Okay, so, it appears done. Romney has dropped out of the race and it's now McCain's to lose. I've been very critical of McCain for years and I believe for good reason.

However, I absolutely do not understand the destructive meltdown by members of the right, such as Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and company, who have gone so far as to urge "suicide voters" -- Republicans who vow to pull the lever for Democrat Hillary or Obama -- on the theory that 4-8 years of extreme liberalism will create an environment whereby voters see the light on liberalism and usher in the next Reagan.

This is pure juvenile fantasy. Were another party or movement to suggest it it would be legitimately berated by conservatives.

Eight years of liberalism will no more cause Republicans to find the next Reagan any more than 8 years of Bush's fightless moderate compromise (aka Compassionate Conservativism) and Rove's triangulation did. All we'll get is higher taxes, activist liberal supreme court judges, and an easier time for Islamic extremists to bomb things.

Don't fool yourself that common Americans won't buy into liberal socialism. Too many already are. While true that Socialism makes everyone equal - equally miserable -- it's usually too late by the time the masses figure that out. McCain may be yet another moderate Republican who will too often compromise, but at least he could delay the socialist onslaught while we did try to find the next true conservative leader.

And as Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn argue, McCain's getting a bad rap.

Besides, looking for the next Reagan is too often defined by standards so high that even Ronald Reagan himself would never have attained them.

The meltdown conservatives better get their heads out of their behinds.

Conservative Sense & Sensibility
The Right's choices right now.
Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn

Today, many in the Republican party and the conservative movement are saying some strange things about the prospect of our very likely nominee, Senator John McCain, and his ascent to the GOP nomination. Many think he will destroy the conservative movement if not the Republican party, and many have even said they simply will not vote for him in a general election if he heads the GOP ticket. Moreover, others have even said they would consider voting for Senator Hillary Clinton or that there is simply no difference between Senators Clinton and Barack Obama on the one hand, and Senator John McCain on the other. Some who have said the foregoing are our dear and close friends, allies, and callers.

This sense and sensibility is simply wrong.

We know the conservative indictment against Senator McCain — we hear it every day, and even recite some of it ourselves some days. We concede much of it. There is a great deal on which the senator and we do not agree. And yet there is another brief that needs to be submitted in light of some of the latest things we've heard from friends, callers, and others. Namely, that it will not matter to them whether Senators McCain or Clinton or Obama are elected if that is their ultimate choice.

There is a great deal of difference between Senators McCain and Clinton (and Obama), and those records become important as we recognize a few simple facts: We are in an existential war against Islamic terrorists throughout the world. This very week, Senator Clinton was asked what her first act in office would be. She stated that first act would be the beginning of the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq within 60 days. Her first act. That is a surrender to the enemy — there is no other way to portray such a withdrawal and there is no other way it will be portrayed by our enemies and other observers around the world.

Some will say, "She can't mean it, she's stronger and more sensible than that." Caution: Recall that Senator Clinton will be our commander-in-chief from a party that also runs the Senate and House — and the leadership in the Senate and House, not to mention the most active members in them, want us out of Iraq. Even on her most "sensible" day do we think she can be relieved of that pressure? The Democrats on the Hill have been chomping at the bit to make good on their 2006 promises; will she really turn on them? Can she?

Second, we come to the realization that at least one Supreme Court justice is about to retire, and several others will be over age 70 come January 2009. Do we really think the nominees Senator McCain or Clinton (or Obama ) would appoint will be no different?

Let's go to their records, to the very time-period opponents of Senator McCain cite in their indictment of him.

McCain voted to defund Planned Parenthood last year, Clinton didn't and would likely expand Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funding.

McCain voted to ban partial-birth abortion, Clinton didn't and would likely reverse the partial-birth abortion ban.

McCain voted for Roberts and Alito and made the case for them in the media, Clinton didn't.

McCain has never voted for a tax increase, Clinton will increase taxes.

McCain will continue the Bush tax cuts, Clinton will end them.

McCain will end pork-barrel spending, Clinton supports the endowment of projects like the Woodstock Museum with taxpayer funding.

McCain will not cut and run in Iraq, Clinton will work with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid to do just that.

McCain sponsored legislation to keep the Fairness Doctrine from rearing its head again, Clinton has not and has signaled moves to revive it.

McCain supports school choice, Clinton does not.

Clinton will mandate health insurance, McCain will not.

McCain voted to convict Bill Clinton on impeachment, Clinton was a witting accomplice in President Bill Clinton's scandals.

McCain has an ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 82.3; Clinton has a rating of 9.

McCain has 0-percent rating from NARAL; Clinton has 100 percent.

McCain is endorsed by Tom Coburn, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Tim Pawlenty, Phil Gramm, Jeff Flake, Jon Kyl, and Ted Olson. Hillary's endorsers? Barbra Streisand, Maxine Waters, Gray Davis, Robert Kennedy Jr., Jennifer Granholm, and she will have the endorsements of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid if and when she becomes the Democratic nominee for President.

As for those who have taken to labeling Senator McCain a liberal, we reject that.

A liberal does not have a zero rating from NARAL and a 17-percent voting record with the AFL-CIO (the same rating as Sen. Jim DeMint, by way of comparison).

A liberal does not have this written about him by Sen. Jon Kyl: "On the ever-important issue of life, Senator McCain has a record of voting for pro-life legislation: He has voted for bans on partial birth abortion; he has supported Unborn Victims of Violence Act and parental notification for minors; and he has voted against using federal money to distribute morning-after contraception in schools. He has repeatedly cosponsored the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits the transportation of minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws, requiring instead the involvement of parents in abortion decisions."

A liberal does not vote to defund Planned Parenthood.

A liberal does not go on television and radio to defend Sam Alito and John Roberts.

A liberal does not go on the road to campaign for Social Security retirement accounts.

A liberal does not support the surge or the stay in Iraq.

A liberal does not support extending Bush's tax cuts.

A liberal does not get the endorsements of Tom Coburn, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Tim Pawlenty, Phil Gramm, Jeff Flake, Jon Kyl, and Ted Olson.

Senator McCain may have some liberal positions, but he is not a liberal. He is a conservative with some liberal positions. But on life, taxes, and national defense, his record is, in fact, very strong.

Let us repeat. We know the "yes, but," argument against Senator McCain — and agree with some of it. But let us not fool ourselves that there is no difference between Senator McCain and whomever the Democrats nominate. (What we have written above about Senator Clinton holds true of Senator Barack Obama as well).

Over the past two years, the conservative movement has lifted Senator Joe Lieberman onto their shoulders higher and higher (rightly, in our view), and yet many of the same people who have done that have sworn off of Senator McCain. Notwithstanding much of our praise for Senator Lieberman, he is far to the left of Senator McCain — with a lifetime ACU rating of 17 percent and an ADA (Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal counter-part to the ACU ratings), in 2006, of 75 percent.

Senator Clinton's respective ratings? Nine percent from the ACU and 95 percent from the ADA.

Senator Obama's respective ratings? Eight percent from the ACU and 95 percent from the ADA.

Senator McCain's respective ratings? 82.3 percent from the ACU and 15 percent from the ADA.

We do not have perfect nominees and never have. As John Hinderaker pointed out recently, since Calvin Coolidge, we haven't even had a pure "conservative ideologue" in our party elected president. And even that one "purist" was not free of blemishes and criticism, much as we rightly venerate him.

Let's admit the concern: Some people predict that a President McCain will open the borders, close Guantanamo, and tie our policies to some false premises related to global warming. We hope he doesn't, but even critics must admit it is just as likely — if not more so — that his legacy will be the following: He pursued al-Qaeda to the ends of the Earth and vanquished them; he cut deficit spending and vetoed pork-barrel spending over and over again; he appointed four good justices to the Supreme Court; and he reinvigorated a sense of thoughtful patriotism, citizenship, and unselfish devotion to the Republic.

Senator John McCain has a great deal to recommend him. He has a great deal more to offer the country, and it is our sincere hope that, as we move toward the general election, more and more people will see that. In the interim, it is our equal hope that Senator McCain will take the next several months to build his support among conservative doubters within our party. We deserve that, too, so that — come September — we will all be confident we have nominated the right man.

We have endorsed no candidate in our party as of yet, but we wholeheartedly unendorse any notion that either Senator John McCain or Governor Mitt Romney will ruin the party, the movement, or, for that matter, the election. They are both heads and shoulders above would-be presidents Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and once we see the whole record, and these men in the totality of their careers and records, we will, we pray, realize that.

Labels: 2008, mccain, republican folly, suicide voters

Al Regenery offers some ways McCain can get conservatives to warm up to him in the coming months. Regenery is publisher of the American Spectator.

- Take a firm no-new-taxes pledge. Mr. McCain has said he would not sign any tax increase coming from a Democratic Congress. What about from a Republican Congress, if there is one? He needs to promise that he won't increase Social Security taxes -- especially by lifting the earnings cap -- or increase hidden taxes in regulatory schemes, and that he will try to eliminate the death tax.

- Get specific on spending. Mr. McCain talks a lot about pork barrel projects, earmarks and the need to get spending under control, but so does everybody. He needs to release a bold, Reaganesque proposal with specific reductions he would pursue as president, what programs he will try to eliminate, and how he will attempt to control a spendthrift Congress. Runaway spending represents one of the greatest gripes conservatives have with the Bush administration. By getting specific, Mr. McCain would endear himself to a lot of fiscal conservatives.

- Pick a fight with the press. One of the most persistent sources of conservative suspicion about Mr. McCain is the belief that he has an overly cozy relationship with liberal journalists, and will betray conservatives to remain in their good graces. Once he becomes the nominee, of course, he will be attacked by the media, which will reintroduce us to the "radical right-wing McCain." One opportunity for the senator and the press may be when Gen. Petraeus gives his next report to Congress in March.

- Pick a conservative running mate early. Mr. McCain needs a young vice president with stellar conservative credentials so that conservatives can know that an acceptable successor is being trained and waiting in the wings. Nothing would endear conservatives more, and nothing would make it clearer that Mr. McCain is serious about reaching out to them. Rudy Giuliani, Joe Lieberman and especially his friend, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, will not do, and would send many conservatives over the edge. One option would be 47-year-old Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

- Get specific on judicial nominations. Although Mr. McCain has said he would appoint judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, he also said he was worried that Samuel Alito wore his conservatism on his sleeve. Mr. McCain needs to pledge that he will appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution based on the original intent of the Founders. That goes not only for the Supreme Court, but all federal judges as well.

Labels: 2008, mccain, republican folly

[Wall Street Journal] The head of the federal agency investigating Karl Rove's White House political operation is facing allegations that he improperly deleted computer files during another probe, using a private computer-help company, Geeks on Call.

Scott Bloch runs the Office of Special Counsel, an agency charged with protecting government whistleblowers and enforcing a ban on federal employees engaging in partisan political activity. Mr. Bloch's agency is looking into whether Mr. Rove and other White House officials used government agencies to help re-elect Republicans in 2006.

At the same time, Mr. Bloch has himself been under investigation since 2005. At the direction of the White House, the federal Office of Personnel Management's inspector general is looking into claims that Mr. Bloch improperly retaliated against employees and dismissed whistleblower cases without adequate examination.

Recently, investigators learned that Mr. Bloch erased all the files on his office personal computer late last year. They are now trying to determine whether the deletions were improper or part of a cover-up, lawyers close to the case said.

Bypassing his agency's computer technicians, Mr. Bloch phoned 1-800-905-GEEKS for Geeks on Call, the mobile PC-help service. It dispatched a technician in one of its signature PT Cruiser wagons. In an interview, the 49-year-old former labor-law litigator from Lawrence, Kan., confirmed that he contacted Geeks on Call but said he was trying to eradicate a virus that had seized control of his computer.

Mr. Bloch said no documents relevant to any investigation were affected. He also says the employee claims against him are unwarranted. Mr. Bloch believes the White House may have a conflict of interest in pressing the inquiry into his conduct while his office investigates the White House political operation. Concerned about possible damage to his reputation, he cites a Washington saying, "You're innocent until investigated."

Clay Johnson, the White House official overseeing the Office of Personnel Management's inquiry into Mr. Bloch, declined to comment. Depending on circumstances, erasing files or destroying evidence in a federal investigation can be considered obstruction of justice.

Mr. Bloch had his computer's hard disk completely cleansed using a "seven-level" wipe: a thorough scrubbing that conforms to Defense Department data-security standards. The process makes it nearly impossible for forensics experts to restore the data later. He also directed Geeks on Call to erase laptop computers that had been used by his two top political deputies, who had recently left the agency.

Geeks on Call visited Mr. Bloch's government office in a nondescript office building on M Street in Washington twice, on Dec. 18 and Dec. 21, 2006, according to a receipt reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The total charge was $1,149, paid with an agency credit card, the receipt shows. The receipt says a seven-level wipe was performed but doesn't mention any computer virus.

Jeff Phelps, who runs Washington's Geeks on Call franchise, declined to talk about specific clients, but said calls placed directly by government officials are unusual. He also said erasing a drive is an unusual virus treatment. "We don't do a seven-level wipe for a virus," he said.

Labels: corruption, republican folly, rove

Gotta say, there's just a handful of factors that prevent me from fully backing John McCain -- his unconstitutional and futile McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law is a big one at that:

[Wall Street Journal] In 2002, new campaign-finance laws sharply reduced what individuals could donate. Suddenly, politicians needed people who were good at raising lots of small donations and bundling them together. According to public records in 2003, Mr. Hsu donated $2,000 to John Kerry's presidential bid, his first federal campaign contribution. Over the next year, he gave so much that politicians began routinely inviting him to fund-raising events. In the final month of the 2004 campaign, he poured more than $30,000 into Senate races and state Democratic parties.

By 2005, he had graduated from writing checks to persuading others to do so. Since then, he has collected well over $1 million in small checks for candidates, making him one of the biggest fund-raisers in the nation. "Norman Hsu would vow to raise a certain amount -- and he would always surpass it," says Hassan Nemazee, who was Mr. Kerry's New York finance chairman and is now a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton.

Flying around the country in a leased jet, Mr. Hsu gave to the Los Angeles city attorney, the governors of Iowa and New Mexico, the Massachusetts treasurer, and senators from Arkansas, Louisiana and California. He became a leading donor in the Democratic quest to retake control of the Senate in the 2006 campaign.
Partisan shots at Hillary Clinton's Hsu scandel aside, this story underscores what George Will remarked during the campaign finance frenzy of 2002: Trying to stop money in politics is like trying to stop water from running downhill -- no matter what you do the water will find a new path to carve out.

Here we see the consequences of good intentions. McCain intended to remove the large soft money donations from politics. All he did was empower new persons and groups, in the form of 527s such as MoveOn and others, who quickly learned how to bundle small money into large money, all the while circumventing the intended transparency.

McCain's law has thus made campaign finances more convoluted and more difficult to track than before.

Labels: campaign finance, mccain, republican folly

You can't call yourself a conservative if you don't believe in free trade. Period. But that goes to show you that all conservatives are republican but not all republicans are conservative.

WASHINGTON -- By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.

The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy. While 60% of respondents said they want the next president and Congress to continue cutting taxes, 32% said it's time for some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to reduce the budget deficit and pay for health care.

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

A $13 trillion dollar economy... the basis of which has been our long-standing beliefs about open markets and free trade going back to British influance and Adam Smith. So, we'll just trade all that in for European-style protectionist populist economics. Then one day we can be like France, whose current economy is equal to just one US state, albeit California.

Maybe we'll all have government-mandated 35-hour work weeks and a few more weeks of vacation, but of course, we won't be able to afford to fly anywhere. Or drive anywhere. We can just hang out more at home and watch Montel.

Labels: Economics, free markets, republican folly, tax cuts, taxes

[WSJ] You have to hand it to Kim Jong Il's negotiators in North Korea. They certainly know how to make U.S. diplomats pay again, and again, for the same real estate.

Thus we have this weekend's declaration by U.S. negotiator Chris Hill that the North Koreans have agreed to give up their nuclear program by the end of the year. Wonderful. But didn't they already agree in February to give up their entire program, as well as to present a comprehensive list of their entire nuclear program and arsenal within 60 days? That was seven months ago, and now the list won't be presented for another four months, if it ever is.

Meanwhile, North Korea is saying that in return for its latest unfulfilled promise, the Bush Administration has agreed to begin the process of taking the terrorist state off the U.S. list of terror-sponsoring states. Reuters quoted a Pyongyang spokesman as saying yesterday that the U.S. has also agreed to lift "all sanctions that have been applied according to the Trading with the Enemy Act." Mr. Hill wasn't as forthcoming, but you can bet North Korea will soon turn both of these U.S. actions into prerequisites to any further declarations on its part.

We're willing to bet, too, that the Bush Administration will end before North Korea really comes clean about its entire nuclear weapons program.

Labels: North Korea, proliferation, republican folly

[Associated Press] "The departure of even a small number of U.S . service members - perhaps 5,000 of the 160,000 troops in Iraq - would send a powerful message throughout the region that time was running out," [Va. Republican Sen. John] Warner said.
What the heck was Warner thinking?

The criticism from Warner and other Congressional "leaders" that the Iraqi government isn't making "substantial political progress" rings rather hollow considering the Congressional approval rating is at an historic low of 18 percent. If Iraq's parliament isn't functioning they can't be doing much worse than the American Congress.

A "powerful message throughout the region"? You've got that right, Senator.

Warner's suggested "powerful message" has already provided antiwar liberals some red meat propaganda, it has and undercut military morale (see Major Lynch's reaction below).

If the president were to actually follow such advice all we'd do is give encouragement to jihadists from Baghdad to Damascus. Oh look. American's are quitting. It's Vietnam all over again. They fled Vietnam after 58,000 dead. They'll flee Iraq after 3,000. Who knows, maybe the next war they'll flee after 1,000. Or maybe they won't show up at all!

In the words of Osama bin Laden, "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." Guess which one Senator Warner looks like right now?

His statement doesn't even follow any logic -- he just throws a number out. 5,000? Why not 6,000? Or 4,000? Warner's careless number crunching just epitomizes the carelessness of the entire message.

One expects the armchair-quarterback Democrats to try and undercut General Petraeus' September progress report. But you'd think a republican senator would let the generals run the war.

In the end it's insignificant what Warner thinks. Short of them having the cajones to cut the war funding Congress' say is no more remarkable than your's or mine.

It's Petraeus' advisement that matters, not Warner's or another Congressional fool.

[ABC News] The U.S. military commander in one of the more troubled areas of Iraq said Friday that embracing Sen. John Warner's call to begin troop withdrawals before the end of the year would be "a giant step backward."
Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of troops south of Baghdad, said that in such a scenario, militants pushed from his sector in recent operations would quickly return.

"If coalition soldiers were to leave, having fought hard for that terrain, having denied the enemy their sanctuaries, what'd happen is the enemy would come back," said Lynch.

"He'd start building the bombs again, he'd start attacking the locals again and he'd start exporting that violence into Baghdad and we would take a giant step backward," Lynch told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Iraq.

He said that recent gains resulted from the buildup of troops in Iraq and that he needs all the forces he has until Iraqis are able to step up and take over, perhaps some time next year.
Good job undercutting your constituent base, "General" Warner.

Labels: capitulation, Congress, folly, Iraq, Petraeus, republican folly, Warner

For years I took hook, line and sinker the approach to immigration, even illegal immigration, advocated by the amnesty crowd, such as the WSJ.

In fact, to this day I agree with the "work ethic" points of the amnesty crowd, such as those made by a recent caller and restaurant owner to the Bill Bennett morning show, who stated that his Hispanic immigrants on staff - which he further stated were legal and had paperwork in order - were hands down better workers than his non-immigrant (read: white and black American kids) staff. To summarize, the restaurant owner stated he didn't have to worry about his immigrant staff members calling in sick because they partied the night before, or missing a shift to see a concert, or taking umpteen smoke breaks a night. I don't doubt that, and whether for manual labor or more technical and professional labor (IT, nursing, etc.) the US need take in 'X' amount of legal immigrants to suffice this need.

On the flip side, my fiance's parents were recently involved in a car accident whose faulty driver was, you guessed it, an illegal with no insurance. So anecdotal evidence can go either way.


The problem I have, and what is most swaying my opinion, however, are the efforts by pro-amnesty immigration groups, including media, elected officials, and various advocacy groups, to simply demonize, ad hominem, those who dare retort, offer cost analysis data and impact to the welfare state, or cite post-9-11 terrorism concerns over an estimated 12 million and growing illegal aliens.

In my mind they've become nothing more than race-card playing Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons. Their methods, however, are very effective. For Example:

[USA Today] One big factor behind the [Hispanic voter] flight from the GOP: a heated debate over immigration in which congressional Republicans' remarks on illegal immigrants have offended many Hispanic voters.

...Hispanics will be more wary in 2008, predicts her sister, Gilda Lopez, 56, a speech pathologist and reliable Democrat. With a crisis in Iraq and questions at home about the GOP's attitudes toward Hispanics, she says, "I cannot understand how a Hispanic person could vote Republican."

... Some Hispanics have been alarmed and offended by the harsh rhetoric of some congressional Republicans in the immigration debate and the opposition by most of the GOP presidential field to designing a path to legal status for illegal immigrants now in the USA.

"People think just because I'm Hispanic, I'll open the gates and let them all come over," says Martha Gutierrez, 52, a middle school history teacher from Corpus Christi. That's not true, she says, but "a lot of us look at this as a more practical matter." The idea of forcing an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to leave is "crazy," she says.

"This country is based on immigrants, and now they want to send them all back?" says Mario Morales, 29, an engineer in San Antonio. "It'll hurt the economy, and it is a little racist."
The entire article is intellectually dishonest and race-baiting. To disguise their own opinion on immigration, USA Today cherry picks persons from the Hispanic masses to offer those opinions, with no retort or objectivity. How's that for Fairness Doctrine?

I've yet to find a single example of any conservative promoting a round up of 12 million illegals. That's (race-)bait and switch: They take a ridiculous position and attempt to package it as one belonging to the mainstream amnesty opponents.

The point is that like the enforcement of any law, one simply has to make somewhat an effort for it to be effective. One needn't catch every single burglar, or Wall Street white-collar criminal, for our laws and system to be effective.

But why bother with a "legal status for illegal immigrants" -- also known as amnesty -- so long as there is no enforcement of existing immigration laws? For that matter, why even have immigration laws? Heck, if "we can't catch every tax evader," one could argue, why have tax laws? Why have laws period?

Here's the saddest fact of the entire immigration debacle: By restructing the system and clearing the back-logs of legal Hispanic immigrant applicants we could get those desired laborers anyway, while avoiding or limiting the number of problems - loss of tax revenue; drain to welfare, medicare, social security, health care; crime.

Instead the numbers will grow unchecked. Of those numbers, yes, many will be professional, technical or skilled, as the WSJ notes, but large numbers will be flat-out increases to crime, drains to the economy and social services with no production or taxable revenue.

It's Statistics 101. It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with poverty and mathematics. And the problems are heavily compounded because our society is not appropriately assimilating the large numbers of immigrants -- assimilation to learn English, for starters, because there's a direct correlation between not learning English and poverty.

All one need do is witness recent rioting in France to understand the issues surrounding unchecked illegal immigration.

In other words, by failing to enforce first and demonizing those who do, the pro-amnesty groups get all the problems, the potential for Balkanization in a few generations, and maybe the next Mohammed Atta sneaking through, when had they simply addressed the concerns of those opposed to these Congressional Amnesty bills (a latest poll finds only 20 percent approval) they could, in the end, get the economic and political gains that they wanted anyway.

Labels: immigration, republican folly