The Spectacle Blog

Re: Immigrant Army, Continued

By on 10.19.06 | 4:44PM

I think it's a terrific idea, by the way. We need a bigger military, and we need more immigrants. To do the former with a draft is out of the question, both politically and prudentially (conscripts are, almost by definition, inferior soldiers). And we can't get the latter without either lots of illegal immigration enabled by poor enforcement (the current "solution") or guest worker programs that are inferior to a more straightforward liberalization of immigration quotas in every way except in political salability -- and rewarding our fighting men and women generally has broad appeal.

She’s Baaaaaaack!

By on 10.19.06 | 3:27PM

Announcing a new film about voter disenfranchisement among blacks in 2000 and 2004, starring Cynthia McKinney!

Apparently this film won the Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, proving conclusively that the folks at Sundance no longer have sound judgment, assuming, of course, that they ever had any to begin with.

Re: Grading the Governors

By on 10.19.06 | 1:54PM

Phil: Romney a C? I assume his presence in Massachusetts kept the rest of state government from earning an F.

In happier news, I see Kathleen Blanco received the lowest of the F's Cato handed out. But wouldn't it be fair to say Katrina might account for her lost homework?

Grading The Governors

By on 10.19.06 | 12:16PM

Cato has published its 2006 fiscal policy report card for governors. Missouri's Republican governor Matt Blunt was the only one to receive an A. Among the crop of potential 2008 presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack received Cs and Mike Huckabee was given an F.

Via Hit and Run.

Play Hooky, MoveOn Says

By on 10.19.06 | 11:45AM

This was just sent to one of my alternate email accounts:

Dear MoveOn member,

Do you ever wish you could quit your day job and work to take back Congress? Well, on Election Day, you can come close: Take the day off work on Tuesday, November 7th and be part of something big.

 Skip your annoying commute. Skip those endless meetings. This election is the best chance we've had in years to change the direction of our country. And we have a plan to put dozens of races over the top by making hundreds of thousands of get-out-the-vote phone calls on Election Day—but we can't do it without your help….

2006 vs. 1994

By on 10.19.06 | 11:37AM

The National Journal's Chuck Todd describes five ways in which the 2006 elections are similar to the 1994 elections, and five ways in which they are different.

One big difference that he doesn't mention is that with just a few weeks to go before the election, Democrats still haven't offered anything akin to the "Contract With America." The closest they've gotten is the "New Direction For America," but that's not much of a revolutionary governing agenda rooted in a clear ideology, it's more of a laundry list of liberal pet causes: raising the minimum wage, cutting college costs, making health care more affordable, etc. However, it still could be enough, because another difference between the two elections is that in 1994, Republicans needed to gain 40 seats to take control of Congress (they ended up gaining 52), but this year Democrats only need 15.

Immigrant Army

By on 10.19.06 | 10:53AM

Max Boot and Michael O'Hanlon have co-authored an op-ed for the Washinton Post of the "kill two kill birds with one stone" genre, arguing that the U.S. should offer a military path to citizenship, thus addressing both the immigration issue and armed forces recruitment problems. (The article mainly focuses on addressing the latter, and doesn't suggest that it will solve the former, only that "it could provide a new path toward assimilation for undocumented immigrants...")

The biggest problem I had with their piece was this argument: