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.

Al Queda and Sadr are taking hits all over Iraq, as the Surge progresses successfully and the tribesmen continue to ally with the govt. against Al Queda. Sadr's power is being eroded in all areas. He may be returning to Iran shortly.

The Enemedia continues to push propaganda, playing the body count game, and ignoring what the real focus of the  situation should be. Al Queda is the central enemy in Iraq, and the reason we are there. But the country continues to come alive and rebuild.

Democrats continue to show that they absolutely cannot be trusted to defend this country. They're afraid of debating on FoxNews channel with the CBC, even when being offered the chance to pick the moderators AND questions. A free pass to spew their propaganda. Cowards, unworthy of office.

And the Senate continues to attempt to foist a false premise on the American people over illegal immigration. As the link Wil posted at the Ramblings of an Average American reveals, Rasmussen has crunched some interesting polling:

it clearly indicates that there is no broad support for a policy that begins with an assumption that those who already live here should be allowed to stay.

This is not the opinion of some small racist extremist core. And it is broad based across all partisan lines.

Grass roots America is upset, not the fringe. And they're angry at our politicians, not Hispanics. Frank Miele, writing in the Daily Inter Lake in Montana has said:

last week I proposed that the people of the United States, through their state legislatures, ought to take back the reins of power and ask for — no, demand! — a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution — in particular, an amendment that requires border enforcement and denies citizenship to anyone in this country illegally, including those who were born here because their parents were here illegally.

Government run schools continue to fail our young citizens, increasing their vulnerability to the Left Wing indoctrination rampant on college campuses. Fred Thompson sadly notes about a study he read:

The report's conclusion was that American colleges and universities are failing to increase their students' knowledge of America's history and institutions.

My point is that we are under a two pronged assault here at this place in time. Though many are correct to say the WOT is a clear and present danger to our existence, we should never forget the danger within, the Culture War that would destroy our Republic.

The air around this immigration bill debate has gotten so thick that it's becoming increasingly difficult to carry on the conversation. But something is becoming increasingly clear. The Right is splintering. And it's being helped by the sword held by the Left. RACISTS, XENOPHOBES. I'm hearing these as the denunciation of anyone who has a problem with this effort at what's being called "compromise".

This bill is being rammed down the throats of America in a way guaranteed to elicit the response it's getting. Why is this? The American Voters do not matter. That is why. This is about a power grab for 20% of the future population of the United States. Yours and My opinions do not matter. This compromise is between Liberals in the Democratic and Republican party, and as such should be unacceptable to most reasonable Americans. Reasonable Americans do care and support Immigration, they just want it done correctly. They don't hate hispanics, they don't want them shot crossing the border, they don't want to deny them jobs.

No, reasonable Americans see this bill as a smokescreen to flood this country with immigrants in a way that will overwhelm our entitlement system, destroy Social Security, and create a Socialistic Entitlement Utopia.

Yet, Reasonable Americans are truly willing to see a compromise. Border Security with iron clad benchmarks that are factually measured. True and thorough background checks before any ID is issued. All State, County and Municipalities required to cooperate with Immigration enforcement.

Rebecca Hagelin at the Heritage Foundation warns:

One of the many tragic results of this bill is that people will begin to flood over the border in numbers yet unseen in this country to register for the probationary period. An illegal immigrant needs only two affidavits (one of which can be from a family member) stating that he or she has been here and illegally working before January of this year. Any alien now in custody for entering the country illegally, or anyone caught crossing the border, will actually be offered the opportunity to fill out the paperwork to be put on the road to the entire package of U.S. benefits. Some 12 million people are estimated to take this first step to becoming a protected member of the United States on some level. They will immediately be able to enjoy free emergency health care, free public education and free welfare programs for children.

Can this nation afford such a tidal wave? Or the one following when every relative of the new immigrants come?

We need immigration. This nation will prosper from the skills and abilities new citizens can bring. But that's not what is at work here. It's blind cynical politics. A bid for votes. And the Left is skewering the Right. Anything other than submission to this plan is being played as ANTI IMMIGRATION REFORM. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Yet you'll hear constant statements in the Enemedia like this, from the LA Times:

"Blood runs thicker than politics," said Sosa, of San Antonio, who is helping organize a fundraiser for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat who is Latino. "I'm not saying I would vote for a Democrat. But I'm saying I would not vote for a Republican who opposed immigration reform."

So here I stand trying to plead with you all to stop and think. What exactly are you going to get with this? Is it worth the price? Is there a better way? Is there a more reasonable way to bring new immigrants into this country and deal the the millions of illegal aliens we already have? Or should we just accept what Ted Kennedy and John McCain tell us is the truth? The House will have to draft it's own version.

The next GOP debate will be a doozy.

I'm hearing over and over in the media that the deportation of Illegal Aliens in America is not possible. Why is this so? Sheer numbers? Their invisibility in society's dark corners? Or is it simply the obstinate will of Liberal America to keep them for their own uses? Maybe all of the above.

But even if some kind of reasonable form of Comprehensive Immigration reform is passed (unlikely), there will remain the problem of those illegal aliens who are CRIMINALS and are doing bad things to law abiding citizens, and who need to be arrested, put in jail, and deported. Not an unreasonable view I think. Why isn't this happening on a larger scale now?

One reason is the "sanctuary city" that refuses to allow it's law enforcement agencies to indentify and arrest Illegal Aliens. Cities like Detroit and Minneapolis for example. In Minneapolis, a sex slavery operation was ignored by the city police because the sex slaves were Illegal Aliens. And the city even objected to the use of the word police on the jackets of those arresting the criminals. That's Liberal America for you.

Powerline noted:

Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman offered an amendment to the pending immigration act that would prohibit cities from banning the obtaining of information on immigration status by their own law enforcement agencies.

Unfortunately, Norm's amendment was defeated 49-48 on the Senate floor today, even though several Democrats voted for it. These Republicans voted against the proposal:

Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

That's right, seven Republicans voted against arresting Illegal Aliens, and one of them was my Senator from Ohio, Voinovich.

Everyone of these Senators should be replaced. I'm extremely livid over Specter, who I railed against being made head of the Judiciary Commitee to Bill Frist. And ever since, he's done absolutely nothing to change my opinion.

This Illegal Alien issue needs to be readdressed and marketed in a different way by the Right. Sanity102 has put forward this idea at Outside the Box, and I agree. The current perspective is Lose/Lose for the Right. But it's not mean spirited and heartless to want to protect women and children from assault by Illegal Alien rapists, muggers and murderous gang member who easily come across the border and stay in our society preying on the weak and defenseless. This is an idea most Americans can agree on. Most Legal Immigrants support this.

I've called Congressman Boehner's office to point out the need for a new perspective on this issue. 1-800-828-0498.

Brian Ross and ABC have crossed the line to stand with the NY Times as enemies of the State. And now they will have the blood of Iranians on their hands as well, by thwarting our only chance for covert solutions to the Iranian problem.

I thought Liberals were against armed conflict?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog_coverage/

The Immigration debate has diverted attention from the little news conference yesterday in which Nancy Pelosi lead a gang of Democrats in the chant, "we really didn't lose, LA LA LA LA". Then explained that even though they've given in to President Bush, "this isn't over".

Let me cut through the haze of BS. Democrats lost, Bush won. I repeat, Bush won. The troops will be funded until September, and the Democrats can't defeat Bush's veto pen over their pork and surrender bill.

Somebody had to say it. (thanks Neil Boortz).

The money for the already approved 700 some mile fence along our Mexican border has already been set aside. So why have only ELEVEN miles of only the first of a double fence been completed so far? And why now is congress trying to cut that in half? This would not even cover the main smuggling routes in Arizona and New Mexico.

Duncan Hunter made these points today on the Sean Hannity show in a pointed condemnation of the New Immigration Deal. Hunter believes this bill will do absolutely NOTHING to stop border incursions. And the tidal wave of workers would dilute jobs and lower the wages of current skilled and construction workers.

So, why are some in the GOP, and especially John McCain, all fired up to pass this apparently bad bill, that pleases no one?

Dick Morris believes that it's the last chance to save the Republican Party.

If the Republican Party passes this bill while a GOP president can still sign it and take partisan credit for it, they will have a very good chance of winning the Latino vote in the future. If not, they will be ground under the demographic changes in America just as the Labor Party was in the early years of the 20th century.

I don't necessarily agree with Dick, but I can see his reasoning here. But I don't see the guarantee of those votes, and I do see the guarantee of an open border and a huge stress on the entitlement system. Tax increases anyone?

This is about the destruction of the GOP, one way or another. If the Liberals can win the votes of the millions flooding in here for the incredible entitlement system that the Left offers, Conservatism will be doomed, and welcome the the Socialist States of North America.

As Rush put it so well:

This is specifically about tearing down institution by institution this country and remaking the country in a liberal image, a socialist state, whatever you want to call it, big government, brand-new entitlements and so forth, big tax increases to support it. Redistribution of wealth. Look, that's a central element to this. You're going to have these illegals proclaimed legal, but their financial status isn't going to change that much. Still going to make what they make, but they're not going to make enough to support themselves in all of their needs, certainly not their wants. But we will. Because the courts have ruled, they are entitled to health care, they're entitled to education, they're entitled to all these things, and guess who's going to pay to make up the difference of what they can't afford and what they're going to get? You and I.

That is a good reason to reject this bill.  To not pass Immigration Reform may cost the GOP in the long run.

As Morris noted:

If they stop it from going through and a Democratic President pushes it through a Democratic
Congress in 2009, the GOP will suffer as much among Hispanic voters as it did among black voters after Barry Goldwater crusaded against the Civil Rights Bill in his 1964 election campaign. Until Goldwater did that, blacks usually voted Republican. Kennedy won over about 60% of them when he called Correta Scott King while her husband was in jail. But LBJ got the 90% of the black vote that has since become his party’s expected share as a direct result of Goldwater’s campaign.

There are many angles to consider. The next GOP debate will be a doozy.

UPDATE: THANKS TO PASADENA PHIL, I'VE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS FROM THE DAILY MAIL:

France's minister of immigration and national identity, a new ministry created by President Nicolas Sarkozy, has ruled out legalizing undocumented immigrants en masse.

The new ministry said today that government policy would be dictated by firmness and pragmatism.

"We have to put aside massive legalization. It doesn't work and it penalizes, even immigrants," Brice Hortefeux said on Europe 1 radio.

Policy, he said, would be guided by "firmness and humanism" with "lots of pragmatism."

John McCain, Ted Kennedy & George Bush have pushed Immigration Reform into our living rooms and dens as the Mainstream Media and the New Media are all abuzz over the push to craft a compromise bill. Both the Left and the Right are steaming over the bi-partisan effort to accomplish some sort of agreement over how to deal with the millions of Illegal Aliens that have invaded the United States.

The actual language of the bill, which will determine exactly what is done and how, has NOT yet been finalized. Yet both sides are almost apoplectic over possible scenarios. These are being discussed relentlessly over the internet and the airways to the point of overkill. And Nancy Pelosi is saying she won't even send the bill to the House unless she's guaranteed 1/3 of the GOP votes UP FRONT.

But the other issue here, is how this plays to the GREAT DUMBED DOWN MODERATE MIDDLE. The sleepers. Those who have no philosophy or beliefs political. Those who don't even know there is a fuss going on.

The Progressives and the Enemedia could be laying a huge Bear Trap here for the Right. The MSM will use it's megaphone to make sure when the Sleepers awake for a bite to eat, they hear a relentless drone about how the "cold hearted mean spirited Conservative Theocrats want to deport all these wonderful families that do the jobs Americans won't."

They'll hear stories about how mothers get arrested and deported while their children are at school. They'll hear about how the price of groceries will skyrocket without the workers being kicked out. They're going to be told about the wonderful character of these people the Republicans HATE.

It adds up to, Republicans HATE Hispanics, HATE women who may need an abortion, and HATE anybody who disagrees with their right to own machine guns. Of course this is all hyperbole, and untrue. But it's politics, and propaganda designed to sway the votes of the majority - the great dumbed down moderate sleeping middle.

Would it cost the Right the 2008 election? Would it eventually lead to the complete collapse of the War Against Islamic Fascists? The right doesn't have the ear of the Middle the way the Left does. We need to consider the propaganda war, and be smarter than the Left.  We need to win in 2008 or it could be disaster.

Give up on Immigration Reform and Border Security? NEVER. Just be smart in how we approach the dialogue. It's in the tone and approach. We're being monitored by the Enemedia which is still formulating it's plan to defeat us in 2008.

I'd like the Big Guys in Blogdom to approach this issue. How do we succeed in fighting for our issues without giving our domestic enemies the ammunition and leverage they need to sway the Middle over to their side?

There's a multitude of opinion on the net about the new bill. Some Conservatives are saying it's the best we will get. And McCain is gleeful to have been able once again to "reach across the aisle" and kiss Ted Kennedy's posterior. but the proof is in the pudding. And what would really happen if the bill is enacted is still a mystery.

The simple turning of a phrase can make all the difference.
Big Lizards pointed out that although the bill says:

Border security. The following provisions must be "implemented" before either regularization of illegal aliens or enactment of the temporary-worker program can occur:

1. 370 miles of additional border fence (unknown whether that means actual wall the whole way, wall plus fence, or wall plus fence plus virtual fence);
2. 18,000 additional Border Patrol agents;
3. "Effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace;"
4. Crackdown on employers who hire illegals;

I don't know if "implemented" means completed, begun, funded, or what; presumably, this will be hashed out during the actual Senate debate [all from WaPo -- the Washington Post article];
 

And notes that people are:

skeptical that the federal government can actually enforce the border-security provisions and actually make the guest workers go home after two years... but they have no doubt of the government's ability to regularize current illegals.

The main point about the bill for me, is the border enforcement. This Democratic congress has no credibility when it comes to National Security or Law Enforcement. So my guess is they'll find a way to neutralize the enforcement portiions.
Big Lizards points out that:

critical to national security is securing the border with some combination of wall, fence, and virtual fence, in order to keep out the next 12 million potential illegal aliens.

Duncan Hunter tells anyone who'll listen that a fence in San Diego stopped more than 90% of the illegals.

That's my line in the sand. If we can spend billions on entitlements, we can fund a fence from the Gulf to the Pacific.

UPDATE: RICH LOWREY'S PIECE ON TH CONTAINS:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., noted at the second Republican presidential debate that the Department of Homeland Security has $1 billion for the fence, but "they want to drag their feet and hook this up with amnesty." Give him points for clairvoyance. The sweetener luring some conservative Republicans into the Senate deal is that it would have enforcement benchmarks that would have to be met in theory before other provisions kick in.

The benchmarks include 370 miles of fencing on the border (half what was in the Secure Fence Act) and the hiring of thousands more border agents. If these things happen, however, it still might be that more illegals come here, pulled by the allure of amnesty. The only meaningful benchmarks would be reductions in the number of border crossings and the size of the illegal population already here.