Giuliani had a solid lead in Florida before the early primaries.  Some polls had him over 36%.  Then the early primaries happened and Giuliani was not playing in any of them.  That changed the political landscape.  Now Giuliani, who has spent heavily in Florida, is tied for third with Huckabee who hasn’t spent much and isn’t campaigning there.  Pretty much everyone believes that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida his campaign is over.  I think it likely he’ll come in forth. 

The polls show Romney and McCain in a statistical tie for first in Florida.  I suspect Romney will handily defeat McCain in the sunshine state, giving McCain a likely second place finish.  Of course, the large liberal northeastern snow birds could tilt that the other way. Second is as good as last in this winner take all state and if that is where McCain ends up it hurts him a lot.  Huckabee will be third which will give him no delegates but it will still energize his campaign because he will again have done it without much money, meaning he has real, solid support.

What does all that mean going into Super Tuesday?  I think it will be a three man race at that point with Romney leading the pack.  McCain and Huckabee will be fighting for second place.

There are, of course, some wildcards in play.  Where will Thompson supporters go?  They should go to Huckabee since both Huckabee and Thompson were going for the same constituency.  Some will go to Romney because he is the most conservative of the front runners (if you don’t consider Huckabee a front runner).  Some, like ALa of Blonde Sagacity, seem determined to go with McCain, primarily I think, because of his war record.  I’m mystified by that since these people consider themselves conservatives but they can ignore McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc.  But many of them bought pretty much anything Thompson said and Thompson attacked Huckabee relentlessly.  That was no surprise considering Huckabee was his main opponent.  They were, after all, reaching out to the same constituency.  Once again, violation of Reagan’s eleventh commandment takes its toll.

Then there’s the small group who supported Duncan Hunter.  Hunter is now endorsing Huckabee, which has to really irk some of the pundits on the right as well as Thompson supporters.

I still think Huckabee has a decent shot but I concede he has an uphill battle and the odds are against him.  If, as I am predicting, Giuliani comes in third or forth in Florida, he is toast.  His support has already shrunk considerably and without a win in Florida it will pretty much dry up.  That leaves a three man race with Romney, McCain and Huckabee going into Super Tuesday.

I am convinced that McCain cannot win overall in states that have closed primaries.  In the South Carolina primary McCain did not do well among those who consider themselves conservative or very conservative.  He also did not do well among those who are pro-life.  Additionally, Protestants and those who attend church regularly went largely for Huckabee (Source).  I said last week, McCain barely won South Carolina and it took independents crossing over to give him that win and had Thompson not been in the race Huckabee would likely have won anyway.  None of this bodes well for McCain going forward.  The best thing he has is the claim of momentum coming out of South Carolina and I’m not convinced he really has any momentum, though the media has worked hard to generate some.

Based on what is known now, I believe Romney is the most likely winner on Super Tuesday.  How well Huckabee does will depend on his ability to stretch a dollar and enlist the active support of the organizations that already exist in the FairTax community and the evangelical community.  That carried him in the Iowa Straw Poll, it carried him in the Iowa Caucus and it has the potential to carry him on Super Tuesday.  The question is, will those organizations mobilize?  If they do Huckabee could defy the odds and the pundits and be positioned to take the nomination.  If they do not, Romney wins on Super Tuesday.  Either way the best McCain can hope for is second and that would mean the end of his candidacy.  Indeed, if Romney is the clear winner after Super Tuesday he will likely be the nominee.  As much as that thought does not appeal to me, it is infinitely preferable to a McCain win.  Still, I have hope, if not giddy optimism, that Huckabee can pull this off.

If, by some miracle, McCain emerges from Super Tuesday a winner, the Republican Party is in real trouble!  More on that possible outcome in another post.

Because it was still quite close I don’t think second place does too much damage to Huckabee.  And, because independents won it for McCain, I’m not convinced that will translate to states that hold closed primaries.  I certainly hope it won’t because McCain is many things but conservative is not one of them.

Thompson came in a distant third.  Had he been a close third he might have still had a decent position but he was 13-14 points behind Huckabee.  In my view that pretty much ends it for Thompson.  He may hang in there a little longer but his campaign is effectively over.

Listening to FOX News the consensus seems to be that after today the race has been reduced to McCain, Romney and Giuliani.  I pray that isn’t the case considering none of them is conservative.  They further believe that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida it will be down to McCain and Romney  If that eventuality occurs, I’ll have to do some serious soul searching about how I will respond.  I am a conservative and I don’t know that I could vote for McCain under any circumstances.

I simply do not buy the argument from most of the talking heads on FOX News that this is the end of the road for Huckabee.  Second is not what he wanted but the fact is he’s still viable.  Florida is next and neither Huckabee nor McCain is going to win there.  Next is Super Tuesday and lot of states do not have open primaries.  I don’t believe McCain can win in the south without independents and Huckabee will win in those states.  What is more likely in my judgement is a spread of delegates following Super Tuesday that has Huckabee squarely in the pack along with others, none with enough delegates to take them over the top.

It’s going to be a while before we know who the Republican nominee is and it could end up in a brokered convention, something we haven’t seen in some time.  If that happens who knows what the outcome will be?  At that point anyone could get the nomination, even Fred Thompson.

Here’s how I see it.  McCain was counting on winning in Michigan, or at least running a close second.  As it stands now it looks like he’ll be a distant second.  That hurts him in South Carolina.  The McCain campaign spin is that the large contingent of veterans in South Carolina is well organized and they will carry the day.  I don’t think so.  I think McCain comes in second or third on Saturday.  Those veterans may have done it for him had he won in Michigan but that didn’t happen.

Thompson has really been working hard here the last week and it is clearly paying off.  But he came in behind Ron Paul in Michigan which could hurt him as some see him as a lost cause.  That can only help Huckabee who hasn’t been sitting on his laurels either.  I think Huckabee wins in South Carolina.  Thompson comes in second or third.  If McCain can hold on to some of the numbers he’s built and comes in second with Thompson third that could spell the end of Thompson’s run.  Even Newt Gingrich thinks Huckabee is the man to beat here and he doesn’t see it happening either.

I’ve said before that from an ideological perspective I like Thompson over Huckabee.  I wish Thompson had executive experience though.  For the most part the voters prefer former Governors over former or current Senators.  Unquestionably Huckabee has the executive experience and Thompson doesn’t.  But otherwise I really like Thompson’s positions pretty much across the board.  The problem is, I don’t think he can win.  His abysmal showing in Michigan strengthens that view.  Huckabee, on the other hand, has shown his ability to build support and gain momentum in spite of a lack of funding.  Now he’s raising money at a much faster rate with the added momentum.  Thompson seems to be on fire now but I still think it’s just too late.

The latest Rasmussen poll has McCain with a strong lead in South Carolina, nine points over Huckabee but Real Clear Politics still has gives Huckabee +3.7.  While I generally like the Rasmussen poll I have strong doubts about this one.  I live here and talk to people.  I think I know a little about what’s going on here.  McCain may have a small lead going into today but if it’s actually a lead it will shrink following his distant second place finish in Michigan.  Besides, people in the south aren’t fans of McCain.  I think the Rasmussen poll is way off and I think Saturday will demonstrate that.

Now Newt Gingrich is saying much the same thing.  From This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

We are at the end of the George W. Bush era.  We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine — the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.

Rush just didn’t know what to do with that.  He’s been a Gingrich supporter for years and Newt says something like that.  It put Rush in a spot.

Rush had this to say on his show today:

Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.  One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong.  Something about that sort of grates on me.  The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?  That’s not who we are!  Now, it may be who populists are.  In fact, it is exactly who populists are.  Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been.  It’s what the Democrat Party had been.

This fits right in with what’s been going on with the Republican race for the nomination.  The lines are drawn, the assumptions have all been made and everyone is hearing what they expect to hear rather than what is actually being said.

Newt was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and Sean asked him about the comment.  Newt went on the explain that the Republican Party cannot continue trying to hold on to the issues of the eighties.  He pointed out that most of the major concerns we have today didn’t exist when Reagan was in office.  Gingrich made the point that if Reagan was in office today he’d be tackling today’s issues, not the issues of the eighties.  In effect, the Reagan era is over and it’s time for a new era if Republicans want to win.

Newt was NOT denigrating the Reagan legacy or conservatism.  He made it clear that he was always a Reagan supporter.  But what Rush and others seem to want is Reagan himself.  Too bad.

No one is a bigger fan of Ronald Reagan than I am.  Reagan stood for conservatism long before it was fashionable and he is the model of conservatism.  But we aren’t facing the Soviet Union, Reagan defeated that.  We aren’t facing many of the problems we faced in the eighties.  We have a whole new set of problems and we have to face them head on as a party and decided how we’ll deal with them and articulate that to the electorate.  We can’t do that if we’re constantly bickering over Reagan.

It’s not going to happen but Rush, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the right leaning pundits need to stop living in the past and take a look at the present.  Reagan is dead.  We aren’t going to return to the eighties much as some of those pundits might wish we could.

I want conservatives in office.  But if every candidate that takes a look at the changing landscape ends up characterized as a populist we’re facing a long uphill battle.

During Ronald Reagan’s 1966 campaign for governor of California, Republicans established the so-called Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

It was proposed by State Republican Chairman Gaylord Parkinson to help prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater that laid the foundation for Goldwater’s trouncing in the 1964 presidential election. Just as Nelson Rockefeller and his East Coast cronies had branded Goldwater as an “extremist” who was unfit to hold office, so candidate George Christopher and California’s liberal Republicans were leveling similar personal attacks on Reagan. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson’s advice, and the rest is history.

Source

All the Republican candidates have invoked the name of Ronald Reagan numerous times.  It seems they all want to be associated with the Reagan legacy.  But most have forgotten Reagan’s eleventh commandment.  It is one thing to contrast one’s record with that of another candidate.  it is quite another to resort to character assassination and that is precisely what some have done.

The pundits are even worse and they don’t seem to realize the risk they are taking.  The quote above illustrates why Reagan was unwilling to speak ill of his Republican opponents.  He stuck to issues because he understood that it was important that Republicans won in the end the constant assaults in the primary process made that less likely.

The lesson holds true today but you wouldn’t know it listening to the pundits.  I have to admit that I have been guilty as well.  I’ve made my views on John McCain, for example, very clear.  But as I said in my last post, I have to think about the possibility that McCain will be the eventual nominee.  What do I do then?  Can I reasonably blog in support of McCain at that point after all the negative posts I’ve written about him?  I’m not sure anyone would take such post seriously but I’m quite sure some would use my older posts to argue in favor of whoever the Democrat nominee is.

Therein lies the problem.  I need to tone down my rhetoric against McCain, Romney, et.al. in favor of arguing for my candidate.  I think others need to do the same thing.  otherwise we all contribute to making the Democrats’ job easier and our nominee’s job tougher once the nominees are chosen.

This isn’t really an analysis post, rather, it’s some of my impressions for tonight.

The biggest problem with John McCain is his inherent inability to admit that he has even been wrong.  He’s implied he was wrong on immigration reform by switching his position to border enforcement, yet he steadfastly refuses to admit that what he supported previously was amnesty.  Chris Wallace hammered this point home and McCain still claimed he’d never supported amnesty and never would.  Now McCain says he just wants to move on.  Well Senator, admit the facts and moving on will be far easier.

Huckabee was again asked about his support of in-state tuition for the children of illegals and whether his recently announced plan for immigration didn’t “punish the children for the sins of the parents” just like denying in-state tuition would.  Huckabee vehemently denied that it would.  This is an issue on which I disagree with Huckabee and his response to the question seemed particularly strained.  He did, however, point out that Reagan signed the amnesty bill in the 80s.

The fact is, everyone one of the candidates in the forum except Fred Thompson, have significant weaknesses on the issue illegal immigration.  Giuliani ran a sanctuary city, McCain supported the amnesty bill, Huckabee supports in-state tuition and Romney had illegals working at his house.

Thompson’s point was clearly the best.  Our policy must not encourage more illegal immigration.

Overall I think all the candidates came out okay tonight.  No one committed a big gaff and no one hit a home run.  The focus group on FOX said Romney clearly won.  I completely disagree with them and so did all the pundits.  It was a great informational forum and I think the real winner was the voters who watched.  If anyone lost tonight it was probably John McCain.  He didn’t look good on immigration or taxes.  On taxes he still maintains his vote against the Bush tax cuts was right because he wanted to reign in spending.  I’m with him on spending but that’s like a drowning man refusing to raise his nose out of the water because he can’t also raise his mouth.  Okay, drown then!

As for my candidate, Huckabee, he did fine overall.  He clearly defended himself once again against Romney’s “half truths” as Huckabee put it.  He isn’t likely to win New Hampshire but he will do good enough there and perhaps better than expected.  He’s in this race for the foreseeable future and he will be a force to be reckoned with.

Tomorrow I’ll make my predictions for the New Hampshire primary.

Caucuses don’t exactly involve votes per se.  Instead caucus goers gather in a large room around their candidate.  Any candidate that doesn’t have at least 15% of the caucus goers is ruled not viable and their supporters physically move to the area of their second choice. That’s where it gets interesting and it’s what causes pundit predictions to sometimes be incredibly wrong.  Predicting who will have less than 15% isn’t too difficult but predicting where their supporters will go is not so easy.

On the Democrat side Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama should he not make the first cut, which is likely.  Indeed on both sides there will be a number of candidates who will not meet the 15% threshold and all their supporters will move to someone else.  That makes predictions difficult.

I don’t plan to make predictions on the Democrat side, primarily because I don’t really care.  I’m much more interested in the Republican caucus.

Mitt Romney has spent a boat load of money to buy the Iowa caucus and a couple of months ago the conventional wisdom was that he would walk away with it.  Today Romney finds himself in a dead heat with Mike Huckabee even though he’s outspent Huckabee by something like 20 to 1.  The pundits are pretty much universally saying everything depends on turnout.  Which candidates can get their voters out to the caucus will determine the outcome.  I agree with that to a point but I think there is more at play here.

The Iowa Straw Poll in August was an eye opener for many.  Romney was widely expected to win, as he did, but no one predicted Huckabee to come in second.  Since the Iowa Straw Poll is mostly about buying votes Romney clearly had the edge.  No one could compete with the money he could spend on the effort.  Huckabee, on the other hand, had virtually no money to spend, yet he came in a strong second.  There were a couple of reasons for that showing and keep in mind that Huckabee supporters pretty much had to pay their own way to the poll unlike Romney supporters.

First, Huckabee’s very outspoken support of the FairTax was probably the primary reason he showed so well.  FairTax supporters are well organized and they mostly support Huckabee because he supports the FairTax so strongly and articulately.  While there has been some acknowledgement of the roll of the FairTax by the pundits in the media, I believe they broadly underestimate how big that roll actually is.

Second, Huckabee unapologetically supports the issues so called “values voters” care about.  He is pro life, pro family, pro second amendment and against gay marriage.  He’s also an outspoken Christian and makes no bones about it.  That scares some people who think any Christian will usher in a theocracy but evangelicals by and large are behind him.

The latest polls all have Romney and Huckabee in a tie while no one else has even 15% in the polls.  So Romney and Huckabee will certainly make the first cut.  Who will be out after the first round? 

Giuliani and Paul will not make the first cut.  Predicting where their supporters will go is somewhat difficult.  Giuliani supporters will likely split between McCain (should he make the first cut) and Romney but Paul supporters are anyone’s guess.  As rabid as those folks are they could pack up and go home, not moving to any candidate.  If Thompson does not make the first cut his supporters will almost universally go to Huckabee.  Romney is viewed as a RINO and Thompson supporters are real conservatives.  They will not support the RINO.

McCain has more than 15% in only one poll but I think it likely he will make the first round.  If he does not his supporters likely will not go for Romney because Romney has now gone after McCain in some of his ads. That gives most of those supporters to Huckabee if it comes to that in the first round.

Back to the turnout question.  Remember how FairTax supporters buoyed Huckabee in the Iowa Straw Poll?  I predict the same thing will happen in the caucus.  I believe that in the first round Huckabee will have a significant lead over Romney.  That will have some impact on the second round as the supporters whose candidates don’t make the first cut decide where to move their support.

Thompson is really the wild card.  If he makes the first cut Huckabee could be hurt in the second round and it is then possible that Romney or even McCain could take the lead.  I consider than an unlikely but possible outcome.

I predict the first round goes to Huckabee by a fairly wide margin.  Romney will be second and McCain third in the first round.  All of Thompson’s supporters will go to Huckabee, Giuliani’s supporters will split between McCain and Romney and Paul’s supporters (those who stay) will go to McCain.

In the second round Huckabee’s support grows the most because he gets all of Thompson’s supporters.  Romney gains the least in the second round and McCain ends up in the middle.

The end result will be Huckabee first, McCain second and Romney third.  That will leave the Romney campaign shell shocked and scrambling to regroup for New Hampshire.  Romney will dramatically increase spending in New Hampshire and the number of negative attack ads he runs will increase dramatically as well.

These are, of course, only predictions.  They could be wrong and indeed, almost certainly will be wrong in some details.  I chose to be pretty specific about how this will go which increases the opportunities to be wrong.  But I think the analysis is pretty sound and it will be interesting on Thursday to see how it turns out and how close I come to the actually results.

Stay tuned for caucus results analysis.

I’ve been a Huckabee supporter for some time now.  I’ve heard most all the criticisms and I’ve heard Huckabee’s defense of those criticisms.  Take ethics charges in Arkansas.  Like attacks against Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay on the national level, Democrats always resort to spurious ethics charges when when they can’t defeat a Republican on the merits.  I have no problem believing this is the case in Arkansas.  In the case of the wedding registry issue, Huckabee’s explanation is completely credible and sensible.  Opponents who stick to that charge look stupid, just like Giuliani’s constant charge that Romney hired illegals when he did no such thing.  Giuliani looked stupid then and Huckabee opponents look stupid sticking with spurious and silly charges.

On the immigration question I take issue with Huckabee.  I think he is wrong about the children of illegal immigrants but I respect his position because I have anguished over the question of what to do with kids who’ve been here nearly all their lives.  They don’t know any other country and they are not responsible for the situation they are in, their parents are.  I disagree with Huckabee’s approach because it rewards and encourages illegal immigration but I understand where he’s coming from and this one issue is not a deal breaker for me.

There is one charge, leveled by Ann Coulter and others, that Huckabee wants to use the government to implement Jesus’ plans for the poor, that gives me serious pause.  If true that would be a real deal breaker for me.  I have no patience for social gospel advocates and I won’t have patience for Huckabee if I find he’s a social gospel adherent.  But so far I’ve seen no evidence that it is true.  Indeed, Huckabee has said that he’s running for President, not pastor in chief.  Yes, he will make decisions based on his worldview.  That seems to scare the pants off some people.  But the fact is, everyone running will make decisions based on their worldview, Christian or not.

I’ve been reading the criticism and looking for evidence but so far I’m not seeing it.  I’ve been quiet for a while now because, honestly, I was afraid some of this stuff might be true.  But so far all I see is accusations.  In every case Huckabee has responded and responded well.  The one time he seemed somewhat flummoxed was in a interview with Laura Ingraham.  But the reality is Ingraham was extremely combative from the start and Huckabee has little chance to finish an answer.  It was clear to anyone listening that Ingraham was gunning for Huckabee.

Coulter also got some mileage from Huckabee’s plan to bring music and the arts back to education.  She carries on like that’s just the silliest idea ever introduced.  But it seems to me that Huckabee is simply talking about a liberal arts education, something most of our founding fathers strongly supported.  There is something of a resurgence of the idea among private schools today and it’s an idea I support.  The idea is that you cannot have a well rounded education without covering arts, literature, music, foreign language, history, science and math.  Modern thinkers want to focus solely on science and math and maybe a little language thrown in for good measure.  I believe the liberal arts approach is superior and it was unbecoming of Coulter to treat it like it was silly.  I’m not sure where she got her undergrad but I suspect it might have been a liberal arts school.

Now let me be clear.  I’m a fan of Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and many others who are taking pot shots at Huckabee.  In virtually every case it seems clear to me that they have already made up their minds for someone else.  Ingraham is a case in point.  I’ve heard her interview Mitt Romney.  She threw softball questions one after the other.  Not once did she go after him on anything.  Clearly Romney is her guy.  Now that’s fine but she isn’t being real honest about that fact.  She’s acted as if she’s unbiased regarding Republican candidates when she clearly is not.  It’s human nature to see anyone who threatens your chosen candidate as the enemy but that alone doesn’t make the criticism valid.  It requires evidence and there seems to be precious little of that.

So far the only one I’ve seen who truly seems unbiased is Rush Limbaugh.  If he’s picked a candidate I am hard pressed to tell who it might be.  The Huckabee campaign takes on El Rushbo at their peril.

I will continue to watch the situation carefully.  If there is something that might change my mind about Huckabee I want to know about it.  Yes, he’s my guy.  But I am willing to switch if he turns out not to be the real deal.  To date I’ve seen nothing to sway me.  And lest you think I’m not as willing to change as I say I am, recall that I started out supporting Fred Thompson so I’ve already switched once.  I’ll switch again if new information comes along that convinces me a I should.

For now I’m just disgusted with the constant “conservative” attacks on Huckabee.  I think it’s a mistake and it’s damaging to the party.

Conventional wisdom is nothing more or less than what most people think. Or at least most people within a specific group. It is certainly possible that conventional wisdom on a particular subject is the best course but I think it is unlikely. Conventional wisdom says you should limit your risk, taking only those risks that don’t cost much if you are wrong. That may lead you to a safe retirement but it won’t lead you to be a millionaire.

The conventional wisdom in Republican circles seems to be that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. Why is that? What makes Giuliani the one guy who can beat Hillary? It appears to be that he is so tough when it comes to foreign policy and terrorism. His strategy has been to create just the thinking that leads to the common conventional wisdom. He has worked to scare the Republican base into believing he can defeat both the terrorists and Hillary Clinton and no one else can. His strategy has certainly worked thus far but is the resulting conventional wisdom accurate?

I submit that it is not and I have several reasons for thinking so.

First, I think it doubtful that Giuliani can defeat Clinton in the first place. Everyone places their hopes on the polls but there are several problems with that, not the least of which is that the actual election isn’t for another year and polls are worthless that far out. Additionally, the polls only look at what the pollsters are interested in looking at. So, for example, there has been no poll pitting Hillary Clinton against, say, Mike Huckabee as was pointed out in a previous Republican debate.

Another reason for doubting that Giuliani can defeat Clinton is my belief that very many social conservative and evangelical Christians simply will not vote for him. Pat Robertson may have endorsed him but that isn’t going to go very far. I think James Dobson is more on the right track in terms of what evangelical Christians and social conservatives are likely to do. They will take one of two courses. They will vote for a third party candidate or they will stay home. Either course leads to a Clinton victory in ’08. We saw similar results in both of Bill Clinton’s elections where he never had a majority of the vote. Indeed, Bill Clinton never would have won without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections.

The simple fact is, Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative. Socially he is a liberal and he does not hide that fact. He has made certain concessions like saying he will nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Roberts but there is no certainty that he won’t change his mind considering how he feels about abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. In essence he would have to betray his own beliefs to follow through on his promise and I have little faith that he will do that.

A second reason for disbelieving that Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Clinton is that when candidates with solid conservative records run on conservative platforms, they win. Giuliani does not fit that description. He is closer to Democrats than Republicans on a host of issues. In the end, why vote for a Republican who acts like a Democrat when you can get the genuine article?

I’ve said over and over that the reason Republicans lost in ’06 was that they had abandoned conservative principles. As the minority they had long held to conservatism but as the majority they governed much like Democrats. They hardly passed on a chance to expand government. So, rather than Reagan’s goal of eliminating the federal Department of Education we got No Child Left Behind, a massive expansion of the Department of Education. Never mind the fact that there is no Constitutional authority for that department. Republicans spent like their lives depended on it. And it all cost them the majority.

Now we have a Democrat Congress that has the lowest approval rating of any Congress since ranting have been taken. As bad as the Republicans were, the Democrats are worse. That presents an enormous opportunity if only we can take advantage of it.

The conventional wisdom also says that the Democrats will expand their majorities on Congress in ’08 but I don’t see that as inevitable. If Republicans would only coalesce around a solid conservative platform and nominate a solid conservative candidate for President, they could take back control of Congress and keep the White House. That isn’t going to happen by nominating Rudy Giuliani.

It is time to throw out conventional wisdom. It is time to step out and embrace conservatism. That is the winning strategy.

The only thing I can come up with is this visceral fear that only Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. Certainly many feel that way but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In fact, I believe that ONLY a solid conservative can beat Hillary Clinton. But that is beside the point here.

The fact is, Robertson has sold his soul for this endorsement. Not that Pat Robertson is all that credible but what credibility he had is gone now. I’m sure there are some people who would follow the man straight into hell but I think most evangelicals will see this as a total compromise with the devil.

I’ve been critical of James Dobson for his public stand against anyone who isn’t a total social conservative but that criticism is not because I disagree with him. My criticism is that Dobson has made a habit recently of saying things publicly that were better said in the pulpit. In truth, I have a real problem with any candidate who is not a social conservative and I doubt that I could vote for one. The very real probability is that many evangelicals will stay home come election day if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They simply will be unable to pull the lever for him and rather than vote for someone worse they just won’t vote at all.

As implied above, Pat Robertson hasn’t has much credibility except with his faithful following for some time. He has a habit of running off at the mouth and saying some pretty ridiculous things. But this really tops the charts. I cannot fathom how a follower of Christ, someone who holds the sanctity of life so dear and fights for the traditional family, can come out and publicly endorse a man who stands in opposition to these principles.

Truth be told, I’m not sure what I will do come election day if Rudy is the Republican nominee. But I know there is not chance that would work to put him in that position. That Robertson is working to put him in that position is just inexcusable.

Blogged with Flock

McCain wasn’t left out of the party, taking on Romney’s record and accusing Romney of distorting not only his own record but McCain’s as well.  In the first round all questions were asked of Romney, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani.  No questions were asked of any of the other candidates in the first 15 minutes of the debate.

Ron Paul got his time, primarily I think, because he says such nutty things and that is good for ratings.  He drew boos from the audience on several occasions.

The clear winner of the evening, in my view, was Mike Huckabee.  Readers may object that since I’ve come out in support of Huckabee my view is biased.  While it is true that I have a bias, the fact is, Huckabee answered every question resolutely and thoroughly and never stumbled once.  That cannot be said for anyone else in the debate.  Indeed, in the unscientific FOXNews poll following the debate, Huckabee won solidly.  Yes, I know, Ron Paul won the numbers but everyone actually paying attention understands that Ron Paul’s numbers must be filtered out of any poll that isn’t scientific since the RonBots come out en mass to every poll out there, slanting the polls horribly when good polls show Paul with numbers in the low single digits.

Huckabee got his first question 20 minutes into the debate with a question leading him to attack Giuliani on the abortion issue.  Huckabee declined to take the debate, instead declaring his was more interested in fight for his beliefs rather than fighting against the other candidates.  He went on to articulate strong pro life position which stood in contrast to Giuliani’s pro choice position.

McCain didn’t look bad tonight but he is, for all intents and purposes, out of this race.  And he really has been for some time.  His voice adds an interesting dimension to the debate but he has no chance at the nomination.

Thompson certainly outperformed his last debate outing, which wasn’t too difficult to do.  Indeed, Thompson did pretty well but he has a bad habit of referring to his notes repeatedly during a single answer and that just doesn’t look very presidential.  He appears to be less than prepared.  As an early Fred head I’ve come to the conclusion that Thompson simply isn’t ready to run for President.  Considering how long he had to prepare while he waited to make his announcement, this is a real disappointment.

For his part, at least Giuliani speaks his mind.  I disagree with him on a number of issues but as he told the values voters, he’s not trying to claim he believes things he doesn’t.  Right now Giuliani appears to be the man to beat and I very much hope he is beaten in the primary.  His foreign policy ideas and fiscal ideas are wonderful but his views on social issues are so foreign to conservatives that it is hard for me to imagine him winning the nomination.  Time will tell but I still do not believe conservatives will nominate him.

Duncan Hunter also did well for himself.  I’m not sure why he’s has so much trouble catching on.  I think he’d make a fine President but he just hasn’t caught on.  Lack of name recognition has probably been his biggest problem and we’ll probably see him again in future presidential campaigns.  But he’s toast in this one.

Tom Tancredo is always interesting but he has the reputation of being a one trick pony.  Tancredo’s main issue is illegal immigration and that resonates with a lot of Americans.  But he doesn’t come across as serious on a lot of other issues.  I like Tancredo but FOXNews’ post debate poll didn’t even give him 1%.  Viewers didn’t seem to notice he was there.

What can I say about Ron Paul?  He made a very good point about the cost of healthcare.  He said healthcare was the only industry where technology results in higher prices, not lower.  Excellent point.  In truth I find much agreement with Paul on domestic issues.  But when he begins talking about the empire, I just want to reach out and slap some sense into the man.  He appears to genuinely believe that the United States in engaged in building an empire, I assume, like the old British empire.  Never mind that the US has never engaged in such activity and isn’t doing so now.  By his reasoning we should be running Germany and Japan today.  We defeated those countries and then rebuilt them.  That is precisely what we are trying to do in Iraq.  But you wouldn’t know it listening to Paul.

It will be interesting to see what the polls say over the next few days.  I believe we’ll see Huckabee tick up a few more points.  Thompson has to fear him and Romney is likely starting to worry as well.  Indeed, with Romney, Thompson and McCain fighting over the conservative moniker, Huckabee may be poised to take the lead.  Two months ago I wouldn’t have given much of a chance.  Today, I think the nomination is within his reach.

From the email sent to the Friends of Fred email list:

We enter this campaign in a strong position. Fred is consistently near the top in the polls, and conservatives across the country have put together the closest thing to a draft in recent presidential campaign history in an effort to bring about this day. The next few weeks will only serve to build upon those efforts, with house parties, visits to the early primary states, and a homecoming in Lawrenceburg, TN on the 15th.

To be sure, support for Thompson has been exceedingly high, particularly for a potential candidate who has not announced.  Just today, the new GOP Straw Poll (see post below) shows Thompson leading with around 7000 votes to this point.  In virtually every poll Thompson is either first or second.

Announcing via webcast could be a stroke of genius.  Thompson’s efforts so far have been largely on the internet and by announcing via webcast he is rewarding his early supporters.

By announcing via webcast, Fred is able to take his consistently mainstream conservative message directly to the voters, who are already responding to that message with a strong upwelling of grassroots support. The webcast and the following campaign tour will play to Fred’s strengths, a consistent record of conservatism, his ability to clearly spread his message, and his ability to work with and connect with Americans from all walks of life.

To find a house party in your area, see the widget in the right sidebar.  If you cannot find a house party in your area, consider hosting one yourself.

Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.

Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.

In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?

On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.

In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.

Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.

I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.

There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.

As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”

————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format.  To listen to it click here.

Technorati : Fred Thompson

We’ve been down this road before and all the evidence says the government isn’t serious about controlling the border or doing anything about illegals already here except to give them a pass. Of course, that just creates more incentive for more illegals to cross the boarder the government has shown no interest in securing. So why on earth should we trust them when they tell us that “under the bill” this and that will happen.

Chertoff, et. al. know this full well. Lindsey Graham knows this. All of them know this. We’ve said it ad nauseum! They simply choose to ignore what we say and go on calling us bigots and talking about what the bill will do. The fact is, current law calls for a fence that isn’t getting built. Current law calls for border enforcement. There is no need for another law to do these things. Yet Bush, Chertoff and the rest have no interest in enforcing current law. So WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM to enforce a new law? There is simply no reason to trust them.

A common definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The Bush administration and its lackeys in Congress apparently assume the electorate is insane. We should trust them to do the same thing they always done and expect them to actually enforce the law this time! I don’t think so.

I like the idea I heard on the Laura Ingraham show today. Lets just start calling them former, as in former Senator Lindsey Graham and former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. I’ve already started working to unseat Lindsey Graham and there is a groundswell against him in South Carolina.

So if you are tempted to buy this line the “under the bill” they will secure the border and there will be a fence and there are triggers, don’t you believe it. They have to earn our trust. If your friend lies to you, you might give them another chance. But if they lie to you repeatedly, it takes a long, sustained effort of earning trust before you will be willing to trust them again. The same is true of our government. Let’s all assume the state motto of Oklahoma: Show Me! The only way they can show me is to start enforcing the law now and sustain that effort for an extended period of time. Then and only then, come back and maybe we’ll talk. But until they do that, there is absolutely no reason to trust them.

  Technorati : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Del.icio.us : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Ice Rocket : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Flickr : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Zooomr : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Buzznet : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics

The campaign stop was sponsored by South Carolina FairTax. The FairTax organization does not endorse candidates but FairTax.org has an interest in having Governor Huckabee speak because he has been the most vocal supporter of the FairTax among the Republican presidential candidates. This stop was no exception.

The Governor has clearly done his homework when it comes to the FairTax. He spoke at length about why he supports it, citing things like the end of the underground economy, the elimination of the IRS and all payroll taxes, the transparency of the proposed system and boost it would give to the US economy. He also pointed out that rules that now prevent churches and other non-profit organizations from endorsing candidates and supporting certain issues would be ended. These organizations would be an equal footing with all other organizations.

While the event was organized to talk about the FairTax, Governor Huckabee spoke on a number of other issues and fielded a number of questions, handling them deftly. When ask about the war on terror, the Governor was quick to correct the questioner. He said we are not fighting a war on terror, terror is a tactic. Rather, he said we are fighting a war against radical Islamic fascism. Huckabee said this is a theological war and our enemy believes they are called by God to convert or kill us which means there is no room for negotiating. He said it was naive to believe we can just leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone.

When asked about the problem of illegal immigration Huckabee said any solution had to start with border enforcement. He made the point that it was unrealistic to ask the American people to obey the laws when the government isn’t willing to enforce the law when it comes to the border. Regarding the current immigration reform legislation in Congress the Governor said he’d really like to get the deal illegal immigrants would be offered under the bill, allowing them to pay $2000 and be forgiven for back taxes.

One person asked what the Governor would do about education. He began by saying that as a former governor he was very aware that education was a state issue and went on to talk about raising standards, introducing competition and bringing back the concept of a liberal arts education that includes music and arts as well as math and science because it better teaches kids to think spatially and gives them more outlets for their creative energies.

I followed that question with another. I pointed out that he said education was a state issue and that, while Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, George Bush has increased its size exponentially. I asked what roll he saw for the federal government in education. He responded that the federal government’s roll should be one of a clearing hose for ideas, not one of requiring states to do anything. He said that the federal government should encourage states to innovate and then get out of their way.

When asked what he would do about AIDS and cancer the governor responded that the best thing to do was reform the tax system so people had more disposable income to contribute to causes they support. He pointed out that many people would love to donate today but can’t because it takes all they make to get by. If the tax code was more fair and people were paying less tax they’d have more to give. He said the same held true for other problems like poverty.

If you read this blog or even if you just got here for the first time you know I support Fred Thompson. I have a number of reasons for doing so, many that I’ve already written about on this blog. But I have to say, Governor Huckabee is impressing me more and more each day. He is gaining in the polls but I fear that he does not have a real shot at the nomination. When primary time rolls around here in South Carolina I will have to vote for the the candidate that I believe is the best choice from among those who can actually win. Should Huckabee be up there in that range when February ’08 comes, he might have my vote.

It’s still very early and I’m not prepared to endorse anyone but Thompson at this point. But a lot could happen between now and next February. I’ll be keeping a close eye on Mike Huckabee.

As for Republican backers on the Bush team like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, rather than attempt make well though out and reasoned arguments to the Republican base, they have called them bigots and xenophobes. That’s a sure way to sway the opposition in your own party.

So what is going on? Why are those who support comprehensive immigration reform doing almost the opposite of what they need to do to gain support?

Some are suggesting a grand conspiracy whereby the supporters of the package are actually trying to trick us. One person suggested that this was analogous to Bush nominating Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court. His theory is that without the Meyers nomination, Alito could never have been confirmed. Others suggest that Democrats are simply trying to exhaust the American people so they can ultimately sneak this legislation through in the dark of night a few weeks from now.

Another suggestion, one that I think actually holds water, is that the Democrat leadership is more interested in denying Bush anything he could call a victory than they are in passing their most cherished legislation. In the eyes of Harry Reid, every initiative Bush is denied is another Senate seat come ’08. Of course, if that is grand scheme, Ted Kennedy should get an Oscar nomination for his performance on the Senate floor when Reid pulled the package.

Now, of course, President Bush is committed to seeing this legislation come back up and it likely will. Tony Snow has become the point man for promoting the issue and he has taken a far different approach from Lindsey Graham, et. al. Snow appears to be listening to the opposition and answering their objections rather than calling them names.

Listening to Snow on various talk shows and news programs one is almost tempted to buy into this “reform” package. According to Snow the reforms are real, the triggers will be enforced. What Snow fails to address, and I’ve heard no one actually ask, is that every single illegal alien in this country will receive immediate legal status under this bill. That, by any definition, is amnesty.

I’m a fan of Tony Snow. I’ve said before that it’s almost like having a friend in the White House. He is smart, articulate, reasoned and generally conservative. That’s why I can’t figure out what’s going on. I have a very difficult time believing Snow really thinks this is good legislation. True, he works for the President and is obligated to promote the President’s position. But if I was in Snow’s position I’d have no choice but to resign. I could not, in good conscience, argue in favor of this bill.

One thing I know. Unless Democrats are really committed to denying Bush any victory, this bill is going to keep coming back until it passes. That means it will require virtual permanent vigilance on the part of conservatives to keep it from passing.

Conservatives like me have stood by the President in spite of some pretty awful stuff. Take No Child Left Behind or his signing of Campaign Finance Reform or the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. In spite of these many things that were hardly conservative, we’ve stood by our President.

Now, when both Republicans and Democrats have a big problem with Comprehensive Immigration Reform, is the President willing to be loyal to those who have consistently supported him? Not on your life. He doesn’t even allow that our’s could be principled opposition. Instead, the President, McCain, Graham, et.al., characterize us as xenophobes and bigots.

I scratch my head every day wondering why the President and others in the Republican Party are so determined to jam this through no matter how much opposition there is. I can understand that the Republican Party does not want to be seen as anti-Hispanic. But in the end the President and his cadre are doing two things that are extremely harmful to the future prospects of the party.

First, they are jamming a wedge into the party. Some have characterized it as tearing the party apart and that may be an accurate description. There is a war within the Republican Party today and it is being waged primarily by President Bush and his accomplices. They are at war with the rank and file of the party and that does not bode well the Republican prospects in ’08.

Second, it is virtually indisputable that the vast majority of current illegals that ultimately become voting citizens will be Democrat voters. Clearly Ted Kennedy and the Democrat Party understand this. That’s why they’re willing to stand up to the unions on this issue. It takes something that big for the Democrat Party to stand up to unions.

The bottom line is, Republicans are screwed for a generation or more if this travesty of a piece of legislation makes it into law. Why then is the President doing it? Why is he willing to demagogue this issue? Why does he feel justified in calling those of us who oppose this xenophobes and bigots when he knows full well that isn’t true?

The only thing I can figure is the President is working on his legacy. He is as much a lame duck President as any ever was. His popularity is in the tank and it’s likely to go lower still with no rebound in sight unless there is a dramatic turnaround in Iraq. But if he can ram this down our throats he will be the President that dealt with the immigration problem. That’s what he’s counting on. The President wants his legacy and he’s willing to sell us out to get it! To hell with loyalty to the party or his supporters at the polls. His legacy takes precedence over loyalty. So tell me, why should anyone hold any loyalty to him?

I’ve never believed that Bush was a conservative. During his 2000 run I was not impressed and did not voter for him in the primary. But he got the nomination and I voted for him in the general election. Again in 2004 I voted for him just like millions of conservatives all across America who held their noses and checked off his name. We got some good for it. We got some good justices on the Supreme Court and we got tax cuts. But there is little else to show for our support.

I am finished being loyal to President Bush or any other Republican who puts his own interests ahead of his constituents. Lindsey Graham certainly falls into that category. Let this be a warning to Republican officials and candidates. We conservatives are not willing to be your lapdogs any longer. If you think I’m some lone malcontent, think again. There are many more just like me who will not continue to vote for you if you are unwilling to take a stand for conservative principles. We want to see a victory in ’08. We don’t want to see Hilary in the White House. But we will not be lemmings. If you expect loyalty from us you’d better be prepared to be loyal to us!

Thompson, the “Law & Order” star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been publicly coy, even as people close to him have been furiously preparing for a late entry into the wide-open contest. But the advisers said Thompson dropped all pretenses on Tuesday afternoon during a conference call with more than 100 potential donors, each of whom was urged to raise about $50,000.

In the story, Allen says Thompson plans on formally announcing his candidacy over the forth of July holiday. Thompson will apparently announce in Nashville where her will begin his campaign in the trademark red pickup truck he used with his Senate campaigns.

A testing-the-waters committee is to be formed June 4 so Thompson can start raising money, and staffers will go on the payroll in early June, the organizers said. A policy team has been formed, but remains under wraps.

<snip>

Campaign officials said they have every indication Thompson will declare his candidacy, but cautioned that he could still decide not to run or to postpone the announcement. Mark Corallo, the campaign spokesman, said: “He is seriously considering getting in and doing everything he has to do to come to a final decision.”

Folks, this is great news, although it is not unexpected. Fred’s got a plan and he’s working that plan, apparently to good effect. Many have feared the loss of ground Thompson has had in terms of fund raising but he appears to be raising money anyway and since he’s not yet in the race, he has no FEC reporting requirements.

Thompson urged the supporters to muster a major show of financial force in early July, just after the June 30 deadline for second-quarter financial reports to the Federal Election Commission.

Thompson’s top rivals – Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney – will have a formidable advantage for the current quarter, so he plans to show his muscle right after that.

I don’t know about you but I’m excited. June 4th, the date Thompson forms his exploratory committee, can’t come fast enough! Let the race begin for real.

Listening to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter tell about his father and brother immigrating here was just wonderful. What an inspiring story. But what on Earth does it have to do with the situation at hand? Specter’s father and brother immigrated here legally. They came here, submitted to processing, filled out the paperwork and followed our immigration laws. They learned English and worked to assimilate into American society.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham did precisely the same thing last week. The video is below in this blog. He talked about a Hispanic guy in the Air Force that was an inspiration to him. Great! No problem! Does anyone believe that Hispanic man in the Air Force was an illegal alien? Did he sneak across our border and join the Air Force? Of course not. If he was an immigrant at all he was a legal immigrant.

This in contrast to the ever growing flood of illegal aliens crossing our borders. They are not interested in becoming Americans. They have no desire to learn English or assimilate into American society. Mostly they want to take advantage of the services offered here and send money back to their home countries. Did you know that one of the biggest aspects of the Mexican economy is money sent home from America? That’s certainly one reason the Mexican government has been so opposed to any effort on our part to do something about the border.

The Congress can’t seem to understand why the American public doesn’t trust them on this. Could it be that we have been here before? We were told we’d have border security with the immigration reform in the ’80s. Did we get it? Does 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country look like we got it?

Now, rather than engage in an honest debate, they prefer to lie about those of us who oppose this measure. They say we are bigots and xenophobes. They do not acknowledge that there is a difference between illegal and legal immigration. In short, they lie to support their position and, apparently, they believe that if they lie long enough we will buy the lie. Small wonder we don’t trust Congress!

If you guys in the Congress want to gain some credibility, stop trying to shove this sham of a bill down our throats and instead, ENFORCE OUR CURRENT LAWS!! If you do that consistently for a period of time, you might just build up a little credibility. But so long as you insist on playing politics with the American people, so long as they continue to lie and mischaracterize those of us who oppose their position, they have no credibility.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to change though. Graham, Specter, McCain and all the rest of the Republicans pushing so hard on this issue are not concerned with what we, the people they represent, think. They somehow think that doing this will enhance their future electability. As for Graham, I think he’s angling for the VP spot with McCain. The problem for Graham is, McCain doesn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination and Graham doesn’t stand a chance of keeping his Senate seat in ’08. His political career as a Republican is all but over. He is already a lame duck and he is blind to the fact.

I can think of no better reason for resurrecting the issue of term limits. Career politicians are the biggest problem in this country. They are far less concerned with what is actually best for this country than they are about the next election. So long as power is the motivating factor, do not expect most of our elected officials to actually honor their promises and act in an ethical, principled manner.

I was on the phone with my father in Georgia last night. He’s been a big supporter of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. But Chambliss is one of those Republicans working so hard to sell out this country. My dad can’t believe it! I don’t know what all the backroom deals have been. I know President Bush is looking for a legacy in a lame duck presidency and who can imagine what he has promised to Republicans who toe the line on this.

Here’s what I do know. If Republicans allow this legislation to become law, the Republican party is finished for the foreseeable future. All of Harry Reid’s predictions of massive Democrat Gains in the Senate will come to pass. Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House for the next ten years at least. Maybe a solid conservative like Fred Thompson will be able to pull out the White House, I don’t know. But I’d lay odds that we will again be saying President Clinton and that is a future I don’t relish.

Finally, if this legislation becomes law, the Democrat party will be the ultimate winner. The vast majority of the illegal aliens in this country are already indebted to Democrats for the services they currently receive. The Democrats will continue with their vote buying legislative agenda. It could be a generation or more before the Republican party can recover, if them. Why congressional Republicans can’t see that simple fact is quite beyond me.

President Bush, along with RINOs Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Democrat Ted Kennedy, have reached a “compromise” for comprehensive immigration reform. That phrase, “comprehensive immigration reform” is code for amnesty. President Bush announced that the plan does not grant amnesty but any bill that allows aliens currently in this country illegally to pay a fine and get on a “path to citizenship” or permanent residency is an amnesty bill.

Virtually no one likes this bill. Backers are reluctant to discuss specifics beyond saying illegals will have to pay a fine and return home for a period of time. It is unlikely that the return home will be enforced or, if enforced, that illegals will have to stay for any significant period of time. How do you track more the more than 12 million people? Maybe set up another inefficient federal agency? And a $5,000 fine is a price many around the world would gladly pay for legal entrance into the united states. Yet those who have not entered this country illegally don’t get any special treatment and path toward citizenship.

Additionally, the Z visa only requires the head of household to return to the home country. His family can stay and there is no real idea of just how long he might have to stay in his home country but one official said it could be as short as one day. Convince me that won’t encourage more illegal immigration! Only a fool could believe that tail.

While this compromise seems historic, it appears there is still an uphill battle. Both conservatives and liberals have problems with it. Conservatives, of course, oppose the amnesty aspect of the proposal. Liberals oppose the change in immigration standards away from uniting families and toward more emphasis on skills.

Still, there is great interest on both sides of the aisle for passing some kind of comprehensive immigration reform this year. With that attitude, it is all but certain that, without outside effort, this will become a reality in some form before it’s all over. Conservatives must stay in touch with their Senators and Congressmen and keep the pressure on. This must be stopped. Amnesty did not work 20 some odd years ago and it won’t work today.

For my money, the way to deal with illegals currently in this country is to make it so painful for companies to employee them that simply won’t take the risk. When illegals find they cannot find work and support their families, much less send money back home, they will go home voluntarily. If there is not reason to be here, why would the stay? The incentives to come here illegally must be removed. That, along with real border enforcement will solve our problem. Then and only then we can look at a guest worker program and at that point, those who can speak English will have an advantage, regardless of whether they were previously here illegally

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson said that the bill and the attempt to create any comprehensive immigration reform should be scrapped until the border is secured. YEAH! That’s a position I can really get behind.