Movement analysts tend to like watching, say, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan; they had great phrasing. George W. Bush does not. During this year's State of the Union address, Bush spent the entire speech swaying metronomically, straight down through his lower torso, a movement underscored, unfortunately, by the presence of a large vertical banner behind him. "Each shift ended with the focus that channels toward a particular place in the audience," Bradley said. She mimed, perfectly, the Bush gaze -- the squinty, fixated look he reserves for moments of great solemnity -- and gently swayed back and forth. "It's a little primitive, a little regressed." The combination of the look, the sway, and the gaze was, to her mind, distinctly adolescent. When people say of Bush that he seems eternally boyish, this is in part what they're referring to. He moves likea boy, which is fine, except that, unlike such movement masters as Reagan and Clinton, he can't stop moving like a boy when the occasion demands a more grown-up response.

[From "Profiles: What The Dog Saw" in The New Yorker (5/22/2006); not available online]

What you need to do is first make it easy to verify people's immigration/citizenship status. Second, you need to impose extremely harsh financial penalties on people who employ illegal immigrants, such that it's easily worth their while to either pay someone else more money or else live without the help. Third, you give illegally employed people big prizes for turning themselves and their employer in (say, you get deported but you get to take the fine money back home with you) so employers become paranoid about hiring illegals. This would be more effective than a wall, cheaper than a wall, and wouldn't involve killing anybody. If conservatives were in the habit of actually thinking seriously about public policy, we'd have proposals along these lines coming down the pike. Instead we get, "The only thing that might work is a physical barrier."

Kevin Drum's had some very good pieces on this topic too, such as this one from a couple of months ago.

Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor considered a potential 2008 candidate for president, headlined a fundraiser Thursday for former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed in his run for Georgia lieutenant governor.

The two politicians were effusive in their praise for one another as they entered the Atlanta fundraiser just before noon.

"I just want to say I believe Rudy Giuliani is one of the finest leaders in not only the Republican Party but in either party," Reed said.

Giuliani responded: "We're here to get you elected. It would be a great thing for Georgia." [AP]

As the old expression goes, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, so I'm more than happy to put the flea-bitten Rudy G. on my list (Fuck you, Rudy!), where he can join his new friend Ralph.

Oh, but I have to say that my anger at Rudy is somewhat lightened by the knowledge that the chances of him becoming President of the United States are vanishingly small, which also reminds me of reason #75 why Hillary Clinton running for President would be a bad idea: it would clear the way for Rudy to run for Senate in New York, and that contest he might win, given his post-9/11 beatification by the media.

One thing that the two energy crises [Jimmy Carter's in the 1970s and George W. Bush's now] have in common is that both were preceded by upheavals in the Middle East—in Carter’s case the Iranian revolution, in Bush’s the war in Iraq. But in many ways the challenges that the United States faces now are more daunting than those of the nineteen-seventies. Iran’s current anti-American leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has waved aside American (and European) efforts to halt his nuclear program, noting, “Ultimately, they need us more than we need them.” We now compete for oil with voracious energy consumers like China and India. And, as hurricane season approaches (and as the connection between more violent storms and global warming seems to grow increasingly evident), refineries continue to struggle with the disruptions from Katrina.

Even sentimental Democrats today tend to think of the Jimmy Carter of the seventies as a hand-wringing Milquetoast, more rabbit than killer. He and Congress, though, took on the energy emergency with a vigor that seems unimaginable these days. They deregulated oil and gas prices, created the Department of Energy, and got utilities to increase their use of natural gas and coal. They also allocated hefty sums for solar and other alternative-energy sources and pursued President Ford’s policy of higher fuel-economy standards for new cars. By the time Carter left office, the consumption of foreign oil had fallen by nearly two million barrels a day, to seven million barrels. Predictably, as oil prices dropped, so did the urge to conserve. Ronald Reagan revoked environmental policies and ripped Carter’s solar panels off the White House roof, and Americans learned to love big cars again. We now import about thirteen million barrels of foreign oil a day, an increase of eighty-five per cent.

[...]

What no elected official has yet taken a stand on is the fact that there is an obvious way to begin addressing the energy crisis, one that would reduce our need for foreign oil, encourage fuel efficiency, attack global warming, and maybe banish the Hummer forever: a steep tax on gasoline. The general assumption is that this would be political poison—too many Americans have to drive long distances to work. As a result, the gas tax, which is 18.4 cents a gallon, hasn’t been raised since 1993. But if most or all of the proceeds were returned to consumers, in the form of lower payroll taxes, the impact on the economically vulnerable would be minimized. Many economists have advocated such a plan, and even some of the most stalwart anti-tax Republicans, such as Grover Norquist, have expressed support for it. Robert H. Frank, a professor of economics at Cornell, has pointed out that when Carter made a similar proposal it was defeated by opponents who argued that drivers would buy just as much gas as they did before, with the money they got back in reduced taxes. But if people are given the right incentives they are likely to save both ways, by taking their rebates and by buying more fuel-efficient cars, thereby reducing consumption and spending.

Each story has a clear 'plot' and that plot dictates how we understand the issues.

On immigration issue, we are stuck in the story of hordes flowing across the border, when we should be talking about breaking down the doors of unlawful employers and confronting the Mexican government for colluding to abuse Mexican workers and defraud American working-class citizens.

On national security, we are stuck in the story of terrorist hordes trying to get into America, when we should be talking about taking a leading role in restoring equality and justice in the world.

On energy, we are stuck in the story of supply and demand, when we should be talking about confronting greedy corporations and investing in new fuel and transportation technologies.

On health, we are stuck in the story of market forces and costs, when we should be talking about basic care for every American right now, investing in education and training.

On elections, we are stuck in the story of special interest groups, when we should be talking about eliminating all corrupt private money from elections and returning our democracy to the hands of the people as it was intended.

When Democrats realize that they must drive the debate into a new story--a big story--then the debate will change.

Once Democrats switch the story from 'mob at the gates' to 'rot at the top,' Americans will not only reject Republican failure, but will begin to embrace the vision of Democrats--a basic vision of restoring Democracy to the people.

Until then, we will all be stuck in the wrong story.

[via A Rational Being]