Fred Thompson Presidential Announcement on Tonight Show

Rudy On His Commitment To End Illegal Immigration

Paul vs. Huckabee on the surge.

How to Change Iraq

How To Change Iraq
Bush Should Start By Admitting Fault

By Madeleine K. Albright
Thursday, September 6, 2007; Page A21

The threshold question in any war is: What are we fighting for? Our troops, especially, deserve a convincing answer.

In Iraq, the list of missions that were tried on but didn't fit includes: protection from weapons of mass destruction, creating a model democracy in the Arab world, punishing those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and stopping terrorists from catching the next plane to New York. The latest mission, linked to the "surge" of troops this year, was to give Iraqi leaders the security and maneuvering room needed to make stabilizing political arrangements -- which they have thus far shown little interest in doing.

A cynic might suggest that the military's real mission is to enable President Bush to continue denying that his invasion has evolved into disaster. A less jaded view might identify three goals: to prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for al-Qaeda, a client state of Iran or a spark that inflames regionwide war. These goals respond not to dangers that prompted the invasion but to those that resulted from it. Our troops are being asked to risk their lives to solve problems our civilian leaders created. The president is beseeching us to fear failure, but he has yet to explain how our military can succeed given Iraq's tangled politics and his administration's lack of credibility.

This disconnect between mission and capabilities should be at the center of debate as Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker report on the war's status and congressional leaders prepare their fall strategies. Despite the hopes of many, this debate is unlikely to end the war soon; nor will it produce fresh support for our present dismal course. Although U.S. troop levels will surely start to come down, big decisions about whether and under what circumstances to complete the withdrawal seem certain to remain for the next president, when he or she takes office. Yet this should not preclude Democrats and Republicans from trying to agree on ways to minimize the damage before then.

According to the National Intelligence Estimate released last month, the recent modest but extremely hard-won military gains will mean little "unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments."

Given the depth of the sectarian divisions within Iraq, such a fundamental shift will not occur through Iraqi actions alone. Given America's lack of leverage, it will not result from our patrols, benchmarks, speeches or "surprise" presidential visits to Anbar province. That leaves coordinated international assistance as the only option.

The Balkans are at peace today through the joint efforts of the United States, the European Union and the United Nations -- all of which worked to help moderate leaders inside the region. A similar strategy should have been part of our Iraq policy from the outset but has never been seriously attempted.

Is such an initiative still viable? Perhaps. The United Nations has pledged to become more involved. Europe's new leaders -- led by Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown -- understand their region's stake in Iraq's future and seem willing to assist. The Saudi, Jordanian and Syrian governments all view Iraqi instability as a profound security threat. Turkish and Kurdish representatives recently signed an agreement to cooperate along their troubled border. Iran is the wildest of cards, but it would be unlikely to isolate itself from a broad international program aimed at reconciliation. If it does, it would only hand a political victory to us and to the many Iraqi leaders, Shiite and Sunni alike, who would prefer to minimize Iranian influence.

President Bush could do his part by admitting what the world knows -- that many prewar criticisms of the invasion were on target. Such an admission would be just the shock a serious diplomatic project would need. It would make it easier for European and Arab leaders to help, as their constituents are reluctant to bail out a president who still insists that he was right and they were wrong. Our troops face death every day; the least the president can do is face the truth.

A coordinated international effort could help Iraq by patrolling borders, aiding reconstruction, further training its army and police, and strengthening legislative and judicial institutions. It could also send a unified message to Iraq's sectarian leaders that a political power-sharing arrangement that recognizes majority rule and protects minority rights is the only solution and is also attainable.

If there is a chance to avoid deeper disaster in Iraq, it depends on a psychological transformation so people begin preparing to compete for power peacefully instead of plotting how to survive amid anarchy. The international community cannot ensure such a shift, but we can and should do more to encourage it.

The writer was secretary of state from 1997 to 2001. She is principal of theAlbright Group LLC.

Linking Immigration and Poverty

September 05, 2007
Linking Immigration and Poverty
By Robert Samuelson

The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we -- meaning the public, the press and politicians -- missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated; but it is widely ignored.

The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the 11.3 percent in 2000, the recent low. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.

It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3 percent poverty rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics accounted for all of the gain.

Consider. From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000, but is down over longer periods.

Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes largely untold. Government officials didn't say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.

Why is it important to get this story straight?

One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may now be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.

We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.

A second reason is that immigration affects government policy. By default, our present policy is to import poor people. This imposes strains on local schools, public services and health care. From 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics. Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation -- which should be our goal -- will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.

We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They will assimilate quickest and most aid the economy. As for present illegal immigrants, we should give most of them legal status, both as a matter of practicality and fairness. Many have been here for years and have American children. At the same time, we should clamp down on new illegal immigration through tougher border controls and employer sanctions.

Whatever one's views, any sensible debate requires accurate information. There's the rub. Among many analysts, journalists and politicians, it's politically or psychologically discomforting to discuss these issues candidly. Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says his group focuses on short-term trends, where immigration's role isn't so apparent. Conveniently, that avoids antagonizing some of the center's supporters.

Journalists are also leery of making the connection. Fifty-four reporters signed up for the center's briefing last week. With one exception (me), none asked about immigration's effect on poverty or incomes. But the evidence is hiding in plain sight, and the facts won't vanish just because we ignore them.

(c) 2007, The Washington Post Writers Group

David vs. Goliath...Down Goes Michigan!

Comments on this article do not merit extra credit, but I just had to post something!

The Little Guy Wins One for The Ages

By John Feinstein
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, September 3, 2007; 4:32 PM

Because of the absolute glut of media outlets now in existence, especially in the realm of sports, there is a tendency to get carried away (to put it mildly) by what is happening in the here-and-now.

Tiger Woods must be the greatest golfer of all time. Roger Federer must be the greatest tennis player of all time. Bill Belichick must be the greatest NFL coach of all time. Charlie Weis must be the greatest college football coach of all time. (Oh wait, that's just Weis's opinion).

And, of course, Appalachian State over Michigan must be the greatest upset in the history of college football.

With apologies to Woods, Federer and Belichick, all of whom may someday go down as the absolute best at what they do, Saturday's game in Ann Arbor is, in fact, the greatest upset in the history of college football.

It is more stunning than Carlisle over Army in 1912; more shocking than Carnegie Tech over Notre Dame in 1926 and more amazing than Columbia over an Army team that was unbeaten in 32 straight games in 1947. It is even more remarkable than Duke over anyone in 2007.

Why? Because there are few things in the world more imbalanced than today's college football world. The BCS schools have every possible advantage when playing non-BCS schools that are division 1-A, much less when they play schools from 1-AA. (Note to the NCAA: you can try changing the names of your divisions all you want, some of us just aren't going to pay attention). To begin with, 1-A schools are allowed 22 more scholarships than 1-AA schools. They have more money than they can possibly know what to do with (spend it on weight rooms is usually the answer); they have vastly superior facilities; their players are treated like kings every day of their lives and they never would be caught dead playing a 1-AA school on the road.

When Carnegie Tech beat Notre Dame, 19-0, 81 years ago the game was at Forbes Field in Pittsburgh. Granted, Knute Rockne (the real one, not the current Irish coach who just thinks he's Rockne) took the game so lightly that he didn't bother to show up (seriously), and went to scout Army-Navy instead.

Lloyd Carr showed up to coach his team on Saturday, although the case can be made that he didn't do a very good job of it. Appalachian State won the game because it came into Michigan Stadium in an emotional frenzy, understanding that the game was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Michigan showed up wondering when it would be time to start looking at tape of Oregon.

Of course this happens frequently when little guy faces big guy. (Someone please hit me in the forehead with a rock if I bring up David and Goliath). Appalachian State is a well-coached, talented team that knows how to win, having won back-to-back division 1-AA national titles. Remember also, these are real national titles, where you have to play actual playoff games (three of them) to reach the championship game. The players and coaches know about pressure and they know how to win games.

When Michigan got its act together long enough on Saturday to rally and take the lead, and then get the ball back with the lead, the Mountaineers didn't panic. They got a stop, marched down the field to kick a field goal and then blocked a field goal on the game's final play. They made plays. This was no fluke. If the teams played again next week Michigan would probably win, but it wouldn't be easy. What's more, it doesn't matter. The game was played last Saturday and the better team on that day won.

There's only one bad thing about Appalachian State's victory: It will now give powerhouse schools an excuse to continue scheduling 1-AA teams. In truth, these games shouldn't be allowed because the kids from the 1-AA schools really don't have more than a once-in-a-lifetime chance to win the game or even compete in them. What's even worse is that the two football polls won't allow 1-AA teams to receive votes in their polls. If they're allowed to compete against 1-A teams, why in the world can't they be ranked if they're deserving? You think anyone in this week's top 25 would want to play the Mountaineers right about now? Think they'd want to play them at a neutral site after seeing them beat Michigan in front of 109,000 -- most in maize and blue -- last Saturday?

Duke, which last beat a Division 1-A team in 2004 (seriously) can receive a vote in the preseason coaches poll from Steve Spurrier, but Appalachian State, which would beat Duke by at least 40, can't receive a vote? Let's see how many voters in either poll continue to give Michigan a vote this week. You can bet there will be some who will do so, which is utterly ridiculous.

Really though, none of that matters. Saturday's game was one that will be brought up 50, 60, 70 years from now when extraordinary upsets occur. A little school from the mountains of North Carolina, located in a town with a population that is 96,000 people fewer than the capacity of Michigan Stadium, walked into one of college football's most hallowed venues and won.

One of the Michigan kids said after the game it wasn't really that big a deal? Really? Tell that to people 50 years from now when you're still being asked about it. Lloyd Carr, who is an outstanding coach by any definition, is officially a dead man walking. Unless he figures out a way to win every game for the rest of this season, he can't survive this. Beat Oregon? So what. Beat Notre Dame (which doesn't look quite as good these days with most of Tyrone Willingham's players gone, does it)? fine. Maybe if he beats Ohio State, he might survive.

But neither he nor his players will ever completely get past Appalachian State. Carr will always be remembered as the coach of the 1997 national championship team. He will also be remembered as the coach who lost to Appalachian State in 2007.

Chaminade over Virginia comes to mind on the list of all-time upsets, but at least that game was at Chaminade. The U.S. hockey team over the Soviets at Lake Placid also comes to mind but what would the score of that game have been if the game had been played in Moscow? Frances Ouimet over Harry Vardon and Ted Ray at The Country Club in 1913? Remarkable, but again it was an American over foreigners on American soil.

No, this might very well be the all-timer. You almost hesitate to say it because there will be three books (no, none written by me. wise-guys); four ESPN specials and a Sports Illustrated commemorative issue on sale by this time next week.

But this was as mind-bending an upset as any of us will ever see in our lifetimes. Unless you were a Michigan player, coach or fan, it was just pure fun to see a little guy knock off a true giant.

Appalachian State didn't have a rock. Just a lot of huge hearts. That was enough to create a memory likely to last just about as long as the story about the little guy, the giant and the rock.

Immigration and the 08 Election

Karl Rove is right.

President Bush's career guru has long insisted that Republicans will never achieve permanent majority status unless they can connect with Hispanic voters. Since his White House departure, he has warned Republicans that their persistent immigrant-bashing is hazardous to their long-term political health. In Rove's words, "You cannot ignore the aspirations of the fastest-growing minority in America."

But the party seems to be rolling up the welcome mat, even at the risk of alienating Hispanics who have the potential to swing five crucial states in the 2008 presidential election. As conservative political activist Clint Bolick warned in an Arizona newspaper not long ago, "If Republicans continue chasing Hispanic voters away, they can kiss their national electoral prospects good-bye."

Under severe pressure from the predominantly white GOP base, most party leaders have largely renounced the Bush-Rove inclusion strategy. Rove's original idea was to enact a reform law that would clear a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, thereby crafting the image of a Hispanic-friendly GOP; indeed, Bush was talking about this way back in 2001. But the party base didn't buy it, nor did the talk-radio conservatives, and the reform plan died in June on the Senate floor.

That was merely the latest blow to the inclusion strategy. Last year, when the Republicans still ran the House, they passed a bill that in essence sought to kick the illegals out of the country. The heat on Bush got so intense that he knuckled under and backed a bill to build a border fence. Sixteen months ago, a worried Republican analyst named Matthew Continetti told me, "The optimistic [GOP] message is pro-Latino and inclusive. The pessimistic message is 'Build a wall.' And one thing we know is, optimistic messages win."

Sure enough, in the congressional elections last November, the pessimistic message lost. Whereas Bush captured as much as 44 percent of the Hispanic voters when he won reelection in 2004 (a record high for a GOP presidential candidate), Republican congressional candidates drew only 30 percent in 2006. The latter figure is nine points lower than the GOP congressional share in the midterms of 2002. It also appears that '06 Hispanic voters, by dint of their growing numbers, were pivotal in helping the Democrats win four western House seats previously held by the GOP.

Hispanic Americans, of course, are not monolithic; they hail from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guatemala, Argentina, and many more. And even though, as a percentage of the U.S. electorate, their numbers have tripled during the past quarter-century (from 3 percent to the current 9), they are hardly dominant nationwide.

Nevertheless, despite their ethnic diversity, they share some political traits. They are generally conservative on cultural issues and wary of government handouts. (As John Raya, a Hispanic plumbing contractor in California once told me, "We're just Middle America with a tan.") On the other hand, they generally gravitate to the party that they perceive to be more tolerant and welcoming (traditionally, the Democrats). And while they are still not populous everywhere (accounting for only 2.7 percent of the Pennsylvania electorate, for instance), they now have enough numerical clout to tilt five states on the presidential election map: Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.

Bush won all five in 2004. But, in part because of growing evidence that Hispanics are souring on the GOP, Democrats say they believe all five are in play next year. It's no accident that the Democrats have decided to hold their '08 convention in Colorado. It's no accident that Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson - the first serious Hispanic to seek the White House, and ultimately a strong vice presidential possibility - is stressing his ethnicity and his record as governor of New Mexico.

But the Republicans' worst nightmare could be Florida. According to the 2006 exit polls, Florida Hispanics favored the Democratic candidates at the top of the midterm ballot for the first time in three decades. As Florida Republican congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban immigrant, reportedly lamented after the '06 elections, "There has been too much of an anti-immigrant tone [from the GOP]. When people start to perceive that immigrants are being put in the same category as a threat to national security, it's hard to get your message across."

Nor does the GOP's traditional edge in Florida appear to be safe any longer. The party has long reaped the votes of the anti-communist Cuban Americans, the most dominant Hispanics in the state, who have long been focused on toppling Fidel Castro. But the younger voters in that community are increasingly registering as independents; they reportedly care more about their economic prospects than they do about Fidel. And they have been joined by an influx of new citizens from Central and South America. All told, as recently as a decade ago, at least 60 percent of Hispanics in pivotal Miami-Dade County were registered as Republicans; today, the GOP share is less than half.

And the GOP's ongoing immigrant-bashing is unlikely to reverse those figures. In recent weeks, presidential candidates (Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo) have argued over who would take the hardest line. One perpetual tease, Newt Gingrich, has even insisted that "the war here at home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan," a remark that fails the sanity test but nevertheless demonstrates the extent to which Republican politicians are willing to hurl red meat in the hopes of wooing GOP primary voters.

What's most puzzling is that the Republicans seem intent on repeating a sorry chapter in their own history. Thirteen years ago, in California, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won reelection by bashing immigrants and supporting a referendum to kick illegal immigrant kids out of the schools. Two years later, GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole decided to adopt the same tone. The '96 results speak for themselves: Hispanic voting surged, and Republicans were wiped out in the California legislature. Meanwhile, Bob Dole received only 21 percent of the Hispanic votes nationwide, the worst GOP showing since that electorate was first tracked in 1972.

Karl Rove was well aware of the California lesson. So were the Hispanic Californians who lashed out at the GOP in 1996. I spoke with many of them, and their warning at the time was no different from what Rove is saying today.

Perhaps Sal Mendoza, an insurance broker and school board member in Santa Ana, Calif., said it best: "I think Republicans are so obsessed with their traditional conservatism . . . that they've lost track of the bigger picture. They're sitting on gold" - the Hispanic electorate - "but they don't know how to mine it. And if you can't mine it, you will lose."