The Times preps us for tonight's Dem debate with this:
In Las Vegas, Chance for Clinton to Undo Damage
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton heads into tonight’s Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas with an opportunity: to try to erase the unflattering image that her chief rivals, and her own mistakes, have helped create.
Yesterday, in an attempt to neutralize one possible threat at the debate, her campaign announced that Mrs. Clinton would not support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants as president. It is the latest formulation of her position, which has shifted since it became a tripping point in the last televised debate on Oct. 30.
Her advisers say they hope the matter will now be off the table, but Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals made clear that they would continue to press the argument they have been making in recent weeks, that she is inconsistent and overly political.
I don't see why Ms. Clinton wants to end the discussion of driver's license for illegal immigrants. OK, her route to her current opposition was disingenuous and circuitous, but she has at least arrived at a place that makes political sense - per recent polls, most of the country (and even a majority of NY Democrats) opposes the issuance of licenses to illegals. But for folks who don't trust polls, consider the fact that John Edwards has felt obliged to flip-flop since 2004, and now effectively has come down in opposition.
So - Edwards can hardly accuse Ms. Clinton of opportunism or inconsistency. And Barack Hussein Il Jong Obama remains ossified on the wrong side of this issue - does he really propose to follow Eliot Spitzer into the wilderness on this or is there a flip-flop in his future as well?
Also on the stage will be New Mexico Governor Billl Richardson, who signed into a law a bill granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in New Mexico. He defended that in a 2005 interview with Chris Wallace, but let me pick Richardson's rendition of the traffic safety argument:
RICHARDSON: ...First of all, when you have licenses given to immigrants, they have got to get insurance. Now, that lets us keep track of them. That makes them responsible. We had an enormously high uninsured rate of our motorists, so it becomes a safety issue, too. We know where they are. So it increases traffic safety for New Mexicans.
Here is some supplemental background:
New Mexico last year became the latest state to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and officials say the change has helped contribute to a drop in the state's uninsured rate, which in December of 2002 was 33 percent the highest in the nation and now is 17 percent. Insurance premiums also have dropped in that state and fewer people are fleeing accident scenes, according to Moran of the National Immigration Law Center. Almost 14,000 of the state's estimated 150,000 illegal immigrants have obtained licenses in the past year.
Geez, a mere 14,000 illegal immigrants got licenses and the percentage of uninsured motorist fell by 16%? Who is kidding whom, or, More numbers please!
From this chart we see that New Mexico had (as of 2004) about 1.2 million licensed drivers; the new licenses to illegals would have represented about a 1% increase. I am going to go out on a limb here and insist that something else, probably stricter enforcement of current laws, explains the 16% drop in uninsured driver's in New Mexico. (One possibility - in Dec 2002 a New Mexico law took effect linking proof of insurance with vehicle registration).
Well, enough hacking through the underbush - my strong impression is that the traffic safety argument is weak, and MSNBC found experts saying similar things.
Which means that Hillary can take the stage and insist that, her waffling aside, she has arrived at the most sensible and electable position; if John Edwards wants to defend his own flip-flopping, or if Barack Obama and Bill Richardson want to expound their public safety fantasy, Hillary should invite them to bring it on.
GRATUITOUS CHEAP SHOT: I heart Gail Collins, or this, anyway:
Something weird is going on with John Edwards, who was cheerfulness incarnate when four years ago he was the moderate-Southerner-who-can-speak-to-the-Reagan-Democrats. Then he morphed into a sorrowful populist who thought we should vote for him because he cared the most about the poor. Now he’s running around like a rabid gerbil, telling people he should be president because he’s the angriest. Soon, he’s going to run out of adjectives to embody.
Running out of adjectives for the Breck Girl? Doubtful.
The Navy should head for East Pakistan.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | November 15, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Well, I sure the stories for tomorrow's papers have been written. I just don't know what they say....
Now, I wouldn't vote for any of these libs, but with her competition, I don't see had Hill can't get the nonimation no matter what she does or says
Posted by: PMII | November 15, 2007 at 01:04 PM
The Dems had anticipated campaigning for a year on how terrible things were in Iraq. Instead, now the big issues are immigration and health care.
Polls suggest that popular opinion runs decidedly against Dem plans to accommodate illegal aliens and against "government run" health care.
The problem for Hillary and her rivals is that their base didn't get the word yet.
Posted by: MikeS | November 15, 2007 at 01:06 PM
The liberal press appears to be turning on Hillary. Both ABC news and The Nation have not so nice pieces on her today. (Instapundit if you want the links.)
That said, I'd be shocked if she imploded tonite at the debate. In fact I'll be shocked if she doesn't win it.
Posted by: Jane | November 15, 2007 at 01:14 PM
How long until Bush is accused of putting off victory in Iraq to boost the Republican in the 2008 elections? It will be the October surprise.
Posted by: MayBee | November 15, 2007 at 01:52 PM
the percentage of uninsured motorist fell by 16%
No, it fell from 33 to 17%, which is almost a 50% drop. Don't get sloppy with your math just because everyone else is. You could say it fell 16 percentage points, but not 16%.
Posted by: Ralph L | November 15, 2007 at 01:52 PM
The "insurance" argument is bogus. Insurance is issued to cover vehicles, not persons (or particular classes of people operating particular vehicles...you know what I mean). Unless New York or New Mexico require people to show proof of insurance to get licences (even if you don't own a vehicle?), the argument that issuing licences will increase coverage is nonsense. There is nothing (besides the fact that its illegal, like the presence of the illegal immigrant in the country in the first place, or driving without a licence) to prevent illegals with licences from driving unregistered or uninsured cars. If I were an illegal the last thing I would want a licence for was to drive a car--hell, I'm already breaking the law--why make it easier to get nailed for it.
Posted by: BOATBUILDER | November 15, 2007 at 03:09 PM
Running out of adjectives for the Breck Girl? Doubtful.
But, if anyone is running short, my personal favorite is
kalliplokamos.
Posted by: Elliott | November 15, 2007 at 03:11 PM
Elliott,
Will you be around tonite for the debate?
Posted by: Jane | November 15, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Regarding tonight's debate, maybe one of CNN's panelists can ask Clinton and Edwards what other positions of theirs would be subject to change should their policy proposals poll poorly enough.
Posted by: Elliott | November 15, 2007 at 03:19 PM
Jane,
Absolutely. I hope there will be some fireworks, but, like you, I fear Hillary will perform well and again make the others look like pretenders.
Posted by: Elliott | November 15, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Elliott,
Will you be blogging? I've got a dinner engagement and at best I will be late, if at all.
Darn! I really want to blog this one.
Posted by: Jane | November 15, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Cancel, Jane. We need you!
Posted by: clarice | November 15, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Jane,
I'll liveblog (and be happy to do it) should Clarice's entreaties fail to sway you.
Posted by: Elliott | November 15, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Great Elliott, thanks. I'll join you at some point if I can. Leave a trail of breadcrumbs so I know where you are.
Posted by: Jane | November 15, 2007 at 03:52 PM
::grin:: We promise not to be wondering what you are up to if you don't show at all. Promise.
Posted by: Sue | November 15, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Oh you would be so disappointed. Tonite is Auntee meets the boyfriend nite.
Posted by: Jane | November 15, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Embarass him.
==============
Posted by: kim | November 15, 2007 at 04:27 PM
Awww...shucks. How about we don't believe you and make up something anyway? ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | November 15, 2007 at 04:32 PM
I'm all for that. Make it hot and scandalous. Imagine I won a mud wrestling bout. Take it from there.
Posted by: Jane | November 15, 2007 at 05:42 PM
Jane:
Imagine I won a mud wrestling bout.
I admit that I do that. But only on days that end in 'y'.
Posted by: hit and run | November 15, 2007 at 07:47 PM
Wolfie: I'll get everyone in, we have a lot of time:
Damn, where is the remote-thanks Elliott
"...blah, blah, blah...a positive agenda...blah, blah, blah"
Posted by: RichatUF | November 15, 2007 at 08:18 PM
Hmmm ... 14,000 of the state's 150,000 illegal immigrants obtained licenses, and the uninsured accident rate fell from 33 percent to 17 percent. Additional factoid: There are approximately 1.2 million licensed drivers in New Mexico. So there were about 1,350,000 people, licensed and unlicensed, on the road. (I'm assuming that there are relatively few unlicensed citizens driving, which seems plausible.)
So if the newly insured illegals are the cause of the drop, that means that about one-thousandth (0.1 percent) of the drivers were involved in one-sixth (16 percent) of the accidents! (Note that many illegal immigrants do not read English, have never taken a driver-ed course, and have never passed a driving test.)
Conclusion: Illegal aliens driving in New Mexico are DANGEROUS!
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis | November 16, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Wow there are so many unlicensed drivers on the road.
I think that they have to pass some drivers license test first.
Isn't that right?!?
Posted by: steven davies | February 06, 2008 at 04:26 AM