CALIFORNIA YANKEE

AFL-CIO Rejects Guest Worker Proposals

In a move sure to slow the seemingly inevitable approval of a guest worker program many see as an amnesty, AFL-CIO leaders rejected guest worker proposals now in Congress.

According to Reuters, leaders of the 54-union federation ditched the idea that a temporary guest worker program could be made acceptable:

"To embrace the expansion of temporary guest worker programs is to embrace the creation of an undemocratic, two-tiered society," AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson told a news conference.

The AFL-CIO is expected to formally adopt its immigration policy on Wednesday.

The AFL-CIO continues to support the legalization of more than 11 million illegal aliens working in the country. But its new policy opposes existing guest worker programs, such as H1B visas for foreign professional workers or H2B visas for seasonal unskilled workers.

The federation's position supports "full rights" - permanent residency status, or "green cards," and the option of becoming citizens.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will discuss Chairman Arlen Specter's comprehensive draft that will become the vehicle for Senate debate on immigration matters.

The Reuters article states "Specter's bill would allow illegal alien workers who entered the United States before January 4, 2004, to remain indefinitely, and allow an unlimited number of new guest workers to enter the country without a right to eventually become permanent residents or citizens."

The closer we get to November, the less likely it is that any meaningful immigration reform will pass this Congress.

International High-Five A Muslim Day

Rusty Shackleford dclares today is "International High-Five a Muslim Day:"

Because there has to be a way to say, "Hey, Muslims, we're totally down with you. It's nothing personal, we really think you're cool. It's just the whole 'behead the infidels' and 'stone the adulterers' thing we're not down with."

The video explaining it all is available at My Pet Jawa.

Republican Congressman Shays: I will Vote For Lieberman

Congressman Chris Shays says he will vote for Senator Joe Lieberman this November:

"As things stand now I will vote for Joe Lieberman," said Shays. "He is one of the few Democrats who is not making politics with the Iraq war."

Shays was speaking to The Hour's [subscription required] editorial board. According to The Hour, Shays criticized his Democratic opponent Diane Farrell for endorsing Lieberman's re-election:

"She has made (Iraq) her her primary issue," Shays said Lieberman's views on Iraq are "nearly identical to mine."

Southern Connecticut Newspapers report Shays is confident about his re-election chances in his upcoming rematch against Farrell in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District.

During a meeting with the editorial board of The Advocate and Greenwich Time, the 18 year House veteran said "his voting record supports the best interests of the Fourth Congressional District:"

"I feel I'm more effective today than I've ever been before," Shays said. "I have a lot of clout in my party and I think I'm needed by my district."

[. . .]

He said his fallout last year with disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was empowering because the Texas Republican eventually resigned from his leadership post, as Shays called for.

Shays, and his constituents, are lucky DeLay was indicted and had to step down. Otherwise there would have been a price paid for Shays' outspokenness. It happened before. In 1998 $10 million was removed from a $25 million allocation of transportation money headed for his district after he branded the bill "a blatant attempt to buy votes."

When Shays complained, another $5 million was removed.

Shays also told The Advocate and Greenwich Time that should the Democrats win control of Congress in November, his independence from the Republican leadership will strengthen his role in the House:

"In the end, if I'm in the minority, I'll be one of the most powerful members of Congress," he said.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would "have to depend on me as a moderate Republican" for votes if she became Speaker of the House, he said.

Shays seems to have forgotten how kind Pelosi was to him during and immediately after the 2004 election.

After the election the Hartford Courant reported:

While he never had much in common with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, their relations were cordial. At least that was true until she campaigned for his opponent in the election and last week when she told the national press corps he was a meek grandstander.

"She said I was brain dead," Shays said, clearly sad about her attitude. Pelosi called Shays "a rubber-stamp-for-the-radical-right-wing, check-your-brain-at-the-door congressperson" and "an enabler for DeLay."

[. . .]

"Working with Chris Shays," Pelosi said, "is not something I spend a lot of time thinking about." She called his claims of moderation a "masquerade," using the DeLay rules voice vote instead of a roll call to prove her point.

"He grandstands outside by saying he doesn't approve of the rules change," Pelosi said. "He could have with one word called for a [roll call] vote ... but instead he chose to meekly voice his position instead of standing up to the task and asking for a vote."

This should be an interesting race.

UPDATE: The Hartford Courant reports that during Shays' interview with the editorial board of The Advocate of Stamford he let slip GOP officials have discussed cross-endorsing Democratic Lieberman this fall:

The remark was not immediately reported by The Advocate, but it set off a flurry of calls among Republicans who have been gauging support for the idea among GOP candidates, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Reps. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Nancy L. Johnson, R-5th District.

One GOP operative who was aware of the discussions said premature public disclosure of the possible cross-endorsement probably would kill the idea. That seems to be case.

By Tuesday evening, spokesmen for top Republicans publicly distanced themselves from the possibility of backing Lieberman, who faces a Democratic primary over his support of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

And a spokeswoman for Lieberman, who previously had refused to rule out appearing on any but the Democratic line on the November ballot, said he would not accept a cross-endorsement.

"Would he accept the endorsement of the Republican Party? No, he is seeking the Democratic Party nomination," said Casey Aden-Wansbury, his communication director. She said no one representing Lieberman has discussed a cross-endorsement with Republicans.

More thoughts at Ex-Donkey Blog.

Connecticut Approves Chavez's Oil Program

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal found no legal problem with Venezuelan President Chavez's program to supply oil to Connecticut's poor:

In response to a request for a legal opinion from Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Blumenthal said the Citizens Energy Corp. of Boston and the Connecticut Association for Community Action are private, nonprofit organizations and their deal to provide oil through the Venezuela-Citgo Heating Oil Program is not subject to review by the state Department of Social Services.

Blumenthal also said the arrangement raises no antitrust concerns.

Under Chavez's oil program CITGO, the third largest refiner in the United States, and which is wholly owned by the national oil company of Venezuela, has offered to sell about 4.8 million gallons of heating oil to Citizens Energy, a Boston-based non-profit energy company, at a 40% discount from the wholesale price of heating oil. Citizens Energy will immediately sell the heating oil at the full wholesale price to a large heating oil wholesaler. Citizens Energy will use the profits from the sale of this oil to provide financial assistance to needy heating oil customers in Connecticut.

Chavez's oil program became embroiled in State politics when one of the Democrats seeking to challenge Governor Rell, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, helped set up the deal to get discounted heating oil for the poor in his city using the state's nonprofit community action agencies to distribute the oil.

Governor Rell said she wanted Blumenthal to address the "legality of the state of Connecticut sanctioning participating in this program:" before endorsing the program:

"From the very beginning, I said I had no trouble with this," the governor said Monday. "Any time that we can receive oil at a discounted price certainly we should be pursuing it. But I wanted to make sure any legal questions were answered. They have been answered, so go ahead and proceed.

According to the Associated Press, Blumenthal said he was giving a legal opinion and didn't want to discuss the politics of the program. Nevertheless, he did seem to make a political point in his opinion:

As a matter of policy or political perspective, there may be sound reason to have reservations about the source of this assistance -- a company effectively owned by a foreign government that may have questionable policies or motives. There is also sound reason to be critical of Congress, whose ill-advised neglect makes this assistance necessary. As a matter of law, there is no reason to decline or disapprove it. Indeed, it fills an unfortunate, profoundly important need for our citizens, consistent with our laws.

While I understand very few politicians would dare to oppose assisting the needy with the cost of heating oil, there is something unseemly about taking aid from one who supports Castro, and Hamas.

Farrell's Endorsement Seen As A Flip Flop

In the Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Mark Ginocchio writes about the difficulty Diane Farrell created for herself when she joined the legions of Connecticut's Democratic power brokers endorsing the re-election of Senator Lieberman

In her failed attempt to unseat Republican U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, Farrell relentlessly criticized Shays' support of the war in Iraq. Farrell is doing the same in her repeat effort to beat Shays.

Farrell is being criticized as hypocritical for supporting Lieberman:

"She loses some legitimacy" by endorsing Lieberman, said Ken Dautrich, a professor of public policy at the University of Connecticut. "She lost an opportunity to make a real statement."

Gary Rose, professor and chairman of the department of government and policy at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, said the endorsement makes Farrell appear inconsistent.

"This could be perceived as a flip-flop and could potentially hurt her" in the election, Rose said.

Farrell justified endorsing Lieberman by saying she and the senator agree on many other issues:

"Joe is a longtime friend and he has endorsed me and my campaign in the past," Farrell said in a telephone interview last week. "We'll have to agree to disagree on the war . . . but we agree on so many other issues" such as women's privacy rights, the Family Leave Act and fair wages.

The far left wing of the Democratic party is making a huge mistake by trying to intimidate the party into a unified and dissent free anti-war fringe group. Those criticizing Farrell for supporting Lieberman are doing the Democratic Party a disservice. If the Democratic Party becomes the single issue, anti-war party the extreme left wing wants, it may well face another massacre like the failed McGovern presidential campaign.

More - "The Great Connecticut Senatorial Iraq Debate"

The Hartford Courant' New England Magazine has posted its article about The Great Connecticut Senatorial Iraq Debate.

Rinker Buck summed up the entire debate in these two sentences.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd wasted no time Wednesday making it clear that, whatever his reservations about Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's strong support of the Iraq War, he'll close ranks behind his fellow Democrat and support his re-election campaign this fall.

[. . .]

Dodd steadfastly refused to be drawn into the recriminations over how the war began and whether Lieberman's unflinching support for it has provided rare Democratic comfort for a Republican administration.

One of my favorite exchanges was Lieberman's response when questioned about being perceived as a war hawk:

SINDLAND: Now, Sen. Lieberman, you've obviously taken some heat for your stand on the war, and I'm sure that you're aware of some of the local headlines.

They're painting you as a war hawk. Are you a war hawk?

LIEBERMAN: Well, look. You've got to do what you believe is right. I understand that the position I've taken on the war is controversial. But honestly, when it comes to matters of security, we've got a constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense and to do what we think is right. And that's what I've done. So it's my responsibility to explain to the people of Connecticut why I've taken this position [and] to hope, even if they disagree with me, that they respect the fact that I've done what I think is right for the country.

SINDLAND: This could have you in a Democratic primary [with challenger] Ned Lamont.

LIEBERMAN: We'll see. I mean that's up to other people to decide. But look, I consider public service to be a privilege. To represent the people of Connecticut in the United States Senate is a privilege and an honor. It's not my right. And every time I come up for election, I have to earn the right to continue that service. That's what I intend to do in this election based on what I've been able to do for the state of Connecticut, working with great colleagues like Chris Dodd, and also based on my plans for the future. [I] ask people to understand my position on Iraq, but also if they disagree with it, to respect the fact that I'm doing what I think is right -- I'm not doing it for political reasons -- and that they'll judge the overall record of service.

Then there was this in response to a reader’s question about putting personal beliefs above the people:

LIGHTMAN: She asks: "Do you think it is right for you to put your beliefs above the people? If so, why?"

LIEBERMAN: Well, you don't make public policy by reading polls. I think that ultimately the people of Connecticut and of the country elect leaders to do what they think is right. And also, frankly, to try to work together with other members of Congress to produce results. So ultimately you do that, and incidentally, if you do that -- if you do what you think is right -- you're able to sleep better at night, and that's important too.

SINDLAND: Sen. Dodd?

DODD: Listen, first of all, you listen to your constituents all the time. It's very, very critically important. And they need to know you're listening to them. And ultimately you're sent down to make the right decision because you're supposed to have access to more information and so forth. And so I agree with Joe, and that's what I admire about Joe. We talked about our differences here. Joe Lieberman is a person of deep conviction. And I admire the fact that despite the poll numbers, he sticks with his convictions. He's also a reasonable member of the Senate. And we need more civility and more thoughtfulness in the conduct of our foreign policy.

The transcript of the entire discussion is available here. You can also follow links on this page to video's of the observers' reaction to the discussion, including mine.

I again commend the Courant for developing this innovative approach of allowing readers to observe and comment on a talking head show and encourage the Courant to continue pursue this interesting interactive format.

Americans Support Patriot Act

The Connecticut Post reports a new Sacred Heart University poll found a majority of Americans support USA Patriot Act:

75.6 percent of respondents who had an opinion on the topic not only defended it, but would like to see it made permanent.

Dr. Gary Rose, chair and professor in the Department of Government and Politics at Sacred Heart University, said

The poll results concerning the Patriot Act strongly suggest that the American people are willing to expand the power of government and allow civil liberties to contract somewhat in the interest of fighting terrorism. The results suggest a pragmatic response to what is a very distinct threat to the safety of the American people. This is fairly consistent with the historical pattern in the

U.S.

of favoring security over liberty during a time of national crisis.

The poll examined several domestic and foreign policy issues and also found:

59.2% suggested Congress should make the President Bush's first term tax cuts permanent.

70.8% said the United Nations should use military means if necessary to prevent from building nuclear weapons.

66.5%, said they are opposed to continuing financial aid to Hamas as long as they remain committed to terror and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist.

47.8% strongly or somewhat agreed that the United States should pull out of Iraq.

The poll was conducted February 9-15, 2006 and has a  +/-3.0% margin error. Unfortunately, Sacred Heart doesn't share how the questions were phrased.

Lamont Magnetizes Dems

In the Greenwich Citizen, Patricia McCormack reports on Ned Lamont's appearance at Thursday's Greenwich Democratic Town Committee (DTC) meeting:

He related that he was provoked by Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in November. There was only one thing to do about that, Lamont's inner voice told him: Run against the senator in the November election.

[. . .]

"I'm running," he said, "because like most Connecticut Democrats I'm tired of being represented by a senator who is not willing to stand up to the President on the war and on the rest of his extreme right-wing agenda which is so harmful to our country."

According to McCormack, the audience was enthusiastic about Lamont:

It appeared he was an old and trusted friend.

The enthusiasm is understandable, after all Lamont is a former Greenwich selectman.

Tennessee Stops Giving Illegal Aliens Driving Certificates

Tennessee has stopped issuing driving certificates to illegal aliens. Investigations found illegal aliens were being shuttled to Tennessee from other states, using fake residency papers and sometimes bribing state workers to get the driving certificates:

Two major federal arrests in recent months exposed shuttles bringing South and Central American immigrants from as far away as New Jersey to state licensing centers in Knoxville, where the immigrants got certificates using fake residency papers.

In January, a third sweep revealed what prosecutors called a conspiracy in which state license examiners in Murfreesboro accepted bribes to provide illegal immigrants with driver's licenses and certificates without testing.

According to the Associated Press, the Driving certificates are stamped "not valid for identification," were meant to improve driving safety by making sure immigrants living in the state knew traffic rules.

Tennessee is one of 11 states that have not required proof of legal residence to obtain driving documents:

In early 2001, the state started issuing full driver's licenses without requiring a Social Security number, and more than 180,000 people obtained licenses. The driving certificates were created in 2004 to satisfy homeland security concerns; about 51,000 were issued.

I just don't get it. Instead of arresting and sending illegal aliens back to where they come from when they are discovered driving illegally, the liberal solution is to give them driver's licenses. With the license comes an assumed legitimacy. The same legitimacy achieved by the 9/11 hijackers, who had dozens of state IDs, used to rent cars and apartments, open bank accounts, take flying lessons and board planes.

Dodd: Lamont's Challenge "Harmful"

The Norwich Bulletin's Ray Hackett reports Connecticut's senior Senator, Christopher Dodd, termed Lamont's primary challenge to Senator Lieberman "harmful" to Democrats' efforts to win back control of Congress.

Sounding the theme I heard Dodd use during the "The Great Connecticut Senatorial Iraq Debate," and that was repeated at yesterday's Democratic rally around Lieberman, Dodd said that rather than focus on differences about the war, it was more important to focus on the future:

"There is divisiveness about how we got into the war, but we're all in agreement on where we go from here," Dodd said. "Joe's a great senator and a good Democrat and has my support."

Speaking at a forum sponsored by the Lower Connecticut River Forum, Lamont disagreed with Dodd's assessment:

"Some people have told me that I would be jeopardizing a safe seat," Lamont said. "This is a blue state. We wouldn't be losing a senator, we'd be gaining a Democrat."

Lamont thinks there is enough opposition to the war in Iraq among Connecticut's Democrats to enable him defeat a popular incumbent senator avidly supported by the party's leaders. I think Lamont is mistaken.