“That’s not a starting point for dialogue with conservative voters. That’s more like a middle finger … You couldn’t pick two more resonant issues for Republican primary voters than immigration and Common Core. … Jeb says to them, ‘Not only do I not agree with you, I don’t agree with you at all — and I don’t really respect your views on it.'” [E.A.]

Good sum-up of Jeb Bush’s message — from, yes, Tucker Carlson — in this Tampa Bay Times article …

My robot will eat your wage subsidy: Don’t think the Earned Income Tax Credit plus more easily-licensed hairdressers is an adequate response to the Rise of the Robots, in which  “super-smart machines will best humans in pretty much every task,” as James Pethokoukis puts it.  …. (Won’t robots make pretty good hairdressers? They’ll also probably write think pieces with falsely optimistic policy recommendations.) . … Pethokoukis shies away from confronting the potential social disaster of having the vast majority of Americans effectively on the dole, or employed in fake WPA-like makework,  as in Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano. … P.S.: The solution is definitely not more immigration. ... [via Drudge]

‘I was hopin’ you wouldn’t ask me that one, Guv’nor. That’s where my case falls completely to the ground’:  Byron York reports that ex-Maryland governor Martin O’Malley is enough of a serious challenger to Hillary that the Cinton camp is issuing vague, ominous threats. But how dirty do the Clintons have to play to beat O’Malley? Under his administration, Maryland was supposed to show that a state with a Democratic governor committed to Obamacare could make it work. Instead, he implemented it so badly the state had to give up on its site and start over a year later. People were forced to re-enroll. Seems like he’s a feisty challlenger who can be knocked out with one punch. And we know what the punch is. And he’s leaning into it, running in part on his skill as a “manager.” What am I missing here? …

Just when I thought I was out …: Tucker Carlson goes on RCP‘s “Changing Lanes” to defend spiking Daily Caller pieces critical of Fox News, which employs him as a Fox & Friends co-host. I’m sick of this fight too, so I’ll be quick. 1) Tucker’s “rule” has the virtue of honesty. Better blatant than latent. 2) But he wasn’t transparent about it when he hired me — he didn’t tell me. Nor did he tell me about this seemingly significant “rule” in the years I wrote for him, before he spiked the column.  (I wrote at least 3 earlier Fox-trashing items. A mid-level editor gave me some guff for a couple of them but didn’t take them down or talk about a “rule.”) 3) I would hope that if Tucker had told me about the Rule I wouldn’t have taken my blog to his site. Who knows? 4) The Rule is not sustainable. We’re about to enter a media driven Republican presidential primary in which Fox is accused, not without basis, of favoring Jeb Bush. Daily Caller reporters can’t write about that? Insane. 5) Note that if you “can’t trash Fox on the site,” that means everything Daily Caller writes about Fox is suspect (of being BS) since they are presumably leaving out any bad parts, even if true. 6) Would Fox really insist on this “rule,” or is Tucker just being unnecessarily chicken? It’s not a conflict if Fox can tolerate criticism! I suspect they can’t, and Tucker is not being paranoid.

Update: Mediaite says it

has reached out to Fox and they told us explicitly that there has been no mandate [not to criticize it] whatsoever. Also from what we’ve been able to glean from others inside Fox, no one there really cares whether The Daily Caller criticizes them or not.

I’m skeptical. Fox’s PR department is famously aggressive and attentive. (“Fox watches very carefully what’s being said about them in the media. People assume Fox isn’t watching what’s being said about it, but it is,” a former Fox producer told the Washington Examiner.) One question left to ask Tucker — if anyone’s still interested in this incident (doubtful) — is whether anybody at Fox contacted him about the piece the morning he spiked it. I don’t know the answer.

Undernews from the Underworld? Part 1 of Breitbart’s “Why Harry Reid’s Home Exercise Accident Story Does Not Add Up” seems to have vanished from the site’s home page. Just when I was starting to get convinced! But there’s this, which I assume is the eagerly awaited Part II….  [Why get convinced? Everybody’s mocking it-ed. I dunno. There’s a lot of unpersuasive doubtcasting in the initial Breitbart piece: Is it really an argument against Reid’s account that his shower door “is not sturdy enough to be used as the anchor for an exercise band”? Seems like that is Reid’s story. But on sober reflection can you see how he’d get injuries that severe by being hurled against those cabinets, if that’s really what the room looks like? I can’t.  No doubt there is some explanation. … P.S.: A reenactment would help! Don’t need to allow cameras. … P.P.S.: It’s not like Reid wouldn’t lie or Vegas has no stories of previously hidden intrigue.] …

Gov. Walker’s spokesperson talks about what his (still vague) immigration policy might look like:

Yes, at the minimum, there needs to be penalties put in place. In addition to securing our borders, the federal government must enforce our laws, penalize those who break the law including paying back taxes … [E.A.]

“Back taxes”? Yikes. By now that is a reverse dog whistle that tells you a politician is out to con anti-amnesty voters by pretending to collect “back taxes” from soon-to-be-amnestied illegals. The claim is usually a fraud, as it was in the defunct “Gang of 8” bill. But even if it wasn’t, the back-taxes issue just isn’t that important. (Implementing E-Verify, building a fence and a visa-tracking system, and getting the courts to uphold them are important.) You wouldn’t bring up “back taxes” unless your top priority was crafting some kind of legalization plan and selling it to the Republican base with a few symbolic, poll-tested “tough” provisions.

A real anti-amnesty politician probably wouldn’t talk at all about what, exactly, illegals would have to do to get legalized. He’d focus on what it takes to stop future waves of illegal immigration. Put the Gang of 8 talking points in a drawer.

P.S.: In the he said-she said dispute between the Walker campaign and the WSJ — about whether Walker said at a dinner that illegals would “eventually become eligible for citizenship”– does anyone believe Walker didn’t say it? It’s not that bad if he did — depends on what “eventually” means (i.e. what has to happen between now and then). Even “Enforcement First” concedes that legalization may come second. Talking about “back taxes” and mocking Romney (which the WSJ also says Walker did) are much worse signs.

I’m under no illusions about where Walker’s heart lies. But I’ll settle for faking it. An insincere embrace of Enforcement First is better than no embrace, especially if it proves to be the key to Walker’s success. Insincere positions that get votes have a way of becoming, if not sincere positions, the actual positions that go into effect.

P.P.S.: Daily Caller‘s Neil Munro, for one, isn’t buying the recent Walker immigration toughening (largely because he leaves the door open for admitting the millions of additional legal immigrants and guest workers that businesses “job creators” want). …

P.P.P.S.: Munro seems to be leaving the Caller for Laura Ingraham’s new web site. Good get for her. The thing about Munro is that while he can talk your ear off in a near-unintelligible stream of words, he is an energetic reporter with an unusual nose for what the next angle of a story is, often seeing things that the herd (myself included) miss. And he’s really fast. …