Meanwhile, Obama pledges to maintain one policy from the Bush administration:

Obama said to the audience[,] “Well, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time for a president who won’t walk away from comprehensive immigration reform when it becomes politically unpopular.”

Mickey Kaus and Ann Coulter mix it up over which candidate for president is most likely to enact "comprehensive immigration reform." Both McCain and Obama seem thoroughly committed to some form of legalization, but who could make it happen?

Coulter lays out her case (e.a.):

Even assuming McCain were more likely to enact "comprehensive immigration reform" than Obama, the difference is between a 10% chance and a 9.99999% chance.

Meanwhile, Obama is more likely to jump-start Islamic terrorism by rapidly withdrawing from Iraq and insanely sending more troops to Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan. In a few years, it won't matter how many illegals we have -- they'll be forced to convert to Islam like the rest of us.

While McCain says he "got the message" and denies that he would push for amnesty "until the borders are secure," Obama says he would withdraw troops immediately from Iraq here,here, and here ; says he will send more troops to the black hole of Afghanistan here, here, here; and says he will bomb our ally Pakistan here, here, and here.

So to believe that McCain is a bigger threat to America than Obama is, Kausfiles has to take the position that McCain will do what he says he won't (sign an amnesty bill), and Obama won't do what he says he will (withdraw from Iraq, start a disastrous ground war in Afghanistan and attack our allies).

Kaus counters (e.a.):

I'd say the difference is more like a 50% chance of passing a semi-amnesty under McCain, compared with a 20% chance under Obama, who will have lots of other things to do and lots of Dem Congresspeople from swing districts he doesn't want to endanger. Amnesty is irreversible, remember, as will be many of its consequences (e.g., an incentive for more illegal immigration, plus a change in the electorate, creating pressure for further amnesties, etc.). ... Meanwhile I think Obama would, overall, put a damper on world terrorism by automatically and at least temporarily lowering the planet's anti-Americanism quotient, translating into fewer radicalized recruits with less tacit support from their neighbors. (Even John Kerry would have done that.) ... Will Obama want to go down in history as the President who snatched defeat from semi-success in Iraq? It's a worry, I agree! But it was much more of a worry before the perception sank in among voters that the "surge" has succeeded. ...

Mark Krikorian thinks that Kaus is more in the right with these numbers.
One question (on a point I haven't seen discussed too much): how would the Western-type Democratic senators (like McCaskill, Tester, Nelson, Baucus, Dorgan), who were critical in upholding the filibuster against last year's attempt at "CIR," vote for "CIR" under an Obama administration v. a McCain one. Would they back Obama on "CIR" for the sake of party unity during crucial votes? McCaskill in particular has been an early and vocal Obama supporter on the campaign trail...

Flow on, river! flow with the flood-tide, and ebb with the ebb-tide!
Frolic on, crested and scallop-edg’d waves!
Gorgeous clouds of the sun-set! drench with your splendor me, or the men and women generations after me;
Cross from shore to shore, countless crowds of passengers!
Stand up, tall masts of Mannahatta!—stand up, beautiful hills of Brooklyn!
Throb, baffled and curious brain! throw out questions and answers!
Suspend here and everywhere, eternal float of solution!
Gaze, loving and thirsting eyes, in the house, or street, or public assembly!
Sound out, voices of young men! loudly and musically call me by my nighest name!
Live, old life! play the part that looks back on the actor or actress!
Play the old role, the role that is great or small, according as one makes it!

--Walt Whitman, "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry"

I think this moment qualifies as a media train wreck. A live mic records some private conversation of Mike Murphy, Peggy Noonan, and Chuck Todd. TPM has the video. Here's the transcript:

Peggy Noonan: Yeah.

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --

PN: It's over.

MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --

CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MM: I totally agree.

PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MM: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MM: Yeah.

How does it damage people? Let me count the ways....It risks unsettling Palin by suggesting that GOP supporters who publicly praise her in fact have deep private doubts about her. It adds significant nuance to Noonan's very supportive column on Palin in today's WSJ.

However, there is an odd turn in their discussion:

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

When John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate in 2004, did anyone think that his pick was "insulting" to Joe Biden, another male politician with considerably more time in public office than Edwards? (Of course, back in 2000, Tom Daschle was saying that 17 months in the Senate was more than enough "experience" for Edwards to run for president, so maybe Edwards gets some "experience" bonus.)

UPDATE: Noonan clarifies and contextualizes her remarks (e.a.):

When the segment was over and MSNBC was in commercial, Todd, Murphy and I continued our conversation, talking about the Palin choice overall. We were speaking informally, with some passion -- and into live mics. An audio tape of that conversation was sent, how or by whom I don't know, onto the internet. And within three hours I was receiving it from friends far and wide, asking me why I thought the McCain campaign is "over", as it says in the transcript of the conversation. Here I must plead some confusion. In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up. "The first lesson they learned is the one they remember," I said to Todd -- and I'm pretty certain that is a direct quote. But, I argued, that's over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, "It's over!" -- and I said it more than once -- that is what I was referring to. I am pretty certain that is exactly what Todd and Murphy understood I was referring to. In the truncated version of the conversation, on the Web, it appears I am saying the McCain campaign is over. I did not say it, and do not think it. In fact, at an on-the-record press symposium on the campaign on Monday, when all of those on the panel were pressed to predict who would win, I said that I didn't know, but that we just might find "This IS a country for old men." That is, McCain may well win. I do not think the campaign is over, I do not think this is settled, and did not suggest, back to the Todd-Murphy conversation, that "It's over."

However, I did say two things that I haven't said in public, either in speaking or in my writing. One is a vulgar epithet that I wish I could blame on the mood of the moment but cannot. No one else, to my memory, swore. I just blurted. The other, more seriously, is a real criticism that I had not previously made, but only because I hadn't thought of it. And it is connected to a thought I had this morning, Wednesday morning, and wrote to a friend. Here it is. Early this morning I saw Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and as we chatted about the McCain campaign (she thoughtfully and supportively) I looked into her eyes and thought, Why not her? Had she been vetted for the vice presidency, and how did it come about that it was the less experienced Mrs. Palin who was chosen? I didn't ask these questions or mention them, I just thought them. Later in the morning, still pondering this, I thought of something that had happened exactly 20 years before. It was just after the 1988 Republican convention ended. I was on the plane, as a speechwriter, that took Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush, and the new vice presidential nominee, Dan Quayle, from New Orleans, the site of the convention, to Indiana. Sitting next to Mr. Quayle was the other senator from that state, Richard Lugar. As we chatted, I thought, "Why him and not him?" Why Mr. Quayle as the choice, and not the more experienced Mr. Lugar? I came to think, in following years, that some of the reason came down to what is now called The Narrative. The story the campaign wishes to tell about itself, and communicate to others. I don't like the idea of The Narrative. I think it is ... a barnyard epithet. And, oddly enough, it is something that Republicans are not very good at, because it's not where they live, it's not what they're about, it's too fancy. To the extent the McCain campaign was thinking in these terms, I don't like that either. I do like Mrs. Palin, because I like the things she espouses. And because, frankly, I met her once and liked her. I suspect, as I say further in here, that her candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won't be something in between.

Mickey Kaus does some reporting from the front lines of the Republican convention. McCain ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) still talks favorably about "comprehensive immigration reform":

I asked Sen. Graham how soon, in his first term, President McCain would declare the borders secure (which would let him to move to revive "comprehensive immigration reform"). Graham said "We'll know it when we see it," but emphasized that "comprehensive" reform was "still on the table" and seemed as much of an enthusiast as ever. "He will take that up," Graham predicted.** ... Later, in another WaPo chat, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis mentioned Hispanics as a battleground voter group, arguing that Republicans had to offer them something "other than a deportation center"--which is sort of offensive, when you think about it (as if Hispanic-American voters, who are by definition citizens, are illegals subject to deportation). ... Not just an appeal to ethnic identity politics, but a stereotyping appeal to ethnic identity politics, no? ...

He also notes the attempted political configuration that the McCain camp seems to be trying to offer:

(Remember the apparent formula is: 'McCain + grassroots vs. GOP Congress,' not 'McCain vs. grassroots + GOP Congress'--or, worse, 'McCain + GOP Congress vs. grassroots,' even though the last is more or less the real array of forces on immigration.) ...

The official GOP platform speaks out against "amnesty"--the Democratic platform advocates for some form of legalization--but, of course, the president is not bound by his party's platform.

It's Palin. McCain chooses Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The Obama team knocks Palin as "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience." Much of the right seems happy with the choice. The biggest anxiety among McCain supporters would seem to be worries about Palin's "experience" (or lack thereof) and the way that will play in the media; she was just elected as governor in 2006 and is a few years younger than Obama. But they also like her positions on social and cultural issues and her reputation as a reformer. She's also extremely popular in Alaska--a recent poll has her approval rating at 80%.

The Obama campaign continues to push to shut down discussion of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. In an alert sent to supporters, the campaign attacks National Review writer Stanley Kurtz as a "slimy character assassin" and urges supporters to call a Chicago radio station to complain about giving Kurz air time on a program to discuss his research into the Annenberg Challenge:

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Obama Action Wire
Date: Wed, Aug 27, 2008
Subject: Chicago: CALL TONIGHT to fight the latest smear

[Name] —

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of
the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a
forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's
currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00
p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and
University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing
baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of
political discourse.

Call into the "Extension 720" show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-7200

(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight)

Then report back on your call at http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

Kurtz has been using his absurd TV appearances in an awkward and
dishonest attempt to play the terrorism card. His current ploy is to
embellish the relationship between Barack and Ayers.

Just last night on Fox News, Kurtz drastically exaggerated Barack's
connection with Ayers by claiming Ayers had recruited Barack to the
board of the Annenberg Challenge. That is completely false and has
been disproved in numerous press accounts.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character
assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our
public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest
rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies.

Kurtz is scheduled to appear from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in the Chicago market.

Calling will only take a minute, and it will make a huge difference if
we nip this smear in the bud. Confront Kurtz tonight before this goes
any further:

http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

Please forward this email to everyone you know who can make a call tonight.

Keep fighting the good fight,

Obama Action Wire

Interestingly, it seems as though Milt Rosenberg's show invited the Obama campaign to send a spokesperson to counter Kurtz's claims--to be in the studio for the whole two-hour interview--but the campaign declined. So the show did offer a chance for a "rebuttal." Instead of taking that chance, though, the Obama campaign instead decided to mobilize its supporters to assail the radio station airing this discussion with complaints. Audio of Kurtz's appearance is here.

A behind-closed-doors fight happens over some of the language relating to immigration during the drafting of the Republican party's official platform:

Delegates were split into different subcommittees and it was in the national security meeting where members got into heated discussion surrounding the issues of amnesty and English as the official language of the United States.

Two delegates wanted to harden the language surrounding the issue of amnesty. The draft read, “We oppose amnesty.” But, delegates from North Carolina and Colorado wanted to include opposition to “comprehensive immigration reform” because they believe it is a code word for amnesty. This sparked a heated discussion between members with a delegate from Washington DC who said that the Republican Party is a “not a xenophobic party, not an intolerant party. We are a compassionate party that follows the rule of law and endorses federal law,” said Bud McFarlane. Kendal Unruh from Colorado, who wanted to include “opposition to comprehensive immigration reform” to the draft, seemed to take offense to that statement citing her missionary work and saying that she would “never have the label” of xenophobic “slapped on me.” She continued to press that the committee add the tougher language to stop “behind the door tactics” to prevent “amnesty” of illegal aliens.

[...]

After much debate the amendment was not adopted and the language will remain as, “We oppose amnesty” without a mention of comprehensive immigration reform.

The immigration debate continued when the topic of English being the “accepted” language of the country opposed to the “official” language of the United States. The draft stated that English is the “common” and “accepted” language. The delegates from North Carolina and Colorado again wanted stronger language to make English the “official” language of the country.

Sam Winder from New Mexico wanted to add language that welcomed other languages, but did state that English was the official language of the country. Disagreement between the two sides continued, but a compromise was agreed on and put into the draft.

H/T Hot Air

Angered by Obama-Ayers Ad, the Obama Campaign Raises the Specter of Legal Challenge: In addition to rallying Obama's supporters to write letters of protest to stations that air the "Know Enough?" ad, which connects Obama to 60s radical and bomber Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign now threatens legal challenges against both the group that finances the ad, the American Issues Project (AIP), and television stations that air the ad. The Politico has a roundup of some of the threats the Obama campaign has issued. The campaign's general counsel, Robert Bauer, has written to the Department of Justice, demanding an investigation of the group, its officers, and its donors. Bauer argues that the AIP is in violation of election laws and argues that, though it is registered as a 501(c)(4), it is doing acts outside the realm of 501(c)(4) rules.
The AIP has responded in their own letter to the Department of Justice, written by their counsel, Clita Mitchell. Mitchell's letter counters Bauer's charges that about the way it is organized and compares its operations to those of NARAL. NARAL is also registered as a 501(c)(4), and Bauer once served as counsel for that organization.
Bauer has sent two letters to station managers. One aims to refute some of the specific charges of the AIP ad. The other warns that airing this as would be "inconsistent with your station's obligations under the Federal Communications Commission regulations." Could this be a threat--that stations which air the ad could face some difficulty under an FCC appointed by a President Obama? Some see this as another example of Obama playing "Chicago hardball." Though Obama (or at least his press secretary) says that he does not support the return of the "fairness doctrine," many of his fellow Democrats do, including high-ranking Democrats in the House and Senate. Those kinds of increases in the regulatory power of the FCC could increase an administration's ability to use the instruments of regulation for political retaliation.

UPDATE: Bauer sends another letter to the DOJ, reiterating his request for an investigation of those associated with the American Issues Project and requesting the prosecution of AIP donor Harold Simmons. The AIP responds, calling the Obama campaign's letter "reminiscent of the kind of censorship one would see in a Stalinist dictatorship." The Politico has more.

The Republican National Committee has put out a new ad (in Spanish) promoting John McCain's work in immigration "reform":

Title: "Commitment V. Rhetoric"

How do you know someone is a friend?

You know because they stand up and defend you when it is hard.

When Hispanics needed a friend in Congress during the immigration debate... Who stood up? Who spoke out?

John McCain.

Senator McCain worked with Republicans and Democrats alike to form immigration legislation.

And while the bill didn't pass, only McCain demonstrated a real commitment to reforming immigration in a way that honored our laws as well as our immigrants and traditions.

And Barack Obama?

Obama did not stand up. Obama did not speak out. And when the time came for him to do the right thing, he did not.

Obama supported measures designed to insert a deadly "poison pill" to kill the immigration legislation.

If Obama didn't even have the courage to stand up for immigrants, how can he claim to have the strength to change the way Washington works?

John McCain is ready to lead. Barack Obama is not.

There are a lot of vague charges and statements here. This ad seems to be conflating support of McCain-Kennedy-style immigration bills with friendship with "Hispanics." Does this imply that opponents of such bills are not "friends" of "Hispanics"? If so, it's pretty critical of many of McCain's fellow Republicans (and some Democrats) in the US Senate.

This ad's assertion is also troubled by the fact that the "Hispanic" community in fact has a variety of opinions about immigration and immigration reform and that there is considerable controversy within that community about some of the key provisions of bills like McCain-Kennedy. For example, according to a Pew poll last year, only 9% of "Hispanics" believe that there are too few immigrants (42% believe that there are too many), but most "comprehensive" bills would lead to an increase in the number of immigrants.

After biding his time, Barack Obama has picked Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. Many analysts seem to think that Biden would be able to fulfill the "attack dog" capacity of the VP candidate.

The Wall Street Journal and Hot Air are picking up on some recent comments by Obama on a "single-payer" health care plan (as is found in Canada, for example):

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars.

[...]

Obama’s health-care plan aims for universal coverage by offering a new government-run marketplace where Americans could buy insurance, mostly from private plans. He would offer subsidies to individuals and to small business owners that offer their workers coverage. His plan also would require that parents get insurance for their kids. And he aims to lower health-care costs to make coverage more affordable. His plan includes one small step toward single payer. His new marketplace would create a new government-run plan, like Medicare, to compete against the private plans.

But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

Obama's said things like this before about single-payer health care as an ideal system (witness this January 2008 dust-up between him and the Clinton campaign). While Obama isn't saying that he wants to immediately implement a single-payer system, he also seems to be indicating that he doesn't mind working towards that end; short-term political changes pave the way for other changes.
This focus on incremental change is a key theme of the Obama campaign, perhaps as a legacy of his community organizing. It also allows him to keep his options open for longer-term planning. Will he ultimately work to implement single-payer health care? Maybe. Would he work to ban handguns? Well, he thinks that banning them now is "not politically practicable." Circumstances can change, and, when you have the power of the presidency, you can change a lot of circumstances.

It's tough being an incumbent (Republican) in Alaska: This USA Today story talks about the challenges faced by Republican senators across the country. It mentions how the recent corruption charges against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens have increased his seat's vulnerability to Democratic challenger Mark Begich. According to these poll numbers, it looks like both Stevens and GOP Rep. Don Young could be in significant trouble.
Alaska's primary elections occur on August 26. Right now, Stevens leads his closest Republican challenger, Dave Cuddy, 63-20, but he would also lose to Begich by 17 points; Begich leads 55-38. The upcoming elections might be tough for Don Young, too. He only leads his closest GOP challenger (Alaska Lt. Governor Sean Parnell) by about 5 points and would lose to Democrat Ethan Berkowitz by about 10: 51-41. Parnell, however, leads Berkowitz 46-41, so his defeat of Young in the GOP primary may improve Republicans' hopes of holding on to Alaska's only seat in the House.

ICE announces a new program for "illegal immigrants": the opportunity to turn themselves in to ICE and "self-deport":

Rather than risk getting caught, turn yourselves in.

That's the latest government strategy in its ongoing effort to dramatically reduce the nation's ballooning population of illegal immigrants.

Scheduled to be unveiled next week, it was announced Sunday by Julie Myers, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an interview with a Spanish-language television network.

Myers told the network that "Operation Scheduled Departure" will allow illegal immigrants without criminal records a chance to literally "self-deport" by turning themselves in to her agents.

She said the idea derived from a common complaint voiced by immigrant detainees: If given the opportunity, they'd rather just go home than be holed up in immigration prisons.

Under the new program, those still walking free will have the chance to walk into ICE offices, be processed and get a few weeks to arrange their affairs, pack their belongings and ship out of the country without being detained.

Some are doubtful about the effectiveness of this program and think that there isn't enough of an incentive for these "undocumented" to declare themselves. Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, thinks that one possible "carrot" could be allowing those who voluntarily leave to have the opportunity to re-apply for a legal visa once they arrive back in their home countries.

Juan Hernandez may be McCain's "Hispanic Outreach Director," but he seems to want to avoid contacting Newsweek, which has asked multiple times to interview him. The magazine wonders why he won't speak with them....

Hot Air has a number of posts/clips up relating to the speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain at the annual La Raza convention. Both McCain and Obama support a form of "comprehensive immigration reform" that includes a mass legalization of the "undocumented" population, and both drew attention to this support in their addresses. Obama accused ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) of "terroriz[ing]" various communities but did not say how he, as president, would end this "terror." McCain said things mildly more supportive of ICE and border enforcement. He disagreed with an activist who said that the US should stop its "militarization" of the border (an activist who was praised by Obama). He again pledged that the border would be "secured" before he pushed for other aspects of his "comprehensive" plan.

Ben Smith cites some seeming inconsistencies in Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)'s statements on Obama on immigration "reform" now versus last year. McCain has a new ad up praising "people who are of Hispanic background" and their contributions to the US.

The Washington Post has a story up about an increase in interest in immigration law for law students.

Happy Fourth of July! Independence!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Keeping "comprehensive": John McCain declares that "comprehensive immigration reform" will be his "top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow."