CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Rallies Supporting Rights For Illegal Aliens Fizzle

Supporters of illegal aliens marched in several U.S. cities on Labor Day in far smaller numbers than they did this spring:

Crowd estimates for Labor Day rallies in cities from San Francisco to suburban Chicago ranged from the hundreds to the low thousands, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who gathered in several cities in the spring.

[. . .]

In Southern California, about 400 people marched Monday, compared with the 400,000 marchers who had jammed a Los Angeles boulevard in May.

[. . .]

In Arizona, about 900 immigrant rights supporters gathered at the state Capitol in Phoenix by midday to protest the government's inaction on repairing what they called America's failed immigration system.

The Phoenix rally also drew 100 advocates for limiting immigration.

The Associated Press' numbers may not be reliable. It reported about 500 people marched to Dallas City Hall asking Congress to legalize millions of illegal aliens and their families, but the Star-Telegram put the number at about 200 people.

The massive spring rallies supporting rights for illegal aliens also failed to produce a surge of new Hispanic voters. An Associated Press review of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta and other major urban areas that had large rallies found no sign of a new voter boom that could sway elections:

"I was anticipating a huge jump in registration. I didn't see it," said Jess Cervantes, a veteran California political operative whose company analyzes Hispanic voting trends.

[. . .]

The AP reviewed new registration numbers over several years in metropolitan areas that include Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose, Calif.; Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz.; Dallas and Houston; Chicago; Atlanta; Denver; and Jacksonville and St. Petersburg, Fla. The time frames included January-through-July periods dating to 2004 and periods before statewide elections, when registration efforts are most intense.

According to the Associated Press, new registrations were up this year compared to last year, but they were well below the numbers in 2004.

Those advocating rights for illegal aliens overplayed their hand with the massive spring rallies. Efforts to gain political advantage by turning those protesting in support of rights for illegal aliens into Democratic voters is at best unseemly.

As President Bush says, America is a welcoming society. We are indeed a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. If you are here legally, you are more than welcome and greatly appreciated. If you are here illegally, please go back to your nation of origin and come back legally and play by the rules.

Gingrich On Speaker Pelosi

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks that Democrat Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House and third in line to the presidency would be a disaster:

"The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the country," the outspoken Republican said.

I'll tell you when I disagree.

Iraq Still Public's Top Priority

A new Gallup poll finds Iraq continues to be Americans' top priority for the president and Congress, followed by fuel prices, and immigration policy.

The poll asked respondents to identify, without prompting, what should be the "top priority for the president and Congress to deal with" at the present time.

Over the past month, Americans have become increasingly likely to say fuel and oil prices and the war in Iraq should be the government's top priorities. Twenty-nine percent of Americans in April said the war in Iraq should be the top priority, and now, 42% feel this way. There has also been a 16-point increase in mentions of fuel prices, up from 13% in April to 29% now. More Americans now say fuel prices should be the top priority than immigration, which showed only a slight increase from 20% in April to 23% in May.

There is of course a significant partisan divide over where the president and Congress should be focusing their attention:

Republicans have three top issues: the current situation in Iraq, immigration, and fuel or oil prices, with between 30% and 37% mentioning each. Among Democrats, the war in Iraq is, by far, the most salient issue, with nearly half of Democrats mentioning it.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mention immigration (33% vs. 14%), while Democrats are more likely than Republicans to mention the war in Iraq (47% vs. 37%), the economy (17% vs. 10%), and healthcare (12% vs. 7%). Republicans mention fuel or oil prices more frequently than Democrats, though these differences fall within the margin of error for this survey.

Since April, there has been an increase among both party groups in mentions of Iraq and fuel prices. Mentions of Iraq increased from 25% to 36% among Republicans and from 31% to 47% among Democrats, while the percentage saying fuel prices rose from 14% to 30% among Republicans and from 14% to 26% among Democrats. Republicans are also slightly more likely to mention immigration this month, up from 27% to 33%, but there has been little change among Democrats, from 15% to 14%.

I am surprised that twice as many Republicans mentioned Immigration than did Democrats.

The poll was conducted May 22-24, 2006 and has a margin of error of ±3 percent.

Optimism Breaks Out

Optimism about the War Against Terrorism rebounded smartly in the last month according to Rasmussen Reports polling released today:

Forty-eight percent (48%) [of] Americans now believe the U.S. and its Allies are winning. That's up nine points from 39% a month ago and represents the highest level of confidence measured in 2005.

Just 28% now believe the terrorists are winning, down six points from 34% a month ago.

There is more good news. Forty percent now believe that the U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11. That's up from 34% a month ago. The number who say the U.S. is not safer has declined to 43 percent, down from 50% a month ago.

Forty percent (40%) of Americans now believe that, in the long run, the U.S. mission in Iraq will be viewed as a success. Forty-five percent (45%) believe it will be viewed as a failure. Those figures also show increased optimism compared to last month.

The survey was conducted on November 30 and December 1, following the President Bush's speech outlining the Strategy For Victory In Iraq, and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.

It is interesting that this rebound in optimism about the war occurred in the midst of the Pelosi Democrats' campaign for a withdrawal from Iraq. Rasmussen did find Democrats less optimistic than Republicans, only 28 percent of Democrats believe we are winning compared to 74 percent of Republicans. But the Democrats are also becoming more optimistic. Last month only 19 percent of Democrats thought we were winning.

According to Rasmussen's ongoing presidential approval polling, President Bush's job approval numbers aren't nearly as bad as the mainstream media would have you believe. The President's approval numbers have stabilized in the mid 40s. On Election Day 2004, the President's Job Approval was at 52 percent. Today's rating 46 percent is pretty good when viewed in light of the fact that during
2004, reports on the President's job approval were based upon surveys of Likely Voters. Typically, a survey of Likely Voters would report a Job Approval rating 2-3 points higher than a survey of all adults.

Polls can be and are often used to support a predetermined finding. Rasmussen's ongoing polling is less prone to such gimmickry and claims to be most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election predicting the final outcome within half a percent of the actual total.

Chairman Dean's Dementia

Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, said on national television Sunday that it is "false" that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, you said there were weapons of mass destruction.

DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. [From NBC's "Meet The Press," May 22,2005]

Chairman Dean is, of course, wrong. Contrary to the Yowler's assertion, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States actually supports the fact that Osama bin Laden "had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States." From the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States' Monograph on Terrorist Financing [PDF file], at page 27:

Once in Afghanistan, Bin Laden focused on building al Qaeda into a fully operating
organization. Al Qaeda spent money on military training and support, including salaries
for jihadists, training camps, and related expenses. Reportedly there were also
propaganda and proselytizing-related expenses and costs to support al Qaeda outside
Afghanistan.

Before 9/11 al Qaeda was reportedly highly organized, with a committee structure that
included the Finance Committee. Credible evidence indicates that Bin Ladin played a
significant role in planning each operation and was very attentive to financial matters.
Other than Bin Ladin, the person with the most important role in al Qaeda financing was
reportedly Sheikh Qari Sa’id. Sa’id, a trained accountant, had worked with Bin Ladin in
the late 1980s when they fought together in Afghanistan and then for one of Bin Ladin’s
companies in Sudan in the early to mid-1990s. Sa’id was apparently notoriously
tightfisted with al Qaeda’s money.18 Operational leaders may have occasionally bypassed
Sa’id and the Finance Committee and requested funds directly from Bin Ladin. Al Qaeda
members apparently financed themselves for day-to-day expenses and relied on the
central organization only for operational expenses.

Al Qaeda funded a number of terrorist operations, including the 1998 U.S. embassy
bombings in East Africa (which cost approximately $10,000), the 9/11 attacks
(approximately $400,000–500,000), the October 18, 2002, Bali bombings.

The scary thing is that Chairman Dean and many of his followers may actually believe Dean's vile ranting, even though it is demonstrably false. To avoid the charge that I took dean's quote out of context, I've provided a longer passage from the Meet The Press transcript in the extended post. It is worth reading, if for no other reason than to see more evidence of the uncivil tone used by Chairman Dean when talking about Republicans:

Gregoire Sworn In As Washington's Governor

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that Christine Gregoire pushed back tears as she took the oath of office as Washington's governor. Gregoire outlined her vision for the state in her inaugural address, "casting herself as the governor for everyone and claiming a mandate to mend fences and build on a centrist agenda:"

"We have work to do," she said. "This is not an easy time to lead."

Tacoma's News Tribune reports that Republicans were unenthusiastic but polite during the inauguration:

Republicans, either by plan or happenstance, were polite if unenthusiastic. Only a handful wore orange ribbons – a symbol borrowed from the Ukranian opposition party that means the wearer supports a revote.

They stood when Gregoire entered the House chambers. They applauded – briefly – as she walked up the aisle. They stood when it was expected, they applauded when it was expected.

Many other times, when Democrats were standing and applauding with all the enthusiasm of a party given a second chance, Republicans sat silently. But no one should have expected them to be happy Wednesday, just civil.

In her inauguration speech, Gregoire offered empathetic words for Rossi.

"My heart goes out to you," Gregoire said to Rossi.

According to the Post Intelligencer, the Republican candidate, who won the first two counts, played the roll of sore loser reminding everyone that Gregoire must battle questions about her legitimacy:

Rossi said concerns about thousands of questionable ballots, improperly cast ballots and disenfranchised voters undermine Gregoire's administration.

I thought Rossi went too far when he said, "Most people believe that Washington does not have a legitimately elected governor." But Spokane's KHQ-TV, via MSNBC, reports that 3 of 5 in Washington State want a new election in the governor's race:

An Exclusive KHQ NewsPoll conducted by Survey USA shows, 62% in the State of Washington say there should be a new election to re-vote on the governor's race.

[. . .]

A re-vote is supported by 76% of Republicans and 64% of Independents. In Eastern Washington 59% of those polled back a re-vote, 61% in the Seattle area back a re-vote.

Democrats oppose a re-vote, but even among Democrats, it is close:45% support holding a new election, 52% say they oppose it.

The survey of 600 adult respondents from Washington State was conducted January 10 and 11, 2005 and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

Rossi shouldn't say things which have the effect of undermining the legitimacy of Gregoire's governorship. Since the Washington electorate was so evenly split, questions about Gregoire's legitimacy may come back to haunt Rossi should he prevail in the courts.

Both sides have been using legal means trying to sort out this election. So far the Democrats have used the legal system to better effect. Rossi should reserve all comments about Gregoire's legitimacy for his court papers. He should also pledge to support Gregoire, as governor not necessarily her policies, should he lose his legal challenge. To do less will make him appear as much a sore loser as the Democrats who objected to Ohio's electoral vote in Congress.

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge agrees that Rossi should take high road and accept losing gracefully.

At Trolling In Shallow Water, Kent also posts that Rossi should gracefully accept the loss.

That College Poll

Polipundit has little regard the Harvard Institute of Politics’ poll I posted about here. In “That College Poll,” Polipundit explains why that poll doesn’t mean much:

Polipundit isn’t impressed by the results suggesting that liberals and conservatives seem almost evenly divided on campuses at 36-32 percent.

In the general population, the number of people self-identifying as conservative is consistently twice as much as the number self-identifying as liberal. College students are still far more liberal than the general population.

Polipundit is likewise unimpressed by the results suggesting that President Bush leads an unnamed Democrat 34-32 among college students.

When was the last time a poll of the general population showed such a large number of undecideds? Most of those undecideds will plump for Democrats or Green Party candidates simply because of peer pressure. There goes the Bush margin.

Risking another cold shower from Polipundit, I note that CNN reports a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll finds younger voters view some things differently than the over 30 crowd. According to the CNN poll:

Younger Americans don't follow politics as closely as older Americans;

More younger Americans than the older folks approve of the way President Bush is handling his job;

Fewer of the younger Americans surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of President Bush than did older Americans;

More younger Americans polled said they believe the economy is improving than did the elder group;

Significantly more younger Americans than the older group support same-sex marriages that are recognized with equal rights under the law.

Most troubling to me is the different views concerning “diversity.”

When asked whether racial and ethnic minorities should be encouraged to maintain their own culture or blend into the larger American society, fifty-four percent of younger Americans said they believe minorities should keep their own culture. Thirty-seven percent of older Americans said they back that idea.

Years of indoctrinating students in multiculturalism have resulted in draining the melting pot. When I went to school, I was taught that the melting pot was central to America’s ability to assimilate immigrants. To me, the melting pot means that this country can transform people of every color and background into “one America,” with a single national identity. Today younger Americans think the melting pot is a fondue restaurant.

College Students Support President Bush

A new nationwide poll of 1,202 undergraduates surprisingly finds that college students are Independent, but more Republican than Democratic. The poll, conducted by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, finds college students are significantly more supportive of President Bush than the general public.

The Christian Science Monitor summarized the poll's results concerning the political views of college students:

"College students are highly independent ... but they slightly lean Republican: 31 percent Republican, 27 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent."

On student support for President Bush: "Defying conventional political wisdom, college students support President Bush. His approval rating is about 10 points higher among college students than the general population."

On measuring students' political activity: "College students are not political slackers, as a lot of folks may think. These numbers indicate that people do care. They do involve themselves in public service activities. And they do plan to participate in the 2004 election."

On why only 28 percent of students consider Iraq as a concern to them: "Without any personal vulnerability ... they have disconnected a lot of what is happening with the war from what they think about politics, because it has not affected them."

In another surprise, The Harvard Crimson’s story on the survey reveals a preference for Senator Lieberman.

Democratic college students slightly favored Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., over former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, 17 percent to 16 percent, among 2004 democratic presidential hopefuls.

Retired General Wesley K. Clark trailed with 9 percent, and the Reverend Al Sharpton, who is scheduled to visit Harvard on Monday, followed with 8 percent.

In a commentary about this survey, Real Clear Politics writes:

it is interesting to see a group which has traditionally been perceived to be quite liberal (or at the very least extremely sympathetic to liberal ideals) now so completely disjointed from the base of the Democratic party and even further to the right on issues of terrorism and national security than the country as a whole.