There is a disconnect in Washington DC with the majority of American people. They feel, they hear it, they see it every day in the words and images coming out of our capital. And the Right is having it's own disconnect with itself. With the 2008 election already looming in our face, the MSM is enjoying broadcasting the news about the lack of any real interest in any of the candidates for the GOP. Why is this, aside from an obvious lack of a clear conservative?

I can sense a lack of depth. The lack of a new vision to solve our problems, rather than "staying the course" with our present strategies. And the constant harping of non conservative Republicans only strains my patience to the edge. "You don't want the Democrats in office, do you?"

Well, in a word, NO, BUT....I'm not as short sighted as many of those non conservatives who'll vote party only. But the reason has been clearly articulated by the Best Thinker in the Conservative Movement. Newt Gingrich:

Here is where American Republicans really need to pay attention. In France, voting for change meant voting for the party in office, but not the personality in office. And voting to keep the old order meant voting for the opposition, not for the incumbent party.

If Republicans in the U.S. hope to win the presidency next year, they had better find a candidate who, like Mr. Sarkozy, is prepared to stand for very bold, very dramatic and very systematic change. Not only that, but they had better make the case that the leftwing Democrat likely to be nominated represents the failed status quo: the bureaucracies that are failing, the social policies that are failing, the high tax policies that are failing and the weakness around the world that has failed so badly in protecting the U.S.

As Margaret Thatcher would say: "You have to win the argument before you win the vote."

Well said Margaret, and Newt. We need new ideas, or maybe old ones Washington doesn't want to hear about any more. I'm waiting for our candidates to follow Newt's lead, and get going, Come on already!

TH Bloggers have been waiting for someone to step up and seize the golden opportunity to use the hugely unpopular immigration reform bill as a catapult for their bid in the race for the White House. Until yesterday, the crickets were chirping. Then, the smartest campaign so far spoke out.

• I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us.
• I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
• I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
• I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
• I will impose accountability on Washington.
• I will lead America towards energy independence.
• I will give Americans more control over and access to healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
• I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
• I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
• I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
• I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
• I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

Number TWO behind the War On Islamic Fascist Killers. He said it.

Now this isn't a magic pill that suddenly makes Rudy Giuliani palatable to conservatives who dislike him over guns rights and abortion, and he interestingly didn't mention deporting illegal aliens, just identifying them.

This does however put on record with clear stances. But more important, raises the bar and challenges the other candidates to come out as strongly or stronger and begin to discuss serious and specific actions they promise to take. Note: I did say promise. The process is working, they are being forced to listen to us.

President Bush is going to Capital Hill to try and convince GOP Senators to vote for the Immigration Reform Bill crafted by the Democrats, RINOs and himself. And in accordance with the template, the MSM is putting the onus for the bill on the GOP. In the AP:

Senate Democratic leaders have written Bush saying it is up to him to lean on Republicans to back the measure.

"It will take stronger leadership by you to ensure the opponents of the bill do not block its path forward," the letter said. "Simply put, we need many more than seven Republicans" to support the bill.

Hey, Julie Hirschfeld Davis of the AP, and you Harry Reid, where's the letter to the DEMOCRATS who didn't vote for your bill. Where's Harry Reid's leadership? Well, according to the Wash. Times:

    "It's the president's bill," Mr. Reid said, adding that if Democrats are being counted on to supply the additional votes, "it won't happen."

Why NOT, Harry?

Funny, I thought this was Ted Kennedy's and John McCain's bill. I guess the media can't be expected to remember that. But you'd think President Bush would. And would lean back on the guys responsible for the mess we're in, instead on going on as if they were correct in their criticisms.

So what is it that is so terrible that the Republican's wanted, that forced the DEMOCRATS to kill the bill? The Washington Times reported:

a Republican-led amendment that would allow those who don't qualify for legalization to be deported.

Imagine the nerve. How compassionless. But we've been over and over the reasons this comprehensive plan is terrible. And no one seems to be interested in truly fixing it in a way that would be reasonable for our future. It's been designed in concert with enemies of capitalism, and foreign groups like La Raza and out of sight of the American people. How can we support someone who'd do that to us? Thomas Sowell had the best summary of the situation:

The one encouraging aspect of the immigration issue is that the combined efforts of the White House and both Houses of Congress, together with most of the media, have thus far failed to turn the immigration fraud into the law of the land.

It is a disgrace that they have tried but a healthy sign of the commonsense of the people that they have still not succeeded.

But today and tomorrow, we'd best be back on the phones, and emailing our Senators and Representatives.

The Left, Left of Center and their Media Machine must have been utterly shocked to realize that for all the money and influence in the halls of power, the American people have decided to just say NO. Those Right of Center who are quaking in fear that a "small but vocal minority" would hijack the GOP and ruin any chance to hold the White House in 2008, are stunned or in denial, that a clear majority of Americans across all political boundaries reject the effort to manipulate our legal system and open our borders.

Even as Harry Reid makes a futile attempt to paint the Right in blame, he has surely been dealt a severe blow to his reputation. The Washington Times so clearly pointed out:

Mr. Reid's failings as majority leader are ..... egregious. On Thursday, he came up embarrassingly short in three attempts to cut off debate -- failing by 27, 26 and finally 15 votes on a bill he claimed was one of his top legislative priorities

The real miscalculation for Reid and the Left was that this would make the GOP look bad. The Wash. Times also remarked:

one can legitimately question whether he really wanted to pass the bill or was simply trying to engineer failure and blame the Republicans for it.

The facts have come out clearly. We the people reject this. No more scams at the border or in immigration laws.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen's last national telephone poll found, to cite one notable example, that just 23 percent of Americans supported the legislation, and that only 16 percent thought the Senate bill would achieve what is necessary to fix immigration, and that is to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration.

The New York Times is in full Spin Control, in an effort to reframe the issue, and regroup for another attempt.

Public opinion polls, including a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted last month, showed broad support among Americans for the bill’s major provisions.

WHAT? Huh? Well...

But the truth cannot be denied. This issue has galvanized Americans like nothing before. This is an unprecedented victory for the New Media over the Left and it's tool, the Main Stream Media.

Organizers described a new Internet-linked national constituency that emerged among Republicans, much like the one that Democrats pioneered during the presidential candidacy in 2004 of Howard Dean. But many of these Republicans are enraged at their party leaders, including Mr. Kyl and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supported the bill, and they feel betrayed by Mr. Bush.

Opposition to the Senate bill brought together many Americans in states where immigration was not traditionally a fervor-inspiring issue, but where illegal immigration has become more visible in recent years.

“Every state is now a border state,” said Susan Tully, the national field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has long supported a crackdown on illegal immigration. The bill’s opponents also objected to how it was handled, with the huge measure negotiated behind closed doors between White House and Senate lawmakers, without any hearings or other public input.

“Ordinary people like me rose up and put a stop to it,” said William Murphy, a retired policeman from Evansville, Wis., one of the Grassfire.org volunteers who delivered petitions to his senators. On Thursday before the vote, he said, he put in new calls to 15 senators.

So, feel good about yourselves. You made a difference in a way not done before. The New Media is rising.

Michael Graham, in the Boston Herald, has written a piece in support of Rudy Giuliani, echoing the sentiments of some TH bloggers who feel the WOT trumps every other issue. And this perfectly illustrates the true divide on the Right. There have been some very heated exchanges here on TH about this very issue, to the point where the two camps have stopped listening to each other, and entrenched themselves.

Graham writes:

If there is another serious, successful terrorist attack between now and the national conventions, the only question about 2008 will be whether the Democrats nominate Giuliani, too.

But if the voters (not necessarily conservatives) rationalize voting for Rudy by believing "it's all about the WOT", there exist mental gymnastics to perform. Graham unwittingly reveals these by saying:

He (Rudy) knows that America’s top three issues are national security, national security and national security, followed by illegal immigration, which is also a national security issue.

Here's where the arguments come to a grinding halt. Illegal Aliens ARE a national security issue. And the potential impact of any method of dealing with the problem they create, is monumentally important to the future survival of the United States of America. It's that serious.

Are Rudy's ideas about everything else besides the WOT enough to disqualify him from office? Many say yes, and not just because of his socially liberal views. If Illegal Aliens are a national security issue, as Graham suggests, (and I agree), then Rudy has a tarnished record. He created a sanctuary city in New York, and has so far, not come out strongly on the issue.

But, it's far from election day, and "stuff happens". Rudy has every opportunity to clear this up, have a revelation about national security, and make a strong case. Realizing national security and illegal immigration are one and the same could be a vital strategic move for Rudy Giuliani. He's been very smart so far, going after the Democrats while the other candidates go after each other.

He's dismissed out of hand by a segment of the Right, over issues like gun control and abortion. I'm willing to at least  listen to the guy as the campaign unfolds. As with Fred Thompson, I'll wait and see what he says. But also as with Fred Thompson, I'm from Missouri on this, and I haven't been shown anything yet.

I'm waiting you guys.

The immigration reform bill is dead for now. If you try and read the AP piece by JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS about it without understanding the short history of it, you'd still be confused. Titled, Immigration Bill Suffers A Big Setback, the article claims this event to be yet another failure of George Bush:

costing President Bush perhaps his best opportunity to win a top domestic priority.

But follows up stating who's agenda is really driving this bill:

Most Republicans voted to block Democrats' efforts to advance the measure.

And though AP would have you believe the evil partisans were destroying this effort, the article revealed the

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, said Democrats tried to rush the bill "I think we're giving up on this bill too soon," McConnell said.

The story attempts to perpetuate the myth that this bill would do what it's backers claim, in spite of analysis indicating  the opposite:

The legislation would tighten borders and institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers, in addition to giving up to 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.

And the AP finished by engaging in the Enemedia's time worn practice of interpreting polling  to make it support it's views, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

found overwhelming support - among two-thirds of the public - for giving illegal immigrants citizenship if they have jobs, pass background checks and pay fines.

Huh? Well, BUT further on states...

Those who had heard at least a little about it were split (?) on the Senate measure. Of that group, 33 percent favor the bill, 41 percent oppose and 26 percent gave no response or said they didn't know. Republicans opposed it by 43 percent to 36 percent, Democrats by 37 percent to 33 percent, and independents by 46 percent to 31 percent.

So here between the lines, we see the American people rejecting this bill. Not some overly vocal fringe minority as the MSM has been saying.

Now is the time for the GOP candidates to step up on this issue.

FoxNews' Special Report with Brit Hume has usually been a balanced view of the political events of the day. The night after the Republican debate in New Hampshire, the network became the old boy beltway network. In a stunningly disingenuous analysis of the debate, the panel of "experts" declared John McCain the winner. That is so amazing, I've got to repeat it. They think John McCain won.

Apparently, the propaganda techniques used by the old media so successfully have be taken to heart. And Special Report has decided they like McCain. Obviously those outside the beltway must not be sophisticated enough to understand the nuances involved in solving this (suddenly) urgent crisis about immigration. To be fair, they'd been saying McCain was the frontrunner for a long time, so this bias isn't new.

Frank Lund's metric analysis of a conservative group of voters watching the debate coincided with my impression  of the evening. McCain tanked it. Romney wasn't super, and Rudy served himself well. But Mike Huckabee effectively should have be elevated above the other second tier candidates with an outstanding performance. His answer to Wolf Blitzer about creation was a home run for the record books. And FoxNews didn't even mention it.

The beltway crowd wants McCain to win - badly, as badly as they want this immigration reform bill passed, in spite of the opinion of the yahoo redneck xenophobe nativist racist ignorant base. And they are going to pull out all the stops they can to help their cause.

CNN did what MSNBC couldn't. Ran a halfway decent debate in spite of the Liberal Gotcha questions designed to embarrass the candidates and insult George Bush. These guys are starting to learn how to reject the premise of the slanted, biased and sly attempts to cast them in a bad light.

Please make Ron Paul go away. And the candidates that think they can partition Iraq without Turkey marching south and grabbing large swatches of territory can sit down also. Jim Gilmore has reminded me he was governor too many times.

Then there's John McCain. The Senator believes in himself, and has served our country with honor. He has my respect for that. But the defining moment came when he said,"It's not the bill I would have written."  Sound of doors closing and crickets chirping. I saw a clip of him confronting a immigration bill critic on the street with, "do you have a better plan?" He ought to be careful about who he asks that of when the cameras are rolling.

But Duncan Hunter is the guy I wish could just communicate a little smoother, because what he's got to say has so much more weight to it. I'm feeling the media is trying to marginalize him, and doesn't get as much time as others. But he pointed out that the 700 plus miles of fence already approved has not progressed much. Not because it takes so long, but because the adminstration deliberately "has the slows" about building it, hoping to bundle in with the comprehensive plan. That fence CAN be built.

Rudy is sticking to being Rudy --attacking Dems, and making a case for a competent manager as President, I give him credit. But Romney fell through the floor when they bashed him with the spanish campaign ads. question relating to the English as official language question. He was probably blushing under that tan.

Tom Tancredo impressed me, and even though his ideas are extreme, I'm willing to seriously consider them. I like him more and more. He seems to have a sense of dignity, but didn't hesitate to bash the President. In fact nearly all the candidates made it clear they disapproved in one way or other with President Bush.

Part of any successful campaign for the Democrats or Republicans, is going to be convincing the general public that they are NOT Bush. But as some TH posters have warned about Bush bashing, the AP ran it's story on the debate from the angle that it was all about bashing Bush, which was not the case. Big surprise there.

On FoxNews afterwards, Fred Thompson gave a good question and answer session, and said his vote not to convict Clinton was based on Constitutional guidelines he found. I'll have to defer to the much more scholarly TH posters to advise me on that.

But who totally surprised me, out of nowhere, and made me say, "I really like that guy", was Mike Huckabee. His integrity and moral foundation are making themselves apparent, and I admire the man. He seems to have a solid grasp on issues, I just wish I could hear more about what he's got to say. I wonder how long he and half the others will stick around.

One thing for sure, if you listened to the Democrats Sunday, the differences between the parties are very apparent. The Dems won't even mention our War Against Islamic Jihadist Killers. They want to call it Bush's war. But all the GOP guys (except nutcase, that' right, nutcase Ron Paul) appear ready to fight for our survival. And that's a good thing.

The Washington Post is proclaiming victory over opponents of the Immigration Reform Bill currently in the Senate. They are claiming the public is now willing to go along with the plan and the voices of opposition are being portrayed as a small vocal minority.

the legislation's champions say they believe that the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led negotiations on the bill for his party, said the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted the deal two weeks ago has since receded every day.

And of course the Enemedia will trot out a handy poll to justify their point.

Public opinion polls seem to support Kyl's contention that Americans are far more open to the deal than the voices of opposition would indicate. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll released today, 52 percent of Americans said they would support a program giving illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the United States if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. Opposition to that proposal was 44 percent.

The lightning rod issue that is splintering the GOP is being championed by only one candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. And John McCain is standing his ground, right or wrong. An AP report on  McCain said:

McCain stresses, however, that undocumented immigrants who declare themselves have to pass a criminal background check, pay fines and taxes, learn English and meet other requirements before eventually being offered the possibility of citizenship.

"Critics of the bill attack this as amnesty and a special path to citizenship that is denied to lawful immigrants. Both charges are false," McCain said.

But writing in the Star Telegram, http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/123257.html,  Sen John Cornyn offers the differing view:

The federal government in recent years has proven that it is not serious about securing our borders and enforcing our laws. Passing yet another law that cannot be enforced will merely add to our broad disillusionment.

The MSM and even FoxNews refuse to acknowledge the broad based rejection of this bill on the grounds that it is simply a poorly thought out and written piece of legislation full of loopholes and thoughtless regulations that will instantly give legality to hardened criminals, allow for the border security portions to be bypassed, and open the gate to millions upon millions more illegal aliens jumping up to join in the free for all on American entitlements.


And the nation we live in today will be no more.  Will you vote for John McCain to be your president?

There's going to be a fight. It's going to be in Washington D.C., and the Congress is going to host it. But it won't be between members of congress who have different opinions on the Immigration Reform Bill. It's going to be between the Congress and White House Coalition and the American people.

I believe there is a large majority of Americans who reject this bill as currently written and are standing up and speaking out. Congress and the White House do not like it. But the chips are falling.

Wall Street Journal reports:

Sen. John Cornyn (R., Tex.)...who has been critical of the bill, said immigration "overwhelmed every other issue" brought up by constituents as he toured his state during the recess. "They don't think Washington is listening to t em, and they're very frustrated," he said. "If other members of the Senate are hearing what I'm hearing...I think the momentum is shifting the other way."

There is a grassroots uprising over this issue, and the early campaign season is affecting the reaction of the politicians who don't want to have to discuss it on the stump. There are numerous amendments this week to be considered by the Senate, in an effort to make it more palatable. But there are rumours of a filibuster to kill the bill.

Proponents are wringing their hands and whining that something MUST be done. And even trying to paint the bill as having substantial support (maybe in congress).

Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson, one of the negotiators, said about two-thirds of the people from his home state of Georgia who have contacted him are supportive or have misconceptions about the bill that can be cleared up.

Baloney. And the GOP phonebank fundraisers we're getting positive feedback too.

In 23 states, the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, an alliance of immigrant-advocacy, religious and labor groups, ran ads, sent postcards and held rallies supporting action. In South Carolina, agricultural-industry groups ran print ads supporting Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from that state who is backing the bill. "Thank you...for being a statesman -- not a politician," the ads said.

So Business likes it, too bad. Remember, this is not about immigration as much as Illegal Aliens.

"If we don't get there, the reality is pretty ugly," said Commerce Department Secretary Carlos Gutierrez in a briefing Friday. "Ultimately, I believe logic will prevail. It will pass the Senate, it will pass the House...there will be a bill on the President's desk."

Yes, Carlos. The reality will be pretty ugly. Americans not only aren't willing to go along with this ridiculous piece of legislation, they are going to turn around and bite you for trying to scam them. This issue will not go away, even if the bill does. Every single politician is going to have to go on record with his constituents now, explaining exactly what he believes about Illegal Aliens, and why. And since it's campaign season, we are all going to hear about it.

Congress and the White House came out of their corner and dealt a hard body shot to the American people. Now we've countered with a hard jab, and the left cross is en route. Listen up Congressfolks, we aren't stupid, we aren't racist, we aren't nativists, and we care more about the future of this country than you do.  And we aren't going to lie down for it.

President Bush's round house to the chin of his base constituents have left many, including myself, reeling and wondering why and wherefore. Of course, I recognize he has always portrayed himself as a compassionate conservative, and has worked toward some kind of bi-partisan solution to the problem of illegal immigration. But a majority placed him in office because they felt he shared their values. And now, they feel betrayed, insulted and indignant. Just read the comments on any conservative blog or website, or mainstream media outlet for that matter.

This leaves me wondering, what does the future hold for the conservatives of this Republic? Who will lead our nation, and what kind of leader will he be? The current list of candidates includes a wide range of personalities and ideologies to choose from. Every breed represented in the pet store.

This leaves me wondering, will we get someone to champion the ideas of the Right, or someone the voting public finds suitable to manage the country?

George Will points out, that

in the New Republic, Thomas B. Edsall wonders whether Giuliani, who is appealing to "the Republican longing for managerial competence" with his "idiosyncratic brand of conservatism," might be a transformational Republican figure. But perhaps his conservatism is not idiosyncratic. Perhaps it is, in a way, traditional.

But Will's Beltway Conservatism fails to take into account the majority of conservative concerns about any candidate. While Gay Marriage and Abortion are certainly social issues that are important, Rasmussen polls find them very low in determining actual voting leverage. But the 2nd Amendment looms silently in the shadows. And as BrianR at View from the Island noted,

Since 1980 every GOP candidate has won the election when, and only if, endorsed by the NRA.

And the Right's opposition to Immigration Reform as currently proposed is being distorted by it's proponents even on the Right!  Here, Will IS right. We want a competent honest management of this problem. And it's not currently being offered. And Giuliani has shown by his actions to be a supporter of Sanctuary Cities.

That leaves us with not many realistic choices. But it's far, far from over, and anyone can catch fire and ascend to the head of the pack. Stuff happens. And the announcement of the demise of the GOP may be premature.

Richard Reeves, in Real Clear Politics laments:

As Democrats did in the 1960s and 1970s, the Republicans have simply run out of agenda. Like the Democrats when the Roosevelt era finally ended, the Republicans are left with more candidates than new ideas.

I beg to differ. Anyone who spends any time reading what Newt Gingrich has to say about going forward into the future realized their are plenty of new ideas and solutions to consider. And maybe we don't need new ideas. Maybe we need to implement the old ones in successful competent ways. Maybe the old ideas, like small government, low taxes, strong military, faith based culture, sovereign borders and the rule of law are the best ideas.

Maybe we need a leader who really believes in these ideas, and has the will, imagination, leadership and courage to make them a reality. We haven't had one yet. Close, very close, but no cigar.

This is becoming a classic confrontation between competing visions over which way the Right shall turn. The Immigration Reform Bill debate has deeply divided bloggers here at the Townhall blogatorium, and some have pulled up camp for greener pastures.

Thursday at ClearPolitics, was a story by Blake Dvorak about the dust up between the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, that illustrates the nature of the discord. It seems that:

The long-simmering internecine feud on the Right over immigration has taken an interesting turn. The editors of National Review, who embody the "enforcement-first" wing of the Right, have challenged the editors of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, who champion the "comprehensive" view, to a debate.

The Journal editorial board, which has begun taping its editorial board meetings, went on an NR-bashing session last week. It is a bit beneath the reputation of the Journal editorial board to have done this, but that it did so perhaps explains something of the disconnect on the Right over immigration.

Today, the editors of NR responded:

We hereby challenge the Journal's editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing -- two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate's consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).

It shouldn't be a problem for the Journal's editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren't "rational" on the question, have no arguments, and are "foaming at the mouth," as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week.

I think this would be great. It's not all bad for the Right to debate real IDEAS among themselves in a vibrant expressive manner that expands the National dialogue. Unlike the Left which only argues over how quickly we should surrender to the Islamic Fascist Killers. And I also say that this debate does not necessarily harm the GOP as some bloggers contend. On the contrary, open honest debate can raise the level of awareness over all aspects of an issue, and criticism is sometimes preferred to blind obedience. But both parties in the debate must be open to being persuaded by a superior argument.

I hope common sense can prevail Peggy Noonan's ideas echo my own in, surprisingly the WSJ Opinion page:

they (should) have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

If a candidate can step forward and start to give us confidence, we will rally, and we can win.

Thou does protest too much, I think. Across the blogosphere I notice a strident response by Liberals to Fred Thompson's soon to be candidacy. Much more vocal than any reaction to the 2nd tier candidates, and this guy isn't even a candidate yet. Why is this?

Maybe it's Thompson's policy beliefs, described by Bob (I didn't leak Plame's name) Novak:

Thompson is more conservative than Giuliani, McCain or Romney. He takes a hard line on the war against terror (referring in Connecticut to the danger of "suicidal maniacs" crossing open borders) and worries about immigration policy creating a permanent American underclass. His one deviation from the conservative line has been support for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, much of which he now considers overtaken by current fundraising practices and perhaps irrelevant.

Fred Thompson could reel back down that finger that's been hoisted at conservatives.

Rather than address the concerns Conservatives have over the immigration reform bill currently in the Senate, President Bush has chosen to challenge his base and accuse it of not wanting "do what's right for America". This mirrors the tone of the debate across the nation, even here at Townhall.

There has been lively and spirited debate here, and one thing has stood out for me. The Right is splintering. Why the President says this is the narrow window of opportunity to fix this issue, I don't understand. We've been talking about this for over a decade, and all the solutions, including those we adopted by Pres. Reagan, and put into law like the fence already approved, have in fact been shown to be mistakes.

So why can there be no tweaking of this solution. We aren't we looking at the nuts and bolts discussing why this car won't run right if we start it up. Opponents are being portrayed as entrenched ideologues, but are they?

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican: "If the bill did what they promised it was going to do, I'd support it. I'm for comprehensive reform, but it has to serve the national interests, not political interest."

Proponents of the bill have taken to demonizing the opponents:

Linda Chavez said Republican opponents are xenophobes who "think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior."

That is hardly the case. I'm finding the majority of those against this bill to be thoughtful, reasonable and patriotic. But above all, smart consumers. We are being careful about the dog we buy, and making sure it's not one that's going to turn around and bite us.

The Washington Times reports:

    Paul Weyrich, founder of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said that "there are legitimate reasons to oppose this legislation, and I don't think that it behooves the president to call people names or make accusations against them if they disagree with him."
    "He is angering people beyond belief to the point that the Republican Party is going to split in two, thanks to him. If this bill passes, the Republicans will not recover from it," Mr. Weyrich said.

Do I hate Mexicans? Despite their displays of contempt and hatred for the United States, no. Do I reject immigration? No, in fact I think it's necessary for our nation. Do I think that comprehensive reform in the shape of a terribly written bill is absolutely necessary to be enacted in this "small window of opportunity"? Let me just say, something smells here, and it's not the racist xenophobic Right. Rather than discussing what can be done to make the bill better, we're being told that we're wrong for finding ANY fault in it.

This President has done an outstanding job of fighting the Islamic Fascist Killers, and has put two great conservatives on the Supreme Court. The immigration debacle, unfortunately, may create for him a legacy of destroying the Republican party.

The War on Terror is the threat in our times. But not the only one, and those who ignore that fact may be shortsighted.

Have you heard of The North American Union? You know, the plan to integrate the United States, Mexico and Canada into a single economic, political and security entity? The one guided by Sam Nunn, Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen and Henry Kissinger?

 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55830

Whatever your opinion about World Net Daily, this plan is something to be aware of. Particularly since the Immigration Reform Bill currently being debated contains provisions that, as reported by WND, contain "remarkable similarities to the CSIS plan."

If true, this is the only current information that leads to any sense as to why the GOPers, such as George Bush are so adamant about creating an open borders, open immigration policy.

A sovereign nation that does not have sovereign borders, is no longer a sovereign nation.