I never understand persons who proclaim their desire for "principled progressives" attacking those on the Left who actually, argue for, um, principled progressive positions. From No More Mister Nice Guy Blog:

[W]hile I'd like a president (and subordinates and appointees of that president) to be principled progressives rather than eager-to-please seekers of common ground, I prefer eager-to-please semi-progressive seekers of common ground to the sociopaths of the GOP, who'd happily burn this country to the ground if it meant they'd be the lords of what smoking embers remained. So I'll continue to voice objections to what displeases me about the Obama administration, but I'm not forgetting who the real enemy is.

Part of my frustration with Firebagging in general is that progressives simply lack the muscle to drag not just the administration but Congress and the country all that far to the left by sheer force of will, and Firebaggers don't seem to understand that. [. . .] We've got a lot of work to do to get our message across. We're not going to get there by regularly joining right-wingers in Obama pile-ons.

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course "joining right wingers in Obama pile-ons" is not a winning strategy. But NOT joining progressive criticisms (if you agree with them, as it happens I disagree with a lot of them- see me on Afghanistan, preventive detention, Kagan, free trade, etc.), or worse yet, excoriating progressives for criticizing Democrats from the Left sounds like a losing strategy for promoting progressivism too. More . . .

Funny stuff from Byron York:

When left-leaning activist groups, civil rights leaders and lawmakers in several cities called for a boycott of Arizona over the state's new illegal immigration law, they did more than make a point about illegal immigration. They also set off a war -- a war that no one will win.

[. . .] "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if that started, at any level, there would be reciprocation from Arizona," says Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council. "A boycott can only lead to harm."

Yep. Arizona will boycott the rest of the country, gawdammit! They may even boycott MLB and throw the Diamondbacks out of the state! The "concern" coming from one of the strongest advocates for AZ SB 1070 is just precious. Ha!

Boycott Arizona!

Speaking for me only

NYTimes:

Lt. Kenneth Tenebro enlisted in the armed forces after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, signing up even before he became an American citizen. He served one tour of duty in Iraq, dodging roadside bombs, and he would like to do another. But throughout that first mission, he harbored a fear he did not share with anyone in the military. Lieutenant Tenebro worried that his wife, Wilma, back home in New York with their infant daughter, would be deported.

[. . .] Immigration lawyers and Department of Homeland Security officials say that many thousands of people in the military have spouses or close relatives who are illegal immigrants. Many of those service members have fought to gain legal status for their family members — only to hit a legal dead end created in 1996, when Congress last made major revisions to the immigration laws. Today the issue is not only personal. “It is an issue of readiness for the American armed forces,” says Representative Zoe Lofgren, the Democrat from California who leads the House subcommittee on immigration. “We have many Americans who are afraid to deploy.”

Mrs. Tenebro is snagged on a statute, notorious among immigration lawyers, that makes it virtually impossible for her to become a legal resident without first leaving the United States and staying away for 10 years. [. . .] The legal boomerang that snared her and many others was created in 1996, when Congress imposed automatic restrictions on illegal immigrants, barring them from returning for periods of 3 to 10 years after they leave the country, regardless of whether they were deported or left voluntarily.

Hey Joe Lieberman. Maybe you can deal with this citizenship problem.

NYTimes:

Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take “a hard look” at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects.

“United States citizenship is a privilege,” she said. “It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers — or in this case, foreign terrorists — are clearly in violation, in my personal opinion, of that oath which they swore when they became citizens.”

(Emphasis supplied.) This is incorrect as a legal matter in my view. The 14th Amendment states that:

This snippet from a NYTimes editorial caught my eye:

This is not Mr. Lieberman’s first foray into this dark territory. He is co-author with Mr. McCain of a bill that would require that anyone arrested on any terrorism-related charge, including American citizens, be declared an enemy combatant and tried in a military court.

As I discussed yesterday, the biggest obstacle to the NeoCon approach is the fact that the military tribunals can not be used to try federal crimes, only violations of the laws of war. If Lieberman and McCain are serious about their proposal, the need to move to repeal all federal laws that criminalize terrorism. All of the rest of this is showboating nonsense. Put your money where your mouth is NeoCons, repeal federal laws criminalizing terrorism.

Speaking for me only

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is panicked that the outrageous law she signed, AZ SB 1070, has made her state a pariah. In response, she pens an absurd column for ESPN that ignores history and insults the very "out of state interests" she is hoping will not boycott Arizona:

Urging Major League Baseball to take away next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix is the wrong play. In Arizona, both proponents and opponents of Senate Bill 1070 have stated that economic boycotts are an inappropriate and misguided response to an issue that is clearly worthy of proper public debate and discourse. Put simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests.

(Emphasis supplied.) Boycotts do not work? Really? Remember Rosa Parks and the Montgomery boycott of 1955? South Africa? Or, wait for it, the NFL refusing to hold a Super Bowl IN ARIZONA after it repealed MLK Day? All of those boycotts worked. More . . .

Gail Collins:

There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms. “I think you’re going too far here,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what? Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

[. . .] “We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it’s the Second Amendment, it doesn’t matter if they’re Osama bin Laden,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

To be clear, I disagree with the SCOTUS' Heller decision (Jeralyn agrees with it), so it is easy for me to support limiting access to guns for suspected terrorists. If you think it is a fundamental right, like say, Fifth Amendment rights (see Miranda), hesitancy in restricting that right seems logical. Too bad that hesitancy is not seen regarding the restricting of all fundamental Constitutional rights (Lindsey Graham again: "I am all into national security. ... I want to stop reading these guys their Miranda rights[.]”)

Speaking for me only

Is Zen Master a euphemism for hypocrite?

I was caught off guard by [Jackson's take] take on the Phoenix Suns’ peaceful protest of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law in the form of wearing their “Los Suns” jerseys. First Jackson, who has showed lefty leanings in the past, indicated he had no problem with the controversial state Senate Bill 1070. “Am I crazy, or am I the only one that heard [the legislature] say ‘we just took the United States immigration law and adapted it to our state,’” Jackson said. I told him they usurped the federal law. “It’s not usurping, it’s just copying it is what they said they did, and then they gave it some teeth to be able to enforce it,” Jackson said.

Then he mildly scolded the Suns. “I don’t think teams should get involved in the political stuff. And I think this one’s still kind of coming out to balance as to how it’s going to be favorably looked upon by our public. If I heard it right the American people are really for stronger immigration laws, if I’m not mistaken. Where we stand as basketball teams, we should let that kind of play out and let the political end of that go where it’s going to go.”

Jackson of course does not know what he is talking about. But the hypocrisy he knows pretty darn well. But what else to expect from a 2000 Bill Bradley supporter (my loathing of Bill Bradley is of long standing):

Should it be Las Espuelas? Yes. And Phoenix should be spelled Fenix.

Preview of the game here.

Open Thread.

The Hill reports:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is planning to introduce a bill that would allow the government to take away citizenship from Americans who join foreign terrorist organizations. [. . .] "I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship [. . .] when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act," Lieberman, who helms the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Fox News.

If the legislation is made law, it would allow [citizens accused of being terrorists] to be tried before military tribunals. Lieberman, who is one of the most hawkish members of the Democratic caucus, believes military courts should be used to try terror suspects, not civilian courts.

(Emphasis supplied.) Clearly then, Lieberman's goal is not mainly about depriving citizens of their Miranda rights, but to deprive citizens of their Sixth Amendment rights:

More fodder for George Will, Phoenix Suns owner denounces SB 1070:

Suns Managing Partner Robert Sarver made a bold statement Tuesday denouncing the controversial new immigration bill that recently was signed into law.

In announcing that the Suns would wear their "Los Suns" jerseys in recognition of playing Game 2 against San Antonio on Cinco de Mayo on Wednesday, Sarver also addressed the immigration bill that has been a divisive national topic since Gov. Jan Brewer enacted it into law April 23. "The frustration with the federal government's failure to deal with the issue of illegal immigration resulted in passage of a flawed state law," Sarver said in a statement released by the Suns on Tuesday morning. "However intended, the result of passing this law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question, and Arizona's already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them."

(Emphasis supplied.) Yes, Arizona's new law is a resounding success.

Speaking for me only

NYTimes:

A majority of the people polled, 57 percent, said the federal government should determine the laws addressing illegal immigration. But 51 percent said the Arizona law was “about right” in its approach to the problem. Thirty-six percent said it went too far and 9 percent said it did not go far enough.

Many people, Republicans and Dems alike, seize on that 51% as meaning the measure is popular and therefore good politics. It is not meaningful and is bad politics.

The reason is simple, the measure's politics must be considered from the point of view of persuadables and how they react to this law. 80% of the 51% are almost certainly rock solid GOP voters who will never vote Democrat. Most of the rest probably will not decide their vote one way or the other because of the thinking behind this legislation. But a significant amount of persuadables, most of these Latino, will turn away from the GOP permanently because of this (see Prop 187.) Conservative Michael Gerson gets it: