There is this on-off switch that seemed to be turned off two years ago where one moment the issue of Immigration was not a Central national issue, and then it was.  I don’t quite know how that happens.  I think at the end of the day the publics’ opinion on the matter is sufficiently muddled and contradictory that it will simply remain an unresolvable matter.
Now we have an Immigration Bill that is set to pass through the Senate on its way to meet more determined opposition in the House — which is where the Trancredos of the world reside.  The bill is a necessarily contradictory item, likely to be unenforced in most parts, and thus likely to be meaningless.  So, we want the illegal immigrants to come out of the woodwork to register for a “Z Visa” so that they may pay a $2000 fine (isn’t any money illegal immigrants earn generally sent down to their families down south?  Can you spare $2000?)  and for the honor of being sent on a “path to citizenship” that doesn’t really exist.   Immigration gladly takes in engineers and the like — your migrant worker is getting short swift, and the rules have it that these new quasi-legal immigrants are going to be judged by skill set and not family situation, which means that the impetus to step forward is… what, exactly?
Really?  This is what Ted Kennedy is exchanging back-slaps with George W Bush for having crafted?  Whatever.  Congratulation politicians!

The beat goes on, and on.  I doubt anything can be accomplished until the countries of Mexico, and those to the south of Mexico, become more Democratic and less governed by a sort of feudal aristocracy.  Anything beyond making those nations more permenable residencies is an almost pointless exercise.  That includes the liberal and Union-related opposition to “Illegal Employees” of driving down wages through increased illegal immigrants.

Am I the only one who finds this Equal commercial absurd?

A woman asks a man for something for her tea.  The man gives the woman Equal.  Some synthasized music plays in the background.  The woman asks what this is.  The man says it’s the zen-effect of the Equal.  The woman asks “Can I lie down?”  The man says, in a sudden voice of seduction, “Be my guest.”  The man says something, I don’t remember, but it begins with “If you’d like–“.  The woman replies orgasmically, “ooo.”
I don’t get it.  Did the man slip the woman a date-rape drug?  Equal is a sweet sugar substitute.  Why is this advertisement taking off from a bad porn script?

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist won a much-needed victory Saturday night in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll, a win that could begin to revive his 2008 presidential prospects after a difficult year politically in 2005.“We are gratified at the result of a lot of hard work,” said Eric Ueland, Frist’s chief of staff. “The leader is focused on ’06 and our party is focused on a strong positive vision for ’08.”

While the Frist victory (with 37 percent of the vote) was somewhat expected, the strong second-place finish of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (14 percent) was a bit of a surprise.

Bill Frist reportedly bused in a a lot of his supporters to what was his home turf in order to ensure he won this much bally-hooed Straw Poll. All the power to him for, argurably, rigging the process. It did a lot of good for his presidential bid, didn’t him?
Reportedly Mitt Romney did something similar to the CPAC conference. Or, to be more precise, the Mitt Romney crew campaigning around kind of annoyed the attendes.

Now the question I have: does the rigging of that completely unscientific straw poll make Bill Frist’s supporters of the time “Cultic”? And… the same with the family and friends of Mitt Romney at the CPAC conference?

I am referencing this in relation to the frustrating voices that Ron Paul supporters (or, as his critics are calling him, followers) are “rigging” Internet polls, as well as that there Fox News text messaging poll.
I note this posting as an especially jarring burn:

After seeing Ron Paul’s followers in action since, I’m starting to wonder what it is about him. I have received some amazing emails from people who hunted down my real-life email address, and started sending me masses of “information.” Plus some threats (not to me but about what the future would be like without Ron Paul as President). Plus, a whole lot of “if you dont suport Ron Paul your not a real conservtive”[sic].

One of the parallels I remember from my college days was a table that would get set up every day at UH, operated by a fanatical supporter of a man who pretty much runs a cult: Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouchies are borderline insane. They hang on every word of LaRouche. At the table, they had publications that said he’d predicted things like stock market fluctuations and other events (the quotations could never be sourced and weren’t even sourced to their own publications for verification purposes), and they were crazy. One of the more entertaining things at UH was to sit down with them and work out what they were actually thinking, which usually was “LaRouche is my god.” […]

Interestingly, LaRouche supporters and Ron Paul supporters have an interesting number of parallels, even with some differences.

– Both claim to be from an established party (Ron Paul a Republican or Libertarian RINO, LaRouche claims to be a Democrat)
– Both run very much on a cult of personality
– Both make sweeping statements and accumulate people who set up their entire worldview around what the cult leader says.
– Both make claims about things they’ve said that aren’t necessarily verifiable

– Both are complete freaking lunatics

The key difference is that the Republicans have somehow allowed Ron Paul to maintain office, while the Democrats don’t have to deal with that.

Now, I have been meaning to put up a post of some rambling thoughts in my head about the oddness of electoral campaigns in that they are, to some degree, running off of Cults of Personalities, and enforcing the same. I don’t know, I may have already done so. There is no getting around this. Don’t believe me? What is this photograph? And, I like Howard Dean, but there was this particular moment of unease where I saw a blogger say that there was a chant of “We are Dean”. Which was a joke if there ever was one.
But it is limited. I know from Larouche. Ron Paul is no Lyndon Larouche. Ron Paul is an ideolouge, in love with his ideas of governing (or lack thereof). Call him a “Libertarian wacko” if you want, but he is operating off of something beside demanding Humanity glorify Ron Paul. That he is the most ideological member of Congress puts him in the distinctive position of being basically the most honest member of Congress — a constant, easily marginalized force. Meanwhile, Lyndon Larouche’s ideolougy boils down to… wait for it, I’ve used this phrase on this blog before… “Look! A crisis! Me For Dictator!” He runs a Cult of Personality in every way, shape, and form. This sets himself up as grossly dishonest, and…

Please tell me that Ron Paul, or his campaign, is writing internal memos such as:

Fortunately, a few of us were not inclined to die willingly. In the concluding years of the Y2000 U.S. Presidential campaign,the beginning of a resuscitation of the organization was underway under my leadership initiatives. These initiatives included the founding of an adult youth movement, an initiative which was met with strong, vigorous opposition, and attempted political sabotage, even from within leading parts of the association,through the time of what proved to be the highly effective July
2004 deployment into the Boston Democratic convention.

So, with the emergence of that adult youth movement, we began traveling the unavoidably hard road of rebuilding a shattered, and worn-down association. […]

The LYM, as I have defined its required organization and methods, is the only available way in which our organization can actually earn significant amounts of income to support our activities today. Therefore, it would be the lack of that policy which would be the greatest of the systemic varieties of threat to our capabilities today.

People in the “68er” age-interval, as typified by those born between, approximately, 1945 and 1957, are reaching out toward the age of retirement from any vigorous employment. Those born shortly before 1945, are on the way to retirement age. Thus, to state the cruel fact of the matter: who would make a long-term investment in their future economic contribution? Meanwhile, those who entered the LYM ranks about five years ago, or somewhat later, have more than fifty adult years of active economic life ahead of them; they represent a viable long-term investment.”

” Yet, in fact, the continued existence of society in a civilized form depends absolutely on the LYM’s generation. Not only does the LYM typify the best recruits from their generation, the educational and practical orientation established for, and by the LYM is peculiarly suited to the needs for a youthful adult leadership assigned to lead the entire population out of the cultural morass of a society whose reigning generation is destroying itself and civilization generally.

Without the effect assigned to the role of the LYM and comparable young-adult programs, there is no reason to invest confidently in the future of any nation of European civilization, or, perhaps, even beyond. The LYM typifies the last available hope, that, in time, the world can be rescued from the greatest collapse, globally, world-wide, in modern world history as a whole.

Whoever is getting money these days, the LYM is actually earning it for us all.

That be a cult, interested in the control of its people’s lives. I can assure you that Ron Paul’s memorandum is not terribly interested in how to control its people’s lives.

Now, Paul does not represent mainstream Republican politics, or mainstream national politics. This seems to be the main beef of the anti-Paul factions, and the anger at seeing him at the Republican debates as well as campaigning about. Which I tend to simply say: Bully for him. I’ve thought of him partially as the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich, but even this is off a bit — if you do your best to scrunch politics to one dimension, Kucinich will be more or less just further to the left than everyone else. I can’t conceptualize Paul in the same manner. Still, there are similarities — not least is a variety of political handicapping that I see in this statement:

Stop trying to take the Sean Calamity approach and play off his success as anthing other than support from the party base. Is it really so frightening to you neocons to realize that the majority of the Replican party thinks you’re all wrong????

Ignoring a slur for the Republican party to “Replican”, odd in the sense that he is claiming the Republicans are supporting Ron Paul which he would consider a positive– it is patently absurd to say that Ron Paul (1) “succeeded” at anything with that damned text-poll and (2) the majority of the Republican Party believes in what Ron Paul says on the key issues. Actually, the cult-like sensibility comes with the inability to leave two strains of thoughts alone: for whatever reason, it’s a mixed message, that last sentence — insult the party with the name, and then proudly proclaim it as being on your side.

There are a number of too-easy to make comments reagarding this Presidential election season. One is that the Presidential Primaries have been moved way too early, are encroaching onto the 2007 calendar year, and is likely to lead to this long, long, long election campaign. Indeed. I recall seeing an editorial arguring for Oregon to move its primary up to be more relevant to the presidential process. A horrible idea if there ever was one, the jig is up and all we can do is let us keep a sane election for our series of state and local elections, and not contribute to the new electoral process.

The other was brought up by the Oregonian’s resident Republican editorial writer — as opposed to the Democratic editorial writer — today. It is the opinion that we should somehow winnow the presidential candidates down now NOW NOW I say. Which works against the grain of the other problem: it is super urgent that we only entertain Giuliani, McCain, Romney — and probably only a couple of them — and that we only entertain Clinton and Obama. Why? Because hearing Trancredo chaffes at us. Because hearing Kucinich chaffes at us. Because hearing Ron Paul chaffes at us. Because hearing Mike Gravel — who I suspect is about to be let go to John Cox status — chaffes at us.
Ron Paul is instructive. He offered an opinion contrary to that held by everyone else on the stage. It is somehow the issue that most cleanly divides the parties — witness the Michigan political bosses circulating a petition to snuff Paul out of the debates and a renewed primary focus (as though it is about to get anywhere further than the renewed primary threat of 2006), and compare it to the apostacy of Lieberman for the Democratic Party. (Drummed out, thankfully, but face it: without the war issue, the party grassroots would suck in their dislike for Lieberman’s tedious DLC-ism, and accept him… much as they do a handful of other politicians.)

Without Ron Paul, the debate would have been tedious. As with Gravel at that Democratic debate.

The basic problem, dear Dave Reinhard, is this: you do know that this is 2007, right? The election is some years away (one and a half is plural, right? If we are stuck with this prolonged process, we may as well have a host of these “second tier” and “third tier” candidates blurring the precious “process.”

The big news that came out of the Republican primary debate was Rudy Giuliani’s response to Ron Paul. If you go to The Weekly Standard website, you will find a column by Fred Barnes on what a glorious take-down this was, and how Rudy somehow seized the moment and separated himself from the field. I wish that the American Conservative had a better web presence, either in the form of a continuous blog like Reason or in the form of these more timely instant articles like the Weekly Standard — so as to guage the reaction from that isolationist — ergo anti-war — paleo-conservative outlet. As it is, all I can really count on are the Libertarians of Reason and Lew Rockwell to counter the Weekly Standard and National Review (bluntly put it: “Go Away. We’re through with you.”).

I have every confidence that Rudy scripted his response in his debate planning. Bully for him, that’s what you are supposed to do, the other candidates can only wish they had thought of using Ron Paul as effectively. What strikes me is how patently false Rudy Giuliani’s comments are. Try it on for size:

That’s really an extraordinary statement…that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations.

I can state with absolute confidence that Rudy Giuliani has heard of Blowback Theory.

I can state with absolute confidence that Rudy Giuliani has heard more absurd explanations for 9/11 than Blowback Theory. I can dredge some things up from the Internets if you want me to.
I will state that if what Rudy Giuliani says here is true, that he has never heard of Blowback Theory and that he has never heard any more absurd explanation for 9/11 — which if you consider are likely to include him personally makes it doubly incongruous, than he is — without gauging any other aspect of his political or personal characteristics — Utterly and Completely Disqualified to lead this nation. And I guess it is a good thing that Ron Paul introduced him to the concept here, or else he might find himself president and have the displeasure of CIA officials telling him about it on his first day of the job.

This is fine, though, because we all know Rudy Giuliani was lying and simply affecting a false pose of shock — SHOCK — in a fit of demagoguery. Really, only because the other candidates didn’t come up with the idea first.

At any rate, Rudy further disgraced himself when he said that he “lived through 9/11”. As though nobody else did. As though the other candidates didn’t.

Apparently Ron Paul kicked ass in Fox News’s text-message poll of text-messengers in the question of “Who won the debate?” He lead for most of the night, and at the end faltered to Mitt Romney, with Giuliani in a distant third. This is due to the nature of Ron Paul’s supporters versus everyone else’s, and Sean Hannity was, reportedly apoplectic in reporting the poll results. The question here is: what is the point of having a text message poll? I suppose it gives an illusion of interactivity, but it also gives the opportunity for the Paul supporters to completely destroy Fox News’s narrative illusion.

…………….

Ron Paul, from the debate:

Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. They are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary.

……………………

Ron Gunzburger: Whatever points Ron Paul scored in the first debate as the lone anti-war GOP candidate were probably lost in this debate […]True or not, Paul’s comments will relegate him to a fringe GOP following or a third party run. Um. Ron Paul was always held a “fringe GOP following”. At any rate, Paul is basically incapable of not telling his truth. More from his natural flock found here.

I can’t say that Great minds think alike so much as like-minded minds think alike.  Hence I saw a post on Reason that asked Who you desire to hear from concering the death of Jerry Falwell… Larry Flynt, Christopher Hitchens, Fred Phelps, and … Tinky Winky.  I myself left out Fred Phelps because his addition to the memorial was incredibly predictable, and not particularly witty as anything Hitchens would say — ie: God killed him off; we will be picketing the funeral; yee-ha!
James spared me the embarrassment of leaving a search for Larry Flynt in the cache.  Flynt said:

My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that.

The most important result of our relationship was the landmark decision from the Supreme Court that made parody protected speech, and the fact that much of what we see on television and hear on the radio today is a direct result of my having won that now famous case which Falwell played such an important role in.

Christopher Hitchens has a slate article, but I zero in on his interview with Anderson Cooper yesterday (which the right – wing blogosphere is apoplectic about):

The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God’s punishment if they hadn’t got some kind of clerical qualification?

HITCHENS: Of course not. He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.
And Tinky Winky?

To be honest, that’s not the funniest Tinky Winky parody.  I’ll have to look for the superior one.
BA DE DUM!