EckerNet.Com

Brian “Saint Paul” Ward and John Hinderaker of the Northern Radio Alliance will be out on assignment this week, so Brad Carlson and myself will be filling in for them this Saturday (9/4/10) from 11 am to 1 pm on 1280 AM The Patriot.  We’ll be live from the MN State Fair just inside the Snelling Entrance on Dan Patch Avenue, just steps west of Cosgrove.  In fact here’s a map!!

We’ll be joined in the first our by MN State Senator Chris Gerlach (R – Apple Valley/Rosemount/Burnsville) and in the second hour we’ll be joined by Fifth Congressional District GOP Candidate Joel Demos.

Come out and enjoy the State Fair, and while your chowing down on some of the good food, swing by our booth and check out the show!  See you there!

Ok first of all let me apologize for not writing much lately, I’ve been busy with a variety of activities that I’m not going to bore you with.  I especially am thankful for those readers who have stuck by me through the dry spell and in fact have requested a new look at the Senate and if the GOP has a chance of taking it.  Fair enough, quite a few races have changed, so let’s take another look shall we?

To start, let’s summarize.  Republicans need to get to 51, right now they are at 41.  The last few times I took a look at the Senate I came up with a final total of 49, 48 and 48, in that chronological order.  It’s become increasingly popular for pundits to declare the Senate is flipping, can Republicans get to 51?  One way to find out.

First of all, let’s dispense with the states that were at one point interesting and are now all but decided.  North Dakota (D), Indiana (D) and Arkansas (D) are all currently held by Democrats and by next year will be in Republican hands.  I’m not going to bore you with the history or the details, but to re-use a favorite hypothetical….the Republican could be caught with a dead hooker and a goat on top of a pile of cocaine and they’d still win in all three.  So let’s move onto something interesting.  +3 for Republicans

Delaware (D) – Now Delaware should be in the category above, if not for the Tea Party, bless their freedom loving hearts.  The Tea Party has gotten a pretty high opinion of themselves lately, and probably for good reason.  They’ve ousted a lot of moderate earmarking Republicans already, Alaska being just the most recent.  They’ve now set their sights on Mike Castle (R) of Delaware.  Now let’s dispense with the obvious, Castle is very much a moderate, but he’s also much more conservative than the Democrat, Chris Coons.  And Delaware is not Alaska, or Utah, or Nevada….in fact, Delaware is one of the most liberal states in the country so it would be wise to take a page from the Book of Scott Brown, and be happy with whatever Republican you can get.  Especially if that Republican can absolutely demolish the Democrat in an election, while the more “pure” Republican would go down in flames.  Tea Party members, don’t be stupid, go with Castle.  Should be a solid Republican takeover.

Nevada (D) – Ok I’ve called this a leaning Republican takeover since the beginning and I’m starting to reconsider that evaluation.  Reid was definitely vulnerable and this was a golden opportunity for Republicans.  Now to be fair, Sharon Angle is incredibly green and there was a huge learning curve.  And she’s had multiple chances to make that next step to respectable candidate and it hasn’t happened.  Reid has had incredible horrific negatives from the beginning, so the fact that voters still haven’t coalesced around Angle suggests it’s not going to happen.  And unlike many states Nevada has a third option on their ballot….they have a “None of the Above” option, which I am starting to suspect all those people not flocking to Angle are going to take.  The intangibles still favor Angle but it’s hard to call this for her at this point.  This is a toss-up, unless Angle can get her ass in line and mount a respectable campaign, because this should be an overwhelmingly easy win for Republicans.

Illinois (D) -Again, this should have been sooooo easy.  Instead we have two incredibly flawed candidates competing for a seat currently held by a man that bribed his way into the seat, vacated by one of the most incompetent Presidents in history.  On one hand, Kirk (R) has a huge money advantage and an electorate mood that favors him.  On the other hand, Giannoulias (D) has the potent Democrat political machine churning for him in an corrupt Illinois political scene.  I originally ranked this as a Republican takover, then leaning Republican, then toss-up and the trend continues, I’m moving this to the leaning Democrat retention….the first of the Holy Trinity Senate seats to do so.  Damn it.

Pennsylvania (D) – Last time I was starting to get a little concerned here, but that hiccup seems to have passed.  We’re back in pretty safe territory for Toomey (R), who has regained the momentum and is opening his leading on Sestak (D).  Toomey has a huge money advantage, he’s flirting with a double digit lead in the polls, and the momentum.  Sestak has some serious work ahead of him if he wants to win this, but short of that this is a pretty solid Republican takeover.

Colorado (D) – Well this is easier to analyze now that we finally know who our candidates are.  Senator Bennet (D) survived a strong primary challenge and the Tea Party got their man, Ken Buck (R) in.  Buck polled the best of the two Republicans, but Democrats are happy because they think the GOP has appointed an extremist.  They have some reason to remain positive, Buck is a rookie and he’s at a severe money disadvantage.  On the other hand, Bennet isn’t very charismatic and has never run a statewide campaign before.   With an anti-insider attitude amongst voters this favors Buck at this point.  Leaning Republican takeover.

California (D) – Holy hell….how did we get here.  California is competitive….the land of hippie gumdrops and magical sticky hemp rope swings.  Really??  But dammit the data keeps pointing to this actually being close.  This is a statistical deadheat and has been for awhile.  Boxer has lost significant segments of the voters and is polling pretty awful.  But so far Fiorina hasn’t been able to capitalize.  Plus…..IT’S CALIFORNIA….Obama is still popular here.  Okay we had our fun and made California a battleground state, can we go back to where things make sense now??  Leaning Democratic retention.

Wisconsin (D) – Ok last time I was pretty sure this was leaning Republican takeover but do to the absolutely lack of any sort of significant and reliable data, I stuck with toss-up.  We’ve had some time and I was right to be cautious.  Wisconsin’s economy is pretty awful and they are ripe for change.  But Feingold (D) is a smart politician and he knows what he needs to do to survive, plus he has a huge money advantage over all of his potential Republican opponents (primary on Sept 14th).  I’m keeping this one a toss-up, I just haven’t seen either one make any major progress.

Washington (D) – The primary confirmed this race is REALLY close, but basically the intangibles still favor Murray (D).  Anything could still happen but this is a blue state, it’s gotten bluer and the power of incumbency prevails here I think.  Every once in awhile conservatives get excited when Rossi (R) pulls ahead in the polls, but the next four polls show Murray in the lead.  And I suspect that will remain the case all the way to November.  Leaning Democrat retention.

Florida (R) – It’s too early to say for sure, but it looks like the trend I was hoping to see is beginning.  Independents, Democrats and Republicans all flirted with voting for Crist, but as the election gets closer, Republicans and Democrats are returning home.  Crist has shown all signs of caucusing with the Democrats if he wins, look for that to work against him at the weeks go on.  This is seat is still in danger, but it’s starting to lean Republican retention.  I’d like to see a couple more polls confirming that trend isn’t just a fluke.

Alaska (R) – This really has no place on this list but with Miller knocking of Murkowski, things have changed quite a bit.  Miller is only leading by 6 points, he was up by 8 a week ago…..in Alaska.  There is a very real concern that he won’t be accepted by the voters.  At this point, it’s more than likely these poll results are just residual bitterness from Murkowski supporters, who’ll eventually fall in line.  Look for Miller’s lead to increase in the future, otherwise Alaska becomes a permanent part of this list.  Likely Republican retention.

Ohio (R) – The Democrats strategy here was clearly to capitalize on Portman’s (R) ties with Bush.  But Bush’s stock his risen in the past few months, although not as fast as Obama’s has fallen.  It’s probably not a coincidence that the race is also starting to separate, with Portman opening a respectable gap against Fisher (D).  Portman has a 5:1 advantage in cash and Bush is no longer the albatross he used to be, or at least not enough to counteract the building Republican wave.  Likely Republican retention.

Kentucky (R) – Rand Paul (R) continues to hold his respectable lead and he’s managed to keep the more unusual parts of his ideology in check.  Moreover his opponent, Conway (D), had to make some pretty bad public commitments to health care and cap&trade to make it past the primary.  That’s going to hurt.  On the other hand, Democrats are going to try to nail Paul on his opposition to federal handouts which keep Kentucky afloat.  If he can avoid a stumble there this race is done.  Republican retention.

Missouri (R) – So far Blunt’s (R) biggest problem is himself, his campaign has stumbled over and over, including a number of unforced errors.  The mood of the Missouri voters should work against Carnahan (D) but she’s proven to a be a top-notch candidate, who could probably keep the race close without Blunt’s help.  That said, Blunt appears to be pulling it together and the winning coalition that Carnahan needed doesn’t appear to be developing.  Likely Republican retention.

New Hampshire (R) -There was the potential for something interesting to happen, it didn’t….now Ayotte (R) is solidly in control of this race over Hodes (D).  Republican retention.

End result? Well there are two toss-ups (Nevada and Wisconsin) but right now I see Republicans taking six Democrat seats and losing none of their own.  That gives Republicans 47, still well short of gaining the majority.  Although to be fair, there is still a very real path to majority for Republicans.  Both the toss-ups have to fall to Republicans, which isn’t unlikely at all, and Republicans have to regain the advantage in Illinois, which there is no reason to believe they can’t do.

But just because it’s possible, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen, and right now I don’t see anything to indicate it will.  Lots of opportunities, but so far just out of reach.

If you’re part of the Emmer camp, or even one of his supporters, yesterday was certainly a morale booster with the release of the MPR poll regarding the Governor’s race.  After months and millions upon millions of dollars of negative attack ads being directed at Emmer, and Emmer responding with….well nothing.  The race is still a dead heat.  Now that Emmer is starting to respond we may very well see the tide start shifting away though.

What’s really interesting though is when you get into the nitty-gritty of the poll, the demographics.

First of all, the potential spoiler, is Independent candidate Tom Horner.  Now the big concern on the right was how much of the Republican vote was Horner going to steal.  He is a former Republican, RINO to many, but his views are widely out of step with most everyone on the right.  But that concern was still there.  It appears that concern was maybe unfounded as he pulls more voters from the left side of the aisle than the right, by almost a 2:1 margin actually.  In essence, he’s more a spoiler for the Democrats than the Republicans.

But what really surprised me was the women….for many that know me, that shouldn’t be a huge surprise, so let me explain more, by paraphrasing a great political mind that probably would prefer not to be named here.  Women can be a bit signpost for Republicans, as they are the proverbial “canary in the coal mine”.  If you look at the political spectrum, you got about 30% that are sold GOP or Democrat on either side of the aisle.  You’re pretty certain of the support of your party.  So you’re mostly competing for all those independents in the middle, some of which tend to lean one way or another.  Suburban women generally lean Democrat, so as a Republican if you can do well amongst them, you’ve probably captured a good share of the independents.  If you start losing women, well, your opponent is starting to march down that political battlefield towards your end zone.

With the DWI issue getting such prominence, and Dayton’s own often (and recent) problems with alcohol NOT getting much attention, I figured Emmer is probably in trouble amongst women.  Plus he’s been mostly talking about spending and the deficit which, on it’s own, isn’t typically going to resonate with them.  But this poll shows that Emmer trails by only 7 points with women, and no candidate really has a commanding lead.  That’s particularly encouraging as Emmer doesn’t have much of a hole to dig out of there.  Instead it’s a platform on which to build.

And it’s a great starting point, not let’s move forward to November!

Before the 2008 election, there were a lot of warnings and scary platitudes tossed around about Obama.  Now granted a lot of them have come true, but one that hasn’t is that Obama is going to take away our guns.  You heard it everywhere.  Gun owners started hiding weapons and firearm purchases went absolutely through the roof, so much that the joke was that Obama was the NRA’s Salesman of the Year.

I heard all these claims and shoke my head at them all.  I knew Obama would never go after guns themselves.  The government confiscating firearms is just too symbolic and high-profile.  Even for non-Second Amendment supporters, it would be a little too Stalinesque to overlook.  I often counseled those that would listen that the danger was not in Obama taking away guns, but the ammunition.  Without ammunition a gun is just a really well engineered chunk of metal.  It’s an awkward club, or a really cool mantelpiece for the fireplace.  It’s the Achille’s Heel of firearms, and there are a million ways to strike it.

Most obvious is placing high taxes upon either the ammunition itself or the components required to manufacture them.  Or imposing artificially high prices by limiting the available materials for ammunition.  This is actually an approach the Obama Administration has already tried….and backed down when they got caught.  But they may be up to their old tricks again….

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.  If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Now certainly there exists non-lead alternatives for ammunition, but they are also extremely expensive.  They also aren’t nearly as effective.  Lead, being a softer metal tends to impart more of it’s kinetic energy upon it’s target, rather than the over-penetration problem you can have with other metals.  Lead is also a cheaper metal that keeps down the overall costs of the ammunition, which lends to people buying more of it.  This is important when a vast majority of the monies used for wildlife management and conservation efforts come from either hunting/fishing licenses and the 11 percent federal excise tax placed upon ammunition.

Eliminating one of the most common, and certainly the least expensive elements, in ammunition would necessarily greatly increase the cost of those rounds.  And when even a simple hunting trip can involve the purchase of many many rounds, this has a prohibitive effect on the hunting industry in general.  An industry that employs a lot of people and which contributes vast sums of resources to wildlife conservation efforts.  And when it becomes cost prohibitive to even buy such ammunition, firearms themselves become cost-prohibitive and you’ve essentially accomplished the same thing a firearms ban would accomplish.

Can you tell the difference between Real or Fake government programs?? According to this man-on-the-street interview, apparently most people can’t.

Actually the problem with paying attention to politics is I play this game every day.

Well the DFL finally figured out who their candidate is for Governor, and they picked Mark Dayton.  Also know as “The Blunderer“….seriously, that’s what Time magazine called him back when he was in the Senate…they also called him the worst Senator in America.  In response to winning the primary, Mark Dayton got so excited he promptly closed his campaign office for a month.

Well the MN GOP promptly released an ad introducing the new DFL nominee to Minnesota.  That shouldn’t be a surprise, we’ve been seeing Mark Dayton’s family spending millions on anti-Emmer ads for weeks now.  But now the MN GOP is finally answering back with an ad that scored an A- on the KSTP Truth Test….unlike the famous anti-Emmer ad by Alliance for a Better Minnesota (aka Dayton family front group) which scored an F.

Of course Dayton is denouncing this as a smear….not sure what part of quoting past news articles about him, he considers smearing.  Sounds like Dayton is already starting a pattern of running from his past.  And when it’s pretty true that past performance predicts future performance, that’s not good for Minnesota.

I love these type of sarcastic predictions.  They are funny to read through but despite their purely snarky intentions, they have an eerie tendency to be rather accurate.  And I suspect that’s happening already:

1. The response of every Democrat to every Republican question or comment becomes, semantically speaking, “George W. Bush.”  Up to and including “What are the visiting hours for the art gallery?”

Actually hasn’t this been the basis for every speech in the Obama Administration so far??

2. The Democrats start talking up “scandals” involving Republicans that wouldn’t even get you a verbal reprimand at your job if you did them.

I think it’s safe to say this qualifies….and allow me to go on record as stating we need more of these scandals in the future.  Lots more.

3. A Democratic legislator snaps and attempts to strangle someone.  On camera.

With Senator Franken around, it’s only a matter of time.

6. The DSCC starts funding the New York races.
7. The DCCC starts funding urban House races.

I think we’re there already

8. We see a week of “Will the Republicans try to impeach the President?” stories in the media. Or a month of them.

Well they did freak out for few weeks about Rep. Bachmann and Rep. Issa

9. A convoluted theory appears that tortuously ‘proves’ that the Democrats are actually going to gain seats, really.  It will involve three random trends whose relationship with each other is not immediately obvious.  It will have a buzzword.  Every site on the Left will talk it up for two weeks.  It will then disappear without a trace.

This probably overqualifies but….

10. “Of course we’re going to keep Congress.  GOTV will save us.”

Every time someone let’s Pelosi ramble she comes up with something like this.  It’s probably only a matter of time….one of those infinite number of monkeys drafting Shakespeare type things.

[Via Instapundit]

At the 11th hour of Arizona’s SB1070 taking effect, the Obama Administration brought the state of Arizona to court to block it’s enforcement.  Judge Susan Bolton subsequently issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of certain provisions of the law.  Open borders activists have hailed this as a great victory while border enforcement activists have criticized the injunction.  So let’s take a look at what exactly all happened today.

First of all those hoping to see the entire SB1070 tossed out, not only did that not happen today but it’s not going to happen as SB1070 includes a severability clause, which means that if an invalid portion can be separated from the rest, it shall be toss out while the rest of the bill remains in place.  So let’s set that aside right now.

The claim of the Obama Administration was that “the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the provisions of S.B. 1070 are therefore preempted by federal law” and they sought a preliminary injunction to block it’s enforcement.  So what standard do we need to meet for that?

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.

So how did that work out for them??  Well for most of the bill the Judge decided that the Obama Administration was not likely to succeed on the merits of the challenge.  But there were four provisions that she did rule were likely to succeed on the merits in showing that those sections are preempted by federal law.

• Portion of Section 2 – requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person
• Section 3 – creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers
• Portion of Section 5 – creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work
• Section 6 – authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

So why were these blocked? Well essentially it comes down to the interpretation of the specific wording of some of the sentences in these sections.  Which if you follow strictly to the letter of each sentence in isolation, suggests that law enforcement would have to verify the immigration status of every person they had even the most basic contact with, even if they knew they were a US citizen.  Obviously this would quickly overwhelm the Federal Government with requests and therefore would impede upon the Federal Government’s ability to perform it’s immigration enforcement duties.

So what’s the direct impact of this injunction?  Well let’s take a look at those provisions that were blocked.

Well the blocked portion of Section 2 pretty much has no impact, because even though it was the heart of SB 1070, it was actually MORE restrictive than federal law.  According to the SCOTUS ruling in Muehler vs Mena (2005), officers don’t even need reasonable suspicion to question a person regarding their immigration status.  So actually this preliminary injunction increases the ability of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

As far as Section 3 goes, it doesn’t matter as this was already a federal crime (8 USCS 1304(a) and 1306(e)), so nothing changes by blocking this portion.

Portion of Section 5, well this is already covered by a variety of state and federal laws, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

And finally Section 6, this is already covered by Arizona law.  In fact the training materials for law enforcement states that this provision does not appear to change Arizona law.  Therefore repealing it basically does nothing.

So for those ranting and raving about this preliminary injunction, please understand that this has virtually no impact on the ability of Arizona law enforcement to do their job.  And this is just the start of the case, as Arizona can still argument for the merit of one or more of these provisions.  Moreover when you consider the political implications, as I will tomorrow, this is a win-win situation for border enforcement no matter how this turns out.

I’ve participated in the illegal immigration debate for a long time, and the talking points from the open borders crowd tends to be the same.  In between cries of “racism” and “bigotry” comes the usual strawman argument of “well you can’t deport them all!”  It’s always seemed an odd talking point, seeming to gleefully accept the problem is just as bad as border enforcement activists suggest.  And it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that two extremes are only way to conduct things, either let everyone in or kick everyone out.

Of course, border enforcement activists like myself have insisted for years that there is lots of middle ground on this.  For example, if you force employers to check their new employees for legal status, illegal aliens will self-deport when there are no opportunities for employment.  Between that and the attrition of basic law enforcement, the problem pretty much takes care of itself over a few years.

Well as it turns out, that viewpoint was both correct and far too pessimistic on it’s timeline.

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix

“They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect,” said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

As it turns out it hasn’t taken a single arrest or even a single status inquiry to accomplish a good portion of the job.  All it took is a government willing to stand up and enforce it’s own laws.  These illegal aliens have stayed until now because they recognize the open secret that the Federal Government is a joke.  It’s more likely to pander to what it considers future voters than actually enforce it’s own laws.

Instead a state government with far less resources but with far more testicular fortitude, just has to threaten to enforce the law and illegal aliens scatter.  Nobody is under any illusions that all those illegal aliens are returning to their homes.  There are still plenty of other states which haven’t yet supplanted the Federal Government spinal absenteeism.  But don’t think that the lesson of Arizona is lost on all those states or their citizens, especially in these times of economic hardships and budget deficits, it appears as if La Bush’s Law may have reached it’s conclusion.