I do agree with you that Mark Steyn is a mesmeriting writer and I wonder if he doesn't get called out on things like that provision because he usually hits the nail Mr. Miyagi style.

See, it's this sort of thing that makes me wanna just tune out this whole illegal-immigration-bill thing. I've got posters on AJ Strata's site insisting that MILLIONS of people were marching in our streets with MEXICAN FLAGS, and MILLIONS of people are walking around with FAKE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, and this is on top of Linda Chavez's comment about somebody claiming that there were 1200 or so illegal-immigrant murderers in L.A. in a year when the L.A. police insisted that there were only 500 or so homicides in L.A. in that year. (That was in a Chavez article on the National Review site a week or so back.)

Aztlan, La Raza, MS-13, reconquista, America being dissolved, Bush working to merge Mexico and America, leprosy, tuberculosis -- I'm so tired of people yelling out wild stories and tall tales and frightening figures concerning illegal aliens that I'm beginning to tune it all out, because frankly I suspect that a lot of what is said is just bunk -- not just taken out of context, not just mountains made from molehills, but simply untrue.

I'm not sure if you've got an answer back yet, but there seems to be a major problem---the bill is so HUGE and Complex, no one is sure what's in it in total.

Surfing Hewlitt and Town Hall there are many that are screaming for a "boarder inforcement" bill only and first, and plans to crucify any Senator that defy's them on this. And whatever "trust" they had in GW, is gone on this issue.

And what's this story about Judicial appointments approved for votes for the Immigration 2.0 bill?

Whether Steyn has that particular issue exactly right out of, what, 800 pages of obfuscation? Is really just so much minutia. The important consideration to me is simple: They (the Feds) didn't keep their word last time, nor the time before, and I don't trust them to do so this time either. So the bill needs a pair of concrete overshoes and a deep chasm to fall into.

The most egregious part of the bill is that every illegal becomes legal as soon as the ink is dry on President Bush's signature. No, they don't become citizens, they become legal. Why? I'll tell you why, too many small towns are fed up with the lack of enforcement of our laws by the Feds and are enacting laws to protect their quality of life in that absence of fiduciary responsibility by the Feds.

That independent action is a threat to the Feds and that insubordination has to be cut to the quick, and as soon as the bill passes every attempt by locals to control their own environs, past, present, or future, is rendered moot. I don't like it, not one bit.

I've just been thinking about how Republicans and the immigration issue of 2007/2008, might start to feel like 1967/1968, when the Democrats were busy imploding over Vietnam. Hubert Humphrey's traditionally-minded Dems were fighting with Eugene McCarthy's leftist anti-war Dems, and the whole party just self-destructed. We don't know yet who's playing the part of Vice President Humphrey in 2008, but I think we know who's playing Nixon. Which is exceptionally ironic if you know what Hillary Clinton's first law-related job was.

Rovin:

And what's this story about Judicial appointments approved for votes for the Immigration 2.0 bill?

Yes, Rovin... what is that story? I've never heard a thing about it until your comment. Give us a citation, will you?

Your obvious implication is that President Bush is going to name some liberal judges to the federal bench in exchange for the Democrats resurrecting the bill. Show us the evidence, Rovin.

[I found the origin of this meme; it derives from a speculation by Hugh Hewitt on his blog. See next comment for details and a link.]

(Nobody gets away with a "drive-by" on Big Lizards.)

Dafydd

Rovin:

All right, I found what you were talking about. Despite the way you wrote it -- implying something distasteful or even dishonorable about Bush or those supporting the legislation, that they would sacrifice judges to get the immigration bill through -- in reality, it's just a weird speculation by Hugh Hewitt.

Hewitt notes that the Democrats are trying to throw Bush judicial nominees Leslie Southwick and Peter Keisler under the bus, slow-rolling them for the next 18 months.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is upset about this and threatens to bring the Senate to a halt by invoking every last one of the 6.5 million time-wasting tactics that the arcane, not to say eldrich rules of the Senate allow.

Hugh notes that if McConnell did this, it would delay the immigration bill as well as all the others; McConnell wouldn't have any reason to fast-track the one bill that Ted Kennedy desperately wants.

Therefore, Hugh suggests, maybe the GOP should offer to fast-track the immigration bill if Pat Leahy allows the Southwick and Keisler appointments to go through.

It has nothing to do with Bush, with the immigration bill (except peripherally), or with any betrayal by the GOP on judges; in fact, if anybody would be betraying anyone, it would be the Democrats betraying the nutroots... who of course want all of Bush's pending nominees frozen out (and all of his confirmed nominees impeached and removed from office).

I'm confused... why did you bring it up? It doesn't seem to relate to your previous points.

Dafydd

A lot of bills are long and complicated, this is Congress we are talking about, but that does not make it ok for opponents to make up hysterical nonsense just to scare people.

In fact it seems to me that the opponents are complaining about the bill's complexities on one hand and taking deliberate advantage of them on the other. We are deep in the land of Demagoguery. And I have not paid any attention to the Hewitt/Barnett soap opera in some time. I just got sick of the whole thing.

For instance I read Shadegg's remarks about how it would not be possible to fire an illegal from a job if this bill passed and then low and behold somewhere else I read something else that pretty much said Shadegg was full of it. So, what's the deal with that? Was Shadegg making stuff up or deliberately misrepresenting the bill, or both?

There is a lot of stuff like that out there. First they say they just want to make sure the border is secure, then when Bush says he will sign an emergency spending bill giving them billions up front for just that purpose, Chambliss starts whining about amnesty.

I love it when a US Senator starts referring to the US government as "they". Last time I looked the Congress was the government. And where have all these outraged conservatives been all these years when this situation was getting worse?

Now all of a sudden they blame Bush in faux outrage and claim the mythical "they" are not doing "their" job. Right, sure, all "they" need is a good swift kick in the behind and the problem will be solved.

I am beginning to wonder if these people really give a damn about that border or if they are just using it an excuse to hold the whole process hostage. I don't trust them anymore than I trust Harry Reid, truth be told.

Shoremark:

This is just what I am talking about. No, every illegal does not become legal as soon as Bush signs this bill. That is just nonsense. It is this kind over the top rhetoric that makes me doubt the real intent of some of the people trying to kill not only this bill, but any attempt at a compromise. They do not want to make it better, they do not want it to move along in the process...they have made up their mids that the ends justify the means and they will do or say whatever they have to if it kills this bill or one like it.

And like I said, I do not trust them.

I am dismayed as well as to how over the top this immigration bill has become. The rhetoric is so over heated by the anti-side that real concerns are being lost in the noise. That the stop-any-bill-at-all side is being driven by the new media points out that it is not the media that is the problem, but human nature. There are many fatal errors in the current comatose bill - Z1 visas given by default, no true commitment to border security, an order of magnitude increase in bureaucratic work load, poor distinction between good illegal aliens and bad- but the voice of reason has been drowned out nearly completely.
What bothers me is that the yell leaders in this are the same poeple who shouted down all reason regarding Dubai Ports. The anti-side misrepresented the deal, they misrepresented the facts, and they damaged national security in the Persian Gulf.
We need to improve our border controls. We need to account for the illegal aliens in our country. We need to determine how to choose who and how to regularize those illegals we choose to allow to stay. We need to design a policy to remove those we do not want to stay. We need to reform who we allow to immigrate to this country. We should revisit the intent of the 14th Amendment and how it is interpretted and applied.
But it is nearly impossible to discuss this in conservative or liberal circles right now, in a calm and reasonable manner.
We could blow ourselves apart over this. We need to disassemble the critical mass. To do this we need leadership from the top - not brow beating and alienation of the base.
We deserve to see that the rules in place and the fence construction already provided for, are being addressed seriously.
We should not be held hostage- forcing us to accept naive and ineffective policies for border enforcement and immigration law, for massive unworkable defacto amnesty.
The politician who figures this out will be the next President.

All right, I found what you were talking about. Despite the way you wrote it -- implying something distasteful or even dishonorable about Bush or those supporting the legislation, that they would sacrifice judges to get the immigration bill through -- in reality, it's just a weird speculation by Hugh Hewitt.

Gosh darnit Dafydd, I'm sorry for the lazy lack of links to the comment-----I was so upset at the thought of what Hewlitt suggested (and I could not remember where I read it at the time I posted here) I was irresponsible in throwing out the statement with out the links. It will not happen again.

That said, there has to be a reason that suddenly all these Senators are switching to vote in favor of a bill that STIll has little support among many who do not "trust" our legislators to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Again, my humble apology.

Rov

Hunter:

The politician who figures this out will be the next President.

Sorry, Hunter, I'm not interested in the job. I've heard it involves actual work.

Rovin:

That said, there has to be a reason that suddenly all these Senators are switching to vote in favor of a bill that STIll has little support among many who do not "trust" our legislators to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Again, my humble apology.

Ah, no problem. But if this deal does work the way Hugh speculated, it would mean that we get the same bill out of the Senate that we were going to get anyway, plus an additional $4 billion up front for specific border-security funding (before anything else), plus a couple of great judges confirmed to the federal bench!

And the House will still get its innings on the immigration bill and the chance to kill it add even more border security. How can you lose?

Dafydd

But it is nearly impossible to discuss this in conservative or liberal circles right now, in a calm and reasonable manner. We could blow ourselves apart over this. We need to disassemble the critical mass. To do this we need leadership from the top - not brow beating and alienation of the base.

Hunter, You make excellent points about what needs to be written into this legislation, and I agree with most all of them---but, I would submit that the total lack of trust in what you call our "leadership from the top" is what is driving all the hysteria. What's the rush in all this? And yes, I want to know what kind of backroom deals "might" be in the works here. The word "compromise" is taking on a whole new meaning.

Imho, this is nothing but a 21st century power-grab for a voter block that can have ramifications well into our next generation. I'm now believing that a sunset needs to be written into the entire bill (and I hated this idea at first), so that if critical misstakes are made, we can revise and extend----or abolish.

plus an additional $4 billion up front for specific border-security funding

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but herein lies my mis-trust----there has been little or no inforcement of border security as we now speak. Reports range from 3000/day still entering this country illegally and none of our "leaders" have come out and said enough is enough, including a President (that I voted for twice) who would have much more of my support for this bill if he had the cajones to put the border security/closure at the forefront. This is what I believe has so many up-in-arms-----the total lack of respect for the rule of law.

(Nobody gets away with a "drive-by" on Big Lizards.)

LOL! I never intended to get away with this.

Nice "woodshed" by the way -:)

Rovin:

I would submit that the total lack of trust in what you call our "leadership from the top" is what is driving all the hysteria.

What has George Bush ever done to cause you to find him untrustworthy? From what I've seen, he is the most honest and promise-keeping president of my lifetime.

What's the rush in all this?

In just a few months, we run smack into the presidental election, in which no Democrat will vote with any Republican, and vice versa. After that, there is a reasonable chance that we'll have a Democratic Senate, House, and president...

At which point, we'll get an immigration bill; but it will make even you look back on today's bill with terrible regret for an opportunity missed.

Right now is our best chance to get a bill that includes both legalization and also border security; if we blow this, and if the Dems win next year, then we'll get all the same legalization -- but no border security at all.

We can take something not great but reasonably good now... or we can wait, and have something far more awful rammed down our throats. Your choice.

Imho, this is nothing but a 21st century power-grab for a voter block that can have ramifications well into our next generation.

You mean Hispanics? Well what if it is? Would you prefer they get locked like blacks into the Democratic Party for all time?

If we can continue to pull 40%-45% of Hispanics, the Democrats will continue to lose elections; if our Hispanic support drops to 20%-25%, then we start losing, big time: In 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush; in 2006, 29% of Hispanics voted Republican.

I realize you may find the nuts and bolts of politics -- grabbing for voter blocs -- demeaning or even dirty; but we live in a real world. And in the real world, that dirty and demeaning grubbing for votes determines who runs the country: us or them.

If we refuse to lower ourselves to the level of considering the political implications of policy choices -- preferring to stand above the fray and simply make bold decisions based entirely upon a magnificent application of pristine principle -- we will, very quickly, find ourselves the permanent minority party, as in the FDR era or the 1960s... reduced to whining and carping from the sidelines, while the Democrats create another New Deal or Great Society.

Want that?

This is what I believe has so many up-in-arms-----the total lack of respect for the rule of law.

Rovin, this is not a policy; it's a mantra.

Are you under the impression that the Border Patrol, the immigration courts, and the USCIS are deliberately and with malice aforethought winking and nodding and turning a blind eye to illegal immigration? Have you ever talked to a Border Patrol agent who told you that he routinely allows illegals in because he's too lazy to stop them, or because he has been bribed?

Please tell me exactly, step by step, what you would do if you were president to solve our border security problems.

And I mean step by step: You can't say "first I would stop all the illegals from crossing, then I would find all the illegals living here and deport them;" those are not the steps you would take -- those are the goals you hope to achieve.

I mean, tell me exactly how you would cause the Border Patrol to interdict more aliens; what changes would you make? Tell me exactly how you would find those illegals under deportation orders who have gone into hiding instead. Tell us, with reference to the powers of the president, how you would stop employers from hiring illegals -- how do you prosecute, if the employer claims that the illegal showed him what looked like a Social Security card?

And remember... you're president, not king.

Dafydd

Please tell me exactly, step by step, what you would do if you were president to solve our border security problems.

You have posed this challenge a few times, Dafyyd, and each time I wonder why you think any of your readers are qualified to come up with a step-by-step plan to solve this problem. I realize it must be a rhetorical question because you want to know exactly how we can make a border patrol agent do his job or how to best prosecute a hiring manager for not checking the credentials of a prospective employee.

Each time I read this retort from you it pissed me off, mostly because it seemed like a cop out on your part. Most people are not experts in the areas that matter most but they do have an opinion. Our submarine sonar systems could be a little better but I'm not going to solicit advice from sonarmen on how to exactly schematic by schematic, make it a better system. They are not qualified to do that; but they do know what sucks about the system and can make recommendations to the engineers on how to improve it.

But now, after reading your last response, I get what you are saying. I get your stand on this bill and why you support it.

We can take something not great but reasonably good now... or we can wait, and have something far more awful rammed down our throats. Your choice.

Well, the president is not responsible for someone hiring a nanny from south of the border.

All this self righteous posturing about people not enforcing the laws...well what about all those Americans not obeying the laws? Are they the same Americans all disillusioned as to the lack of enforcement?

I see, so if we spend tens of billions of dollars building more prisons, wreck the economy of several states and lock up millions of Americans then it will be alright?

I would suggest a fine, but that would be amnesty wouldn't it? No, nothing short of jail time for all the folks hiring roofers and nannies and landscapers will do. And of course anyone who eats fresh produce would be in violation of some kind of law I am sure...otherwise we would be benefiting from law breaking and that just will not do.

Trickish Knave:

But now, after reading your last response, I get what you are saying. I get your stand on this bill and why you support it.

We can take something not great but reasonably good now... or we can wait, and have something far more awful rammed down our throats. Your choice.

I wrote a ludicrously long response, but I deleted it: It was redundant. Yep, TK, this pretty much sums up my support of this bill.

And I've tried to articulate it before, but I cannot say whether it was done as clearly as this time!

Dafydd

Dafydd, you're doing yet more awesome blogging and commenting--thank you!

Aitch748, it's as if you read my mind!
I couldn't agree more.
If only these people could hear themselves when they've settled down and gotten a grip...Un-frickin'-believable!

BTW, both Mark Steyn and now David Frum, who are both Canadian, seem to approach the bill with a great deal of personal bitterness and animosity through their own experiences of either not being American or of going through the ordeal of becoming a citizen legally.
I think you could throw in Linda Chavez with these 2, as well, for the same reasons.
"I had it tough, so why should these people get off easy?"

Dafydd,
I respect you and your work, but I just can't understand why you think the results will be different THIS TIME. 1965 and 1986 would seem to indicate a trend to me.

What has George Bush ever done to cause you to find him untrustworthy? From what I've seen, he is the most honest and promise-keeping president of my lifetime.

First off, I did not vote for George Bush twice because I thought he was a token Republican. His Christain values and the Reagan supply-side tax cuts that have driven this prosperous economy for the past five years (which the man gets little credit for) are commendable. What our President has taken on after 9/11 still speaks volumes about the character and fortitude that no other man could have endured in taking this fight to our enemys who want to destroy our way of life. The very fact that there has been no other major attack on our soil, (and many plots foiled) portrays the determination the man has to keep us safe.

History will show that while the left has been determined to destroy this "non-elite" cowboy, our President persevered,(stubbornley at times) to move this country forward in spite of the unrest in the world (and the hatred so many in our own nation concieve)

"If we refuse to lower ourselves to the level of considering the political implications of policy choices -- preferring to stand above the fray and simply make bold decisions based entirely upon a magnificent application of pristine principle -- we will, very quickly, find ourselves the permanent minority party,...."

Dafydd, this is where I believe you under-estimate the moderate center vote that is always in the balance of the victor. And yes, I do believe the Latino vote is critical to a large portion of that middle. You will not find anywhere that I have written that 20 million illegals should be deported--that is not and never was my stance. What I said was that the free flow of illegals needs to come under some form of control. That means legal entry where there is accountability and registration at a level that can show some saneness to all of this. Do you really believe we can sustain this pace of influx without incurring eventual economic ramifications? The southern boarder states are screaming for relief to the strains of their public sevices that are compassionatly provided to those who have none. All I'm asking my President is to show me some form of control of the situation that I can believe, because the past track record of the last three reformations have failed miserably. And I don't believe I'm alone on this "lack of trust". WE got to get it right this time!

Terrye said:

"All this self righteous posturing about people not enforcing the laws...well what about all those Americans not obeying the laws? Are they the same Americans all disillusioned as to the lack of enforcement?"

Terrye, I have respected and agreed with much of your comments here, but this statement has me a bit baffled. I would submit that it is the everyday hard working Americans that obey the laws of our nation blindly and without question that are the ones who are disillusioned when they see so many (especially many of our leaders) who turn a blind eye to people who enter this country illegally and then request (no demand) all of the eminities with little or no accountability and virtually no identity. Self righteous posturing? No, it's a slap in the face to those who abide by the law.

I don't have the"step by step" answers oh Great Lizard to all this, but I would hope that those who come into this great nation, should register themselves legally, pay their fair share of taxes, eventually learn the English language, and become good conservative republicans. If this is what immigration reform is intended to be-----I'm all for it.

Rovin:

Do you really believe we can sustain this pace of influx without incurring eventual economic ramifications?

Easily. And the most likely economic ramifications, over the long run, are positive.

The southern boarder states are screaming for relief to the strains of their public sevices that are compassionatly provided to those who have none.

I live in one of them, and I can tell you that California's big economic problem is not illegal aliens... it's all too legal Democrats controlling a state legislature whose spending is simply out of control.

The solution to the problem is not to single out one particular group -- illegals, in this case -- and blame them; the solution is to end the flirtation with socialism and social-welfarism that is really holding our economy back.

Privatize Social Security and state pension funds. Change MediCare and MediCal from "defined benefit" to "defined contribution." Cut taxes, personal and corporate. Hold down spending growth to inflation per capita. Eliminate minimum wage laws. Peel back about half the layers of OSHA regulations. Implement school-choice vouchers.

Within about 20 years, the economic problems of the states and the United States will be dramatically improved.

Make the legal immigration system more rational, fair, and predictable, and you'll have fewer illegal immigrants.

Institute a policy of automatically deporting illegals who commit crimes here (after they serve their sentences). Implement tamper-resistant immigrant ID cards and SSN cards with digitized pictures on them and with fingerprints in the associated database entry. Build the fence/vehicle barriers/virtual fence as planned in the law enacted last year (this is happening right now).

Civics classes for everyone, immigrant and native-born alike. Stress the public virtues that America and California depend upon.

Let California have the same shall-issue CCW permit law that 40 states have. Fully enforce three-strikes laws. Build more prisons. Increase the pace of executing condemned murderers by about ten times. Since 1976, California has executed 13 people; we currently have 660 on death row. At that rate...

Substitute Singapore-style caning for prison time, or in egregious cases, in addition to prison time; make it public and as humiliating as possible... I honestly think it will be more of a deterrent than eight months of three hots and a cot and down time with the homies. Oh, and here's a thought: Let's make jails and prisons uncomfortable places to live! No TV; only books, magazines, newspapers (strictly controlled). Classes in literacy, job skills, etc. More civics classes.

No need to reference illegals especially, and legalizing them won't damage the country much, if we do what I suggest above.

Dafydd

I live in one of them, and I can tell you that California's big economic problem is not illegal aliens... it's all too legal Democrats controlling a state legislature whose spending is simply out of control.

My family move to Sacramento from Missouri in the mid-fourtys. Born and raised there till 69. My aunt was Pat Browns private sec and used to turn Jerry over her knee. You can't live in Sac for long without getting sucked into the political democratic strangle-hole this state has had to endure. Reagan and Jarvis were some of the bright spots.

Humboldt County's been home for much of the last thirty where I stay out of the local politics. Not healthy in such a small community with a small business.

You got a full plate if ya plan on gittin all that stuff above done.......hope you got some volunteers.

Do you really believe we can sustain this pace of influx without incurring eventual economic ramifications? "Easily. And the most likely economic ramifications, over the long run, are positive."

When ya get time, please expound on this "easy" part. I don't see it easy in it's current state.

And thanks for allowing the time here, as always.

Rov

Rovin:

Reagan and Jarvis were some of the bright spots.

And don't forget Ward Connerly, whose Proposition 209 was the first citizen's initiative in the country to completely outlaw racial preferences in hiring, school admissions, and contracts. Connerly was a Regent of the University of California.

And Condi Rice is an adopted Californian. She grew up in Alabama, but she became Provost of Stanford and has considered California her home since 1981.

But politically, since Pete Wilson did so much to send all the Hispanic voters to the Democrats, it's been pretty bleak here.

When ya get time, please expound on this "easy" part. I don't see it easy in it's current state.

Huge country; staggeringly huge economy; all founded on immigration. If there is one thing American Borg Culture does well, it's absorb immigrants, incorporate parts of their cultures into ABC, and otherwise assimilate them.

Resistance is futile.

Dafydd

Rovin:

My point is that if the average American was all that outraged by the mere sight of these people, they would not be here. They are here because a large segment of society either wanted them here or had a use for them or was not beside themselves with moral outrage at the sight of them.

These I suppose would be the same people who have decided now that the government can not ever be trusted to enforce the law, so why bother having laws..or some such nonsense.

That socalled disillusionment is not a policy or an answer it is an excuse to not come up with an answer. But the Senate is supposed to at least try to deal with issues like this. Unlike their critics they can not just blow it off in some sanctimonious little hissy fit.

And Bush has done more to secure that border etc than any president in history. There are no easy answers, magic wands, or kingly proclamations that will just make this go away.

So demanding the impossible from him and then getting pissy when you do not get it, does not fix a thing. Bush is not a token Republican and so far as I know no real Republican has ever even considered building a wall or anything else of that kind at the border. A lot of real Republicans like Gingrich had control of the Congress back in the 90's and did not do squat about this problem themselves.

Do you think this situation would be better if McCain had won the nomination in 2000 or if Gore had won the election in 2000 or if Kerry had won the election in 2004...back when no one even bothered talking about this? I doubt it. I think people on the right are being completely unreasonable about a lot of this. And they are hurting themselves and their party in the process.

"My point is that if the average American was all that outraged by the mere sight of these people, they would not be here."

That's a BIG "if" Terrye. Your implication couldn't be more off if this is what you think my motives are on this issue. Being in the construction industry and occationally working along side and with "these people"----let me tell you, I would rather have five of these people working with me than ten average white guys at the same wage scale. Their work ethic puts many here to shame. This issue should not have anything to do with race, and I would deplore anyone who would use this as an argument.

My biggest "beef" was the method in which the first Senate go-around in this debate transpired.
The proceedure of these "gang of 14" or what-ever number, where closed door meetings decide what the base of the legislation will be---throw out a three inch thick book of rules and tell us this is what you get. Have you tried reading any of this legislation? I have several times to my continued frustration. Again, I'm just saying take the time to do this right, simplify it, and put "these people" on a path to fair and legal registration. You make good points Terrye about what little has been accomplished by our past "leadership" that did nothing.

"Do you think this situation would be better if McCain had won the nomination in 2000 or if Gore had won the election in 2000 or if Kerry had won the election in 2004..."

Can you say cringe in discust, nightmare, mayhem?

For now, I'm liking Fred Thompson's momentum.

(One final note: I didn't care for the way Bush said that we (our party) was basically stupid if we were not behind this legislation. He lost a ton of otherwise support by making this statement. Maybe we can do better the second time around.)

Well I think Fred is a tad slick myself. Back when being a hardliner was not cool, he wasn't one. His voting record on immigration matters was identical to McCain's as was his conservative rating and he was not only supportive of McCain Feingold he worked with Diane Fienstein to write an amendment to the act itself.

Now we have a new and improved Fred being supported by all the right people and bloggers etc.

As to how this was put out, I honestly do not know what that means. How was it supposed to be "put out"? Were Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh supposed to be consulted before the Congress could take action? The gang of 14 managed to get us two conservative judges and while the right might complain about that whole incident, complaining is all the right seems to know how to do.

They complain all the time about everything.

No, I am not ready to jump on the Fred! bandwagon like a dutiful little conservative, not just yet and I am not half as disgusted with how the Senate handled this as I am with how the radio talk show people, a lot of bloggers and a lot of self serving pundits handled it.

At least Dafydd has tried to be fair. That is more than I can say for a lot of these people.

As for my remarks about enforcing the laws, they are self evident. The only way to enforce those laws was to arrest a lot of people who were not Mexican, and people wanted no part of that. And even then we did not have the man power or the resources to do the job.

Rovin:

My biggest "beef" was the method in which the first Senate go-around in this debate transpired.

The proceedure of these "gang of 14" or what-ever number, where closed door meetings decide what the base of the legislation will be---throw out a three inch thick book of rules and tell us this is what you get.

Rovin, this is what I meant earlier by complaining about the naiveté of many of those fighting this legislation: This is the normal way that big, compromise bills are crafted.

You have three or four members on each side who go into closed session for several weeks or months, hammering out all the exchanges, the tits for tats, that make up the bill. And when they finish, they present the whole thing to the membership.

Sometimes they allow a long time for discussion; most of the time they don't, and they usually limit amendments. Why? Because the bill is a delicate balance... and there will always be one yahoo who didn't get the one, little thing he wants -- and who is perfectly content to hold the whole thing hostage until he does.

You must do that in the Senate, because the Senate has so many arcane rules that allow small minorities or even individual senators to put a hold on bills, that nothing controversial would ever move otherwise.

And those senators who were not senior enough or enough in the good graces of their leaders to have a seat at the table during bill creation -- and even those who were but didn't get their own ideas enshrined -- invariably pound the lectern and yell about the bill being written "in secret," "in the dark," "in a back room," and how this is totally against the great and noble traditions of the Senate.

But in fact, that is the great and noble tradition of the Senate: It is the "saucer" into which hot coffee, straight from the House, is poured to cool it off. The Senate thrives on ponderous secrecy.

This bill was treated no differently than the compromise immigration bill last session, or the social-security reform bill, or any other "grand compromise" bill. This is the normal way such bills are written.

It is not possible to "write them on the floor;" you would never get cloture, because everybody would fight hammer and tooth for his own passage, reform, swap, or earmark.

And Sens. DeMint, Inhofe, and Martinez are all well aware of that; and each has been among those "secret back room" bill-writing sessions on other occasions. And they didn't complain when they were on the committee of six!

Hugh Hewitt is likewise well aware of this. He seizes upon it for complaint because it's one more arrow in his quiver, not because he's actually outraged at the procedure itself.

But yes, you're right: The communications anent this bill -- on all sides -- have been abominable, from Bush to McCain to Graham to the "amnesty" screamers and the "cryptoliberal" slingers.

Terrye:

The gang of 14 managed to get us two conservative judges and while the right might complain about that whole incident, complaining is all the right seems to know how to do.

Here is the problem with the Gang of 14: Yes, they got us a couple of judicial conservatives on the bench; but there was already a plan in the works -- the Byrd option -- that would have gotten us a bushel full.

McCain formed the Gang precisely to head off that option, which had the virtue of being sound policy as well: To use a procedural trick to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. Once the Democrats could no longer filibuster judges, and they had to go to the full Senate for an actual up or down vote, then we would have gotten those two judges -- plus about 25 or 30 others.

But McCain short-circuited that move by pulling out just enough Republican senators that the Byrd option could not have passed. And the net result was that we got the two, but the 25 or 30 were thrown under the bus.

And they included some of the best, like Miguel Estrada... a possibly unstoppable candidate for the Supreme Court, if Bush could have gotten him onto the circus court.

So McCain certainly deserves to be horsewhipped for that one.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)