Now Spitzer Grows Wary

The Times continues its laser-like focus on Gov. Spitzer's controversial plan to give driver's licenses to illegal not-yet-documented-or-voting (but with friends and relatives that might!) immigrants.  When last we looked the Times had alerted us that Congressional Democrats were beginning to "grow wary" of the proposal.  Now the Dead Tree version in front of me offers this B1 headline:

Spitzer Suggests He Is Open To Ending License Plan

On-line readers have this grim news of liberal retreat broken a bit more gently:

Spitzer Showing Signs of Shift on License Plan

A "shift"?  Since previous criticism forced a shift to the current three-tier plan, shouldn't that be a Second Shift?  Or can we just call it the Graveyard Shift?

Here is the article intro (with a Danny Hakim byline):

SAN JUAN, P.R., Nov. 9 — Reeling from relentless criticism of his plan to issue New York driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, Gov. Eliot Spitzer indicated on Friday that he had not ruled out shelving the idea.

The governor’s aides have grown increasingly concerned that reaction to the plan is preventing Mr. Spitzer from advancing or even discussing other matters. It has also become an issue for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign and has caused anxiety among other Democrats.

After a meeting on Friday with Hispanic lawmakers at a conference here, Mr. Spitzer was not displaying the defiance with which he had defended the plan in the past. Asked by a reporter if he would change or table the plan, the governor said he was sticking with it “as of now,” but suggested that he was open to abandoning it.

“Sometimes you put out an idea and there isn’t so much support, and you try to persuade people and you see where you go,” Mr. Spitzer said. “This is the way the world works.”

He added: “I don’t think there’s ever been an executive, a president, a governor who hasn’t put out ideas, that at the end of the day there isn’t support, and so things don’t work out, but as of now, sure, I think this is the right idea from a security perspective. We’ll wait and see.”

"As of now"?  "Wait and see"?  I am wary of the notion that such soaring rhetoric will rally supporters and quiet critics.    

Let's look down the road - the normal next step to pretend to avoid a humiliating climb-down would be for Spitzer to appoint a commission to study the problem; the commission would be instructed to report back in, hmm, we don't want to rush them, December 2008.  The Times could then laud this magnanimous compromise and avoid using words like "doornail" and "dead" in their next headline.

However - if "wait and see" is the strongest support Spitzer can express after a meeting with Hispanic lawmakers in San Juan then this is over.

Comments

[kim]

"We'll wait and see". But, you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
===================

[maryrose]

Excuse me but this is so typical of dems. Everyone knows this idea is DOA and the Clintons have cried uncle so now all bets are off. Hil still doesn't get the nomination. Her willingness to flip-flop has been revealed for all to see. And now with the planting questions debacle she just can't be trusted.

[anduril]

More on the Hillary-the-inevitable front. Harper's makes what would ordinarily seem to be a common sense observation:

Most stories that are too good to be true aren’t true, and Hillary having a lesbian affair with her sexy staffer falls into that category, whether you’re a Republican Hillary-hater or a Democrat who opposes (or is simply endlessly annoyed by) her. And even if it were true, Hillary’s not nearly as reckless or driven as her husband, so she’s unlikely to get caught. Meanwhile, if anyone down in South Carolina knows which Democrats are pushing the Hillary-Huma dalliance please send me an email in strictest confidence to [email protected].

I guess the operative word here is "Most." The other hand is: Hillary has gotten caught several times in recent months. Let's see, there's Hsu and the related Chinatown waiters and dishwashers, there's the apparently illegal support of lefty bloggers, there's the planted question (although the Clinton campaign swears they won't get caught doing that again), and finally there's the now famous tip--or lack thereof. According to Patrick Ruffini, here, Kos is reporting that the waitress is standing by her story that she never got a tip.

Is it really true of either Clinton that they don't exhibit reckless behavior? My take is that what they really exhibit is a supreme confidence in their ability to get away with reckless behavior. So far, their confidence would appear to be justified. So far. But that's why I added the bold to the Harper's quote.

[Clarice]

TM, Don't blame the NYT. One must introduce reality very slowly to the upper West side denizens or their shrinks will be overwhelmed.

Good observations, anduril.

[anduril]

Clarice, "getting away with" "stuff" can only occur on a consistent basis, as we've seen over the years with the Clintons, with the assistance of enablers in the news media. The danger zone is when the enablers become annoyed or simply tired of those operators who came to believe they were inevitable, or even invincible. Militating against Hillary are two factors that she may not have taken into account: 1) Hillary is not an incumbent to be defended at all costs, as Bill was in 1996. 2) Further, the media may still feel that a Democrat victory in 2008 is virtually certain (although misgivings are beginning to surface), so that they may feel free to shape the primary process (i.e., select the candidate they prefer) to a greater degree than they would if they thought the presidential election were truly up for grabs. Working in Hillary's favor are those misgivings: the media may yet decide they need to close ranks behind Hillary. The wild card is that the old media doesn't exercise the same degree of control as in the past. Should be interesting.

[MayBee]

Funny!
So what is it? Hillary doesn't want to be asked if she backs it anymore, so she forces Spitzer to drop it? Or has Spitzer just realized how unpopular it is?

[Patton]

Remember the outrage over FEMAs fake press onference? And yet, is this any different??

http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html

[Clarice]

There is that, anduril. The Clintons seem--like Kerry before them--to be operating out of an old playbook. But it's also true that the media seem not to be as charmed by her as they are by her husband.

[Rick Ballard]

"The wild card is that the old media doesn't exercise the same degree of control as in the past."

Very true, Anduril. There are times when I believe that the actual game has changed as well.

Kim cited this paper (34 page PDF - not super technical) which provides this abstract:

The climatic “hockey stick” hypothesis has systemic problems. I review how the IPCC came to adopt the “hockey stick” as scientific evidence of human interference with the climate. I report also on independent peer reviewed studies of the “hockey stick” that were instigated by the US House of Representatives in 2006, and which comprehensively invalidated it. The “divergence” problem and the selective and unreliable nature of tree ring reconstructions are discussed, as is the unsatisfactory review process of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that ignored the invalidation of the “hockey stick”. The error found recently in the GISS temperature series is also noted. It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and recommendations that are more scientifically sound.

The paper is discussed at Climate Audit by a group of commenters who have had the statistical aspects of the fraud well in hand for some time. This isn't the "end" of the AGW one worlder scheme that was initiated some twenty years ago but without this medium for the exchange of information you wouldn't ever know that the reason you had to apply to your block commissar for gas coupons was based upon a fraud larger than the Piltdown Man.

The game has changed and Huma is going to stick whether Mr. & Mrs. Depends like it or not.

Clarice may be correct about the stiffing the waitress incident costing Miz Clinton Iowa. Not because she stiffed the waitress - no one expects anything else from a Dem pol - but because her shabby lies afterward have been exposed in real time. Just as the sound of one Hsu dropping couldn't be concealed.

[GMax]

OT

Y'all be great. We have created a slight cushion but I am sure the Illini will respond furiously. Only afew more days, please give her a extra vote today.

http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/public/women/vote.aspx>Vote JMAX!

[GMax]

BTW it was the Tarheels over the Cavaliers again last evening. This was a thriller that went to a PK shootout that UNC won 4 shots to 2. The Cavs got a goal in the first half and the Heels one in the second. Minutes later they banged one off the crossbar but no one else tallied thru the end of the match and two OT periods. FSU is the opponent tomorrow in the finals. And Mr. M. Mouse says "hello" to all.

[Jane]

OT - you made the paper. Let me know if you want me to post a link.

GO Jess!

[Clarice]

I'm from the midwest, Rick, and unless Iowa is much different than the Wisconsin I grew up in, the very idea of waitresses stealing from one another, transparently planted by the Hill Witch Gang to cover for her, is a big no no.

Another explanation--i.e. a staff miscommunication followed by regrets and recompense, and the fallout would have been minimal.
This ploy. No way.

[centralcal]

I see on Fox News today that Major Garrett has another "exclusive." Back in April another Democrat was approached about asking a question in oder to put Hillary in a good light and Obama in a bad light. He refused, because he had a burning question of his own he wanted to ask. The Hillary operative named Chris, then moved on and could find no takers, so Hillary didn't take ANY questions at the event.

Hmmm ... methinks more Democrats (possibly who are supporting candidates other than Hillary) may be coming forward. How funny!

[centralcal]

John Tabin (AmSpec) citing Andrew Sullivan's post today:

"I covered the Clintons for eight years. The one thing I learned about them is that they lie. It's reflexive to them; after decades of the lying that tends to infect the households of addicts, they don't have a normal person's understanding of truth and falsehood. They have an average sociopath's understanding of truth and falsehood. They lie about big things; they lie about small things; and they lie about things that are so trivial you can't believe anyone would bother lying about them. But the Clintons do. They did for eight years. They put the entire country through a trauma because they have no sense of what's true and false any more. Living in a relationship where lying has been integrated into its very essence will do that. They can't help it. Lying is their entropic state of being - big lies, small lies, and everything in between.

You can't trust a word from them. If that's what you want in a war leader, go ahead and vote for her."

I have never understood why anyone read Sullivan, since so many in the blogosphere decimate him regularly. BUT ... you gotta love the above Sullivan quote! Tabin says that this is vinatage Sullivan.

[PeterUK]

Ho goes th Jmax vote> My computer has blanked out the password section in Security so I can't use broadban,anyone know a cure.I reduced to dialup which slows things down.

[PaulL]

Hillary is not looking for the well-read voter. She is after the essentially-ignorant voter who will vote for her because she is not Bush and because she is female. "I am woman / hear me roar."

She has most of the Democrat vote sewed up automatically. What she needs to reach 50% plus one is the out-of-touch independent voter, a sorry specimen who decides how to vote based on TV ads or general impressions.

Not tipping a waitress and then making excuses about it, that resonates more than a particular issue, especially one that she won't get pinned down on (every issue). But it's not enough alone to change someone's vote.

[Clarice]

It now turns out that she planted questions in TWO different Iowa fora. When she says she wants a "conversation with America", I guess it's a signal she means to talk to herself alone.

The Iowa caucus is a weird duck--As I understand it anyone from anywhere who shows up gets to vote. Now she has a good organization but Edwards has been there longer. A few hits like this and the tip business may, in fact, hurt her. And she's slipping in NH.

[Clarice]

PUK, I can't help with your computer problem but JMAX is at 32% and her closest rival is at 29%.

[Syl]

Rahm is too smart.

I was hoping Dems would completely ignore the issue until.....next September or so and get knocked for a loop.

Now they'll have a year to prepare.

[PeterUK]

Thanks Clarice,
This is going to ruin my frequent voter status,I'll never become a dead Democrat at this rate.

[SunnyDay]

Poor PUK. :(