The latest Rasmussen poll shows Fred Thompson doing better than John McCain in a potential presidential match-up in McCain's home state of Arizona, leading her by 17 points while McCain would only lead her by 10. Rasmussen speculates that immigration may be one reason for this difference:

The immigration issue which caused McCain trouble earlier in the summer is still powerful in his home state. Seventy percent (70%) of Arizona voters say it is Very Important to improve border enforcement and reduce illegal immigration. McCain was a visible advocate of the Senate “comprehensive” reform legislation which failed due to strong public opposition.

When it comes to legalizing the status of those already in the country illegally, just 20% consider that a Very Important issue.

Only 13% of Arizona voters believe that the federal government is doing enough to reduce illegal immigration. Eighty-two percent (82%) favor forcing employers to fire workers with false identification documents. Two-thirds (68%) say that people looking to rent an apartment should also be required to show identification and prove they are in the United States legally. These views are similar to those held by voters nationwide and are also similar to results found in our last Arizona poll, conducted in June.

McCain' favorable rating (48%) in Arizona is 10 points lower than Thompson's (58%) and 9 points lower than Giuliani's (57%). Clinton has a 41% favorable rating there.
McCain may be having other polling/electoral problems, too.

UPDATE: Another interesting thing about this poll (and, granted, this poll was taken over a year from the day of the election) is how strongly the Republican candidates--particularly Fred Thompson--are running against Clinton. Bush carried AZ by almost 7 points in 2000 (51-44.7) and by 10 points in 2004 (54.9-44.4). With Thompson running at a 17-point lead over Clinton, he has over double Bush's victory margin in 2000 and 170% of Bush's margin in 2004. Even the weakest candidate against Clinton according to Rasmussen, Romney, still has a 7-point edge over Clinton. At 51%, Thompson's level of support isn't up to Bush's 2004 yet (there are more undecideds), and AZ has very rarely voted for a Democratic presidential candidate over the past fifty years, and this is still a very early poll and so much can change over a year and Clinton might not even be the nominee, but perhaps this high level of support for Thompson (and the other R candidates) compared to previous elections might be offer a slight ray of hope for some gloomy Republican pundits.

The Hill reports on some of the Democratic wrangling over proposed "free trade" deals with Columbia, Peru, Panama, and South Korea.

Mike Allen's "Politico Playbook" has an interesting roundup of some Iraq-related news today.

In Mississippi, it sounds as though there is no shortage of candidates--both Democratic and Republican--who pledge to be "tough" on "illegal immigration."

An interesting Washington Post story on some of the negotiations between the United Auto Workers and the big three Detroit car manufacturers, discussing who wants what and how they hope to achieve their various goals.

As Drudge notes, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards says that his proposed cradle-to-grave universal national health plan would require "everybody" to have mandatory visits to the doctor:

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"Grand bargain" supporter and presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) says that lack of trust was one of the reasons why this bargain failed: "We said we'd secure the borders. Americans didn't believe us." He says he continues to back "comprehensive immigration reform."
Forbes has more:

"We believe the comprehensive approach to immigration failed because the American people do not have trust and confidence in the government and Washington to do what we say.["]
[...]
McCain said "I still believe we need a temporary worker program - we need to address the 12 million people who are here illegally."

"But the point is, we have got to secure the borders," he said.

The president of Mexico sounds angry about the seeming failure of the "grand bargain":

"We strongly protest the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government that have only persecuted and exacerbated the mistreatment of Mexican undocumented workers," he said. "The insensitivity toward those who support the U.S. economy and society has only served as an impetus to reinforce the battle ... for their rights."

He also reached out to the millions of Mexicans living in the United States, many illegally, saying: "Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico."

Hot Air has some video up of Calderon's attacking the "unilateral measures" of the US. Does Calderon believe that domestic policies should be multilateral (granted, though, that immigration does have an international component)?

The Washington Times reports on the activities of the "Coalition for the Future American Worker," which aims to reduce outsourcing, limit the numbers of foreign workers working in the US, and increase immigration enforcement. The group has a petition up and an online video. The coalition seems, in part, to be responding to a video of a seminar for businesses that discussed how to avoid hiring US workers and get visas for foreign workers instead. That video caused some fallout.

Over at the Politico, Roger Simon reflects on how an increasingly compressed primary schedule could shape the dynamics of the race for the nomination.

A story discussing some of the effects of immigration on a town in Iowa.

The leader of of the UK Conservative Party, David Cameron, expresses some skepticism about current British immigration policy.

The president of La Raza discusses some of her plans for the organization to shape the immigration debate.

In Dallas, some tension between the Minutemen and day laborers over the Minutemen's surveillance of day laborer sites.

Michigan moves to set its primary to Jan. 15; will other states jump even further back? Howard Dean writes a letter asking candidates to honor the DNC plan for delegate selection. Marc Ambinder has a good series of posts up about the primary squabbles--including a pledge currently circulating calling on Democratic presidential candidates to say that they will honor the DNC rules granting earlier status to NH, IA, SC, and NV and not campaign in leap-frogging states.

Malkin reports on how a federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to stop the administration's new worker verification rules from being enforced. This restraining order would be in force until another judge begins to consider the case on October 1. The new rules were originally intended to start taking effect on Sept. 14. More details here. One wonders what some might think of this (e.a.):

Justice Department lawyer Daniel Bensing told Chesney that the government wanted the issue resolved before Sept. 14, when the new rule was scheduled to take effect, and objected to a schedule that would delay enforcement until at least October. But he did not indicate any intention to challenge the judge's order.

There are probably some good strategic reasons for this--but which strategy and for what?

With all the reports about Sen. Craig (R-ID) resigning tomorrow, some have turned their attention to the man rumored to replace him, Lt. Gov. Jim Risch. The folks over at Hot Air have done a little research on Risch and draw attention to this executive order Risch promulgated when he was ID governor last year; this order required state agencies to check the immigration status of those they hire, state contractors to check the immigration status of their workers, and some state agencies to check the immigration status of the recipients of certain state benefits. More on that order here.

It seems as though ICE and some local law enforcement efforts in Colorado are having trouble coordinating:

A conflict between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement is jeopardizing the effectiveness of a new Colorado State Patrol unit set up to crack down on illegal immigration.

In early August, the State Patrol's newly created Immigration Enforcement Unit pulled over a van loaded with 18 suspected illegal immigrants on Interstate 70 near the Utah border.

But the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency failed to respond to the State Patrol's request for help.

In addition, the Garfield County jail - the nearest jail with available cells to hold the suspects - is no longer considered an allowable detention facility by ICE because the sheriff allows his officers to carry Tasers.

Reid backs off from his game of chicken and says he is willing to consider policies other than a strict timetable for withdrawal. Does this backing off suggest a weakening of his hand? It sounds as though he may use these half-way measures to bleed support for the president's policies in Iraq (toward the ultimate goal of withdrawal). Other measures he is considering include Webb's troop rotation proposal and the Salazar-Alexander Iraq Study Group proposal:

One measure Reid said he will seek to resurrect would tighten rules on the use of troops by requiring soldiers' leave times to be at least as long as their most recent deployment. The proposal, offered by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), would not set withdrawal terms, but it could effectively limit U.S. force levels. A vote of 56 to 41 in favor of the measure on July 11 fell four votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a GOP filibuster, but it had seven Republican supporters.

Another approach, left hanging when Reid terminated the July debate, was a proposal from Sens. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to turn the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group into official U.S. policy. The study group's proposals, offered in December and mostly ignored by the White House, include setting the stage for a new regional diplomatic initiative and transitioning U.S. combat forces to more specific roles, including training and counterterrorism. If progress isn't made, troops would begin withdrawing early next year.

The Salazar-Alexander bill has attracted 12 additional co-sponsors, half of them Republicans. Reid said he is willing to listen to their pitch, but he remains concerned that the language is too cautious and may now be outdated.

Alexander said he and Salazar are discussing tweaks to reflect changing circumstances. But he believes that the study group report contains "the seeds for consensus," and he said of his proposal, "It's not withdrawal with a deadline, but it's finishing the job."

It does seem as though old drafts of the Salazar-Alexander bill (old text here) did not force a withdrawal but instead expressed the "sense of Congress" about what the president should consider doing under certain circumstances. How might this new measure be "tweaked"? Reid had earlier derided Salazar-Alexander as not having "the teeth of a toothless tiger." So will the measure be "tweaked" to give Reid some more teeth, or is he now happy with this tiger?

The Hill reports that House leaders have agreed on the six-member panel that will investigate this summer's "vote meltdown." The members:

Republican appointees Reps. Kenny Hulshof (Mo), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Mike Pence (Ind.)
Democrats: Artur Davis (Ala.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) and Bill Delahunt (Mass.)

The Hill offers a tentative timeline:

His privileged resolution offered on Aug. 3 directed the panel to offer an interim report on its findings Sept. 30 and a final report no later than Sept. 15, 2008. In addition, Boehner wants the panel to recommend any necessary changes to House rules to ensure the incident is not repeated.

More on the panel's powers here.