitution, which faltered after a number of national referendums defeated it. So it seems like this treaty won't be up for national referendums except in Ireland. The Sun has a pretty critical article about the treaty, especially focusing on its implications for immigration policy:

The developments come despite an eleventh-hour bombshell that it means surrendering control of Britain’s immigration policy.

The warning was issued to the PM last night as he prepared to wave the white flag over our right to make our own laws.

It emerged tens of thousands of foreigners facing the boot from the UK will be winners.

They will get new rights to overturn decisions by Britain’s Immigration and Asylum Tribunal.

It means failed asylum seekers will be free to take their cases to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg — giving the final say to unelected EU judges.

The Sun has more details about the effects of this treaty.

Squaring the Circle: The Politico reports on a questionnaire Obama/his campaign manager at the time filled out in 1996. Can these two claims mesh? One:

On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career.

Two: But in this 1996 questionnaire, his campaign answered "Yes" (with no equivocations) to a question asking whether Obama would "support state legislation" that would "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." So did his campaign manager not understand her candidate's positions on the issues of "gun control"? Does his current campaign manager understand his positions on "gun control"? Some of the left are already swarming over this questionnaire and controversies about it. Clinton's people are definitely promoting it.

UPDATE: A questionnaire filled out by Obama (or his campaign) in late 2003 during his run for US Senate reveals more about his approach to "gun control" (e.a.):

While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.

So does he have an objection to banning handguns in principle? What's "politically practicable" can change with time, after all....

"Minuteman" founder Jim Gilchrist endorses Mike Huckabee. Malkin sputters. Hot Air brings up some quotes from Huckabee's past. Kaus wonders how "tough" Huckabee really is....

The Washington Times has some info on yesterday's Univision Republican debate.

NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) is still suffering from low poll numbers. 51% of New York voters have a negative opinion of him and only 36% have a favorable view of him. A number that can't be encouraging to the governor: only 1/3 of Democrats currently want to reelect him.

George Will has an interesting column on Republican challenges to "No Child Left Behind," particularly focusing on Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)'s "Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act of 2007," which would try to return more authority on education to state boards and local school districts.

Biden rising? In addition to this recent American Research Group poll showing Joe Biden overtaking Bill Richardson for fourth place among likely Democratic caucus goers (rising to 8%), Insider Advantage has come out with another poll suggesting that, of all Democrats, Biden has gained the most among South Carolina Democrats since July 2007 (an American Research Group poll also has Biden gaining--though not by as much). Real Clear Politics offers this breakdown:

Obama 26 (-2 vs. last poll, July 23-24)
Clinton 24 (-19)
Edwards 15 (+2)
Biden 10 (+6)
Richardson 2 (-3)

Biden hasn't yet seen these gains in IA and SC be translated into much growth in the national polls. The Washington Times has more on Biden's ambitions for Iowa.

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law, but the legal fight isn't over:

In his ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake wrote that the lawsuit was premature because there was no evidence that anybody had been harmed, and that the plaintiffs—a coalition of business and immigrant rights groups—were suing the wrong people.

The ruling said the law gives only investigatory authority to the governor and state attorney general, who were named as defendants. Wake said county prosecutors, who weren't defendants, actually have the power to enforce the law.

The plaintiffs had asked for a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. Farrell Quinlan, a spokesman for business groups in the suit, said they planned to file more information with the judge to answer what he sees as shortcomings in the complaint.

Alfredo Gutierrez, a spokesman for immigrant rights groups, said they plan to refile the lawsuit after Jan. 1, when they might be able to show damages caused by the law.

The law will go into effect on January 1. It would require employers to verify the legal status of their new hires.

(H/T: Malkin)

Some of the Democratic leadership sounds unhappy with Constitutional checks and balances:

“As an amateur student of constitutional history and as a member of Congress, I have come to the conclusion that the Senate was a historic mistake,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the No. 4 Democrat.

And for some freshman lawmakers, who came to Washington hoping to do big things for the American people, the late-session circus has been disconcerting.

Centralize, centralize! (H/T Hot Air)

Yesterday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) won the Senate Republican Conference chairmanship 31-16.

Huckabee unveils a new immigration platform. Krikorian's impressed; others are more skeptical.

Current market conditions and the failure of the "grand bargain" for immigration reform in the summer seem to be encouraging some of the (Brazilian) "undocumented" to return to their native country.

A lot of folks have been talking about this story in which Fred Thompson says that the US federal government should not be "tell[ing] you what to eat." This claim becomes more pointed when read in the context of Sen. Harkin (D-IA)'s proposal for the federal government to regulate what can--or cannot--be served in public school cafeterias: "a national ban on selling candy, sugary soda and salty, fatty food in school snack bars, vending machines and à la carte cafeteria lines." More details about the legislation:

The nutrition standards would allow only plain bottled water and eight-ounce servings of fruit juice or plain or flavored low-fat milk with up to 170 calories to be sold in elementary and middle schools. High school students could also buy diet soda or, in places like school gyms, sports drinks. Other drinks with as many as 66 calories per eight ounces could be sold in high schools, but that threshold would drop to 25 calories per eight-ounce serving in five years.

Food for sale would have to be limited in saturated and trans fat and have less than 35 percent sugar. Sodium would be limited, and snacks must have no more than 180 calories per serving for middle and elementary schools and 200 calories for high schools.

Coming back to Thompson:

Thompson, ever a fan of small government, said healthy living should be the responsibilities of families first.

"We shouldn’t be looking at the federal government in Washington first and working our way down, it ought to be just the other way around. With that, or whether you're talking about education, there's some things the federal government can't do," said Thompson.

However, it seems to me that this question is not only about the size of government but also how government should be organized. Should there be a top-down federal bureaucracy that decides what foods are healthy and that tells schools which foods they cannot sell, or should school districts be able decide what foods to serve? How much power should a federal regulatory body have, and how much detail should it go into? Thompson, in his approach to federalism, seems more skeptical about the value of this top-down approach and seems to have much more of an interest in allowing for a diversity of approaches to various problems/issues.

Quinnipiac's released a new set of polls of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In addition to the presidential results, there are these immigration numbers showing significant majorities for increased enforcement (rather than legalization) amongst these voters:

19. Do you think immigration reform should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?

                                                                       
........................FL      Rep     Dem     Ind   



Intg immigrants         24%     15%     34%     23%    
Enforcement             66      76      56      67     
DK/NA                   10       9      11      10      



                                                        
........................OH      Rep     Dem     Ind   



Intg immigrants         20%     11%     28%     20%    
Enforcement             71      83      64      68     
DK/NA                    9       6       8      12      



                                                      
........................PA      Rep     Dem     Ind    



Intg immigrants         19%      9%     26%     25%    
Enforcement             72      82      64      68    
DK/NA                    9       9      11       7      

Interestingly, these polls show that political independents are, overall, least likely (compared to Republicans and Democrats) to vote for a candidate they otherwise agree with if that candidate holds views of immigration policy they disagree with. 2/3 of polled independents want further enforcement measures.

The White House writes to K-Lo about its immigration enforcement mechanisms:

...I just wanted to take a moment to update you and (and NR's readers) on immigration enforcement, specifically the No-Match rule.

DHS Secretary Chertoff announced today the Administration will pursue a dual track approach to address current litigation against the rule. As you will recall, in October San Francisco federal district court Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction against the regulation, preventing the Administration from sending out a revised No Match letter to employers.

The new No Match Rule was one of the 26 steps President Bush announced in August to strengthen enforcement of our immigration system and would be a major step in preventing employment of illegal immigrants. (For information on the other initiatives, see the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070810.html)

To address the three concerns on which Judge Breyer based the injunction, DHS will soon issue a supplement to the No-Match Rule. The Administration hopes this additional rulemaking will further strengthen the rule, allowing the courts to let the rule to go into effect as soon as possible.

Second, the Administration is pressing ahead with an appeal to the Ninth Circuit – the Justice Department filed an appeal on behalf of DHS today.

The Administration is serious about enforcement efforts and is doing everything it can to get the No Match rule moving forward as quickly as possible.

All the best,

Kerrie

Kerrie Rushton

Deputy Director, Office Of Strategic Initiatives

The White House

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris have a little conversation about immigration.