Take a look at the following at see how many of these you agree with.

From ABC:

Support for gay marriage, legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana all are at new highs. Three-quarters of Americans favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds support establishing relations with Cuba.

But hold tight.

If some views that may be perceived as liberal are ascendant, so are some conservative ones: Opposition to gun control is also at a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. There’s continued broad support for tighter border controls. And contrary to President Obama, half of Americans wouldn’t flatly rule out torturing terrorism suspects.

I agree with every single one of those views except ruling out torture. I don’t think that should be in our playbook, and I’m sure the readers of this blog know exactly why so I won’t get into it.

But everything else I’m on board with. And, yes, I oppose gun control and I want tighter border security.

The first because it’s not our guns that are making us less safe, it’s our drug laws and prison systems that breed criminality. And look at any study where you have conceal and carry. Crime goes down. Sorry folks, but when more people have guns, society gets more polite.

Turning to illegal immigration, in this new, post 9/11 world, it only makes sense to have much tighter border control. And if we want to begin legalizing illegal immigrants, we’re going to have to lock the border up tight. There’s no other way. You can’t have one without the other, and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

What this tells me is that we’re definitely a moderate nation, and probably leaning a little bit more towards being center left. And after 30 years of being center right, that’s to be expected.

So, how do you compare?

Let’s hope so…

Listen, I’ve never been a fan of Rivera’s, but he brings up an important basis of comparison when talking about Tea Parties and media coverage.

Basically, Fox News is “wondering” why other news orgs didn’t cover the Tea Parties as much as they did, but we have to take into account that these protests were miniscule when compared with the immigration efforts during the same time in 2007. And the media covered those demonstrations a grand total of one day…including Fox News.

In short, Fox can hyperventilate as much as they want about the lack of media coverage for the events they promoted, but it only serves to paint them in increasingly partisan hues.

And, again, I wish they hadn’t been so behind them. I wish Freedom Works hadn’t helped organize and bankroll them. Because then we’d get a true view of what Americans might really be angry about. Protests are an inherently good thing because they highlight anger directed at the government. But we’ll never know based on one day and the media coverage surrounding it.

More as it develops…

With Obama visiting Mexico today, I thought it would be topical to share some pretty shocking stats/facts about the country.

GlobalPost has 10 factoids and here are the first 3…

1. A recent U.S. government report suggests that “Two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.”
2. Mexico has one of the highest kidnapping rates in the world: An average of 70 people are abducted each month.
3. More than 1,100 guns found discarded at Mexico shooting scenes or confiscated from cartel gangsters were traced to Texas gun merchants in 2007.

Eventually we’re going to have to do something about Mexico and that porous border of ours. I’ve heard folks say that completely gating it up isn’t an option, but until that gets solved, how can we have a realistic immigration/amnesty policy?

Basically, I just don’t think it’s realistic to think about one without the other, and hopefully Obama gets that.

By the same token, I hope the anti-immigration forces realize that we can’t boot tens of millions out of this country.

If you know anything about the case of former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, you’ll know that Bush’s commutation of the remaining amount of their sentence is justice being served.

And let’s face it, if Scooter Libby got his sentence commuted, these guys should too.

First, the backstory…

Ramos and Compean were sentenced in connection with the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, who was shot in the buttocks while trying to flee along the Texas border. He admitted smuggling several hundred pounds of marijuana on the day he was shot and pleaded guilty last year to drug charges related to two other smuggling attempts.

The pair’s case ignited debate across the country, as a chorus of organizations and members of Congress — many of them Republican — argued that the men were just doing their jobs. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., was particularly outspoken on the issue, at one time describing Ramos and Compean as “unjustly convicted men who never should have been prosecuted in the first place.”

And here’s more about the commutation from CNN:

“The president has reviewed the circumstances of this case as a whole and the conditions of confinement and believes the sentences they received are too harsh and that they, and their families, have suffered enough for their crimes,” a senior administration official said. [...]

“This commutation gives them an opportunity to return to their families and communities, but both men will have to carry the burden of being convicted felons and the shame of violating their oaths for the rest of their lives.”

The official noted that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have supported a commutation, including President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Texas GOP senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.

It’s not very often you have bi-partisan support for things like this and I applaud Bush for doing this.

I was inspired by this NY times post…

Now it’s true that immigration reform is a tough subject for conservatives. True too, that when it comes to immigration there are some many on the restrictionist wing who consider Bush to be either a) a sentimentalist or b) corporate America’s pawn or c) both of the above. Equally, the orthodox Republican position on immigration – border enforcement first, then reform – is not desperately unpopular. But a popular (or at least not unpopular) position is only half of the matter: you have to sell it well too. And on a subject as contentious as immigration, that requires a degree of tact and sophistication that, by and large, seems alien to many Congressional and grass-roots Republicans.

***

So it isn’t just that legal Hispanic immigrants might be turned off by the GOP’s language on immigration, so too are educated, upscale white voters who don’t like the idea of endorsing a party that gives the impression, unwittingly or not, of being hostile to immigration. The GOP’s posture on immigration fosters the impression, fairly or not, that they’re the “nasty party”. As far as political branding goes, that’s a toxic position for any party to find itself in.

And this is the real problem the GOP faces, and which we’ve been discussing over the last several weeks. The biggest problem with the party’s current situation (i.e., the problem of “talk radio dogmatism”) isn’t its position on the issues – it’s the downright meanness upon which it insists to push those positions.

As I wrote during my stint subbing for John Schwenkler, it’s terribly difficult to persuade people to vote for a party or even support its policies (regardless of whether they agree with those policies in principle) when:

• That party’s guiding lights, rather than make principled arguments for various “anti-terrorism” policies, insist on labeling your religion as “Islamofascism”;
• Rather than make principled arguments for stronger restrictions on immigration, you and your family are portrayed as foreign invaders seeking to destroy the country from within because of the Mexican flag hanging on your balcony – even as nothing is said about the Italian or Irish flag hanging on your neighbor’s balcony
• Rather than make principled arguments against gay marriage, you are accused of wanting to destroy your country’s traditions because you want legal recognition of your relationship.
• Those same guiding lights proudly promote, rather than simply defend, the use of words and phrases with a well-known role in oppressing you or your ancestors.
• Rather than make principled arguments against an auto bailout, you and your friends are accused of bleeding the American people dry
• Rather than make principled arguments for the use of force and/or for restrictions on civil liberties, you are accused of being a “Defeatocrat” or wanting to “let the terrorists win.”

The reason this meanness comes about is that the party has lost sight of the principles that gave rise to its policy preferences in the first place, principles that came from a number of different strains of political thought. Far from being a sort of “master conservatism,” the resulting set of litmus test policy preferences thus lacks a coherent ideological basis in any cognizable form of conservatism.

And when a party loses sight of underlying principles, the only way to maintain party unity is to scare its constituents into loyalty, turning every issue into “Us vs. Them.” While this can work in the short-term, it must inevitably result in unprecedented discord as once-loyal coalition members become fed up with consistently being called one of “Them.” Case in point – see Weigel on Malkin on Voinovich. And that says nothing about the effects it has on ensuring you don’t make inroads into the other coalition’s constituencies.

H/T: Conor Friedersdorf.

Cross-posted at Publius Endures.

Declaring, “it is time for a change,” the party is committing itself to comprehensive immigration reform as well as a strong and unequivocal support for Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion. In addition, the party insists it will not continue the intrusive Bush policing actions based on post 9/11 world.

“We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation’s founding commitment to liberty under the law,” the draft platform states.

While the platform has a little something for everyone, it is the strong, broad approach to education, one that mixes support with accountability, that has us continuing to back Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States.

Democratic platform educational planks.

Energy, Gas Prices – extremely important to 51%
Obama – 47%
McCain – 28%

Economy – extremely important to 49%
Obama – 48%
McCain – 32%

I think it’s interesting McCain and Obama are tied on Iraq. Perhaps it shows that the country is divided on what we should do over there?

Iraq – extremely important to 44%
Obama – 43%
McCain – 43%

Healthcare – extremely important to 41%
Obama – 51%
McCain – 26%

If this were 2004, perhaps McCain’s tough talk on terrorism would give him the edge, but that doesn’t seem to be the case this year.

Terrorism – extremely important to 41%
McCain – 52%
Obama – 33%

Taxes – extremely important to 34%
Obama – 44%
McCain – 35%

Moral Values – extremely important to 34%
Obama – 40%
McCain – 39%

Illegal Immigration – extremely important to 27%
McCain – 36%
Obama – 34%

Obama gains a point and McCain loses another, and now McCain has dipped below 43, which hasn’t happened yet in June.

The 5 day:
06/22/2008: McCain – 42%, Obama – 49%
06/21/2008: McCain – 43%, Obama – 48%
06/20/2008: McCain – 44%, Obama – 48%
06/19/2008: McCain – 45%, Obama – 48%
06/18/2008: McCain – 45%, Obama – 48%

And here’s a curious note on public financing…

While popular with editorial boards and reporters, public financing of campaigns has never been popular with voters. A plurality of voters say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who rejects public funding than for one who accepts it.

I certainly didn’t expect to hear that opinion. A sign of the times?

More tomorrow…

See, McCain had pledged during the primaries that he was going to abandon that stance, and many conservatives feel he never would have won the nomination had he not switched his opinion. And now that he’s signaling he’ll switch it back, well, they’re understandably furious.

From Right Wing News:

After McCain took Florida and was practically a lock to capture the nomination, in keeping with my belief that it benefits conservatives to support the most conservative nominee, I wrote two columns called, Why You’re Going To Vote For John McCain In November And Like It! & There’s Nothing Conservative Or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November. [...]

Admittedly that was tough for me because I wasn’t a fan of the guy, but I believed that I had a responsibility, for whatever it was worth, to try to set an example. That was despite the fact that fighting amnesty is extremely important to me and John McCain was the chief Republican proponent of amnesty.

Of course, McCain claimed that he had changed his tune. Yes, he still supported amnesty, but he said he had heard the message that the American people were sending him and that he had been convinced that we needed security first, before we pursued an amnesty.

Then Hawkins points to these comments from an NY Times blog out yesterday…

He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”

Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.

And then back to Hawkins for a final thought…

Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He’s a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his “Read my lips, no new taxes pledge,” except that Bush’s father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.

Honestly, if I were in Hawkins’ position I’d probably be thinking the same thing, especially since I’ve had my own issues with a certain Democratic candidate.

Last thought: I wonder if this will be an isolated incident within the right-wing blogosphere.

UPDATE:
In response to Hawkins, Dan Riehl shares similar thoughts on McCain:

He seems to believe solely in his own council and I just don’t find him to be that smart, or insightful. I suspect he’d be a better military line officer, than president, or even general, or admiral. And he might not even have made a truly exceptional military man for all we know. I wish I could explain it, but I can’t. The last politician I felt this way about was Bill Clinton. And what a fiasco he turned out to be.

Couple the above with my belief that he has his head up his butt on mostly everything besides the war and I simply can’t get excited enough about the man to care.

Is McCain the right wing’s John Kerry?

After a week in which both candidates spent a lot of time in North Carolina Barack Obama has retained a large lead in the state, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling.

Obama leads Clinton 54-36. His lead is particularly strong among likely voters who do not have a history of voting in primaries. With that group he has a 60-32 advantage.

“Throughout the country Barack Obama has had a lot of success in generating support from folks who aren’t always a part of the political process,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “His campaign appears to be creating that same sort of excitement in North Carolina, and it’s showing in the polls.”

Now he has declined a couple points since last week when he lead by 20, but it’s still an overwhelming lead and it seems to be holding. There’s lots of time for Hillary to catch up, but she can’t like these numbers.

What’s more, when you look at the issues, Obama is dominating the issues that matter most to voters…including Hillary’s supposed power alley: health care.

O/H %s
Education – 72/17
War in Iraq – 58/35
Economy and Jobs – 55/38
Health Care – 57/35

Here’s where Hillary leads:
Taxes – 42/45
Moral or Family Values – 52/29
Immigration – 48/32

More as it develops…

We’ll be live blogging the event.

2:07: Only 3 topics will be discussed during the debate: (1) Iran and the lessons of Iraq, (2) relations with China and how they affect us here and (3) immigration. The participating candidates are Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards,

2:10: First question, do the candidates agree that Iran still presents a threat? Clinton disagrees with Bush’s assessment that a policy change is not required. She stresses more diplomacy. Mike Gravel doesn’t think Iran is a threat. Obama thinks Iran is still a threat. He expresses concern over the fact that the Bush administration has a tendency to ignore facts that could get in the way of ideology. Dodd thinks their needs to be more international support, reminds everyone that we need a more multilateral approach and Iraq hurts our ability to do that. Biden says that we cannot trust President Bush, criticizes some of his policies. Biden states that Iran is not a nuclear threat and says that Iran must be dealt with directly. Edwards points out the vote in the Senate to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Kucinich reminds everyone that he’s been right about WMD in Iraq and now Iran for the longest time.

2:16: Hillary is questioned regarding her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She cites their support for Hamas and Hezbollah and then cites Obama as a corresponding source. Hillary maintains that Obama is just as militant towards Iran as she has always been. Edwards “strongly disagrees” with Hillary regarding her vote, but fails to be able to defend his remarks against Iran while discussing Israel. Obama responds to Hillary to more clearly define his position – he insists that IF Iran had WMD’s he would strike but that it was only a hypothetical case.

2:20: Kucinich clarifies… Hillary, Edwards and Obama sanction the President’s militant rhetoric by insisting all options are on the table. Dodd points out that he and Biden voted against that Senate resolution. Hillary defends her vote saying that the resolution did not, in any way, license the President to go to war – she says that the resolution only provides sticks. Edwards insists that Hillary “agrees with George Bush” and Hillary calls it an “outlandish political attack.” She insists that her vote has further pressured the Iranians with positive results. Gravel insists there is no evidence – Gravel refers to Hamas and Hezbollah as elected organizations and cites that Iran has a right to support any political group, just as the United States can support Israel. Biden chimes in, as the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee – Biden says everyone misunderstands – the declaration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization undermines America – in both foreign policy and oil prices. Obama piles on. Edwards wants to clarify to the listeners that only ONE democratic candidate voted for the aforementioned resolution. Edwards then proposes a return to stick-and-carrot diplomacy. Hillary responds that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is directed by the Ayatollah – and that diplomacy requires economic sanctions provided in the resolution she voted for. Hillary insists “none of us is advocating a rush to war.”

2:29: Question – why are Americans disliked so much? Biden contends it’s because we are trust so little. Argues that our foreign policy makes it seem as though we’re engaging in a war on Islam.

2:31: Edwards is asked how to reconcile our support for Israel with the concerns of the international Muslim community. Edwards gives an odd answer about education. Obama criticizes the rhetoric of many GOP candidates. Says that it gives the impression that we are not willing to engage in diplomacy. Specifies by saying that we need to close Guantanamo and take other measures to appeal to the people within those regions. Kucinich cites the Iraq war.

2:35: This is truly a good debate. It’s a shame more aren’t like this.

2:38: Time for a break. Next topic is China.

2:40: Question – Given China’s size, who has more leverage China or the United States? Edwards initially dodges the question. When pressed says that they are strong, but we are stronger and need to engage China more. Obama notes that China has more leverage in areas that we do not engage in. Kucinich pulls the ‘I told you so’ card again by referencing his vote against trade benefits for China out of concern for its impact on the manufacturing base in America. Clinton says we have more leverage, but it doesn’t count because a) we’re not using it and b) we’ve handicapped ourselves through fiscal irresponsibility and bad foreign policy.

2:46: Question – Would you restrict trade with China? Biden would not restrict trade through tariffs. Justifies this by saying that we are over emphasizing the significance of China.

[Continued at 2008Central.net]

7:02: And we are ready. 1 hour to go until tonight’s CNN/YouTube Republican Debate. The participants will be: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson. Alan Keyes (yes, he’s running) will not be participating.

7:20: The Giuliani campaign has sent out a pre-debate email discussing what they consider to be a high volume of negative attacks from Romney’s campaign [pdf]. It’s fairly extensive and is obviously intended to increase the press’ coverage of Romney’s negative attacks themselves (as opposed to any fallout that may come as a result of those attacks).

7:54: Lou Dobbs is ranting. No analysis required.

7:59: The snowman apparently will not make the cut, as per the web preview on CNN.com. Three commercial breaks are scheduled for the two hour debate.

8:01: Charlie Crist is going to introduce the candidates, who are all going to fantasize about receiving his endorsement. From left to right in reverse order of their introductions: Tancredo, Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Paul, Hunter. It’s mildly amusing to see them all trying to be nice to each other on stage.

8:06: CNN thinks Mitt Romney is still the unabashed front runner in the early states. Apparently they are holding this debate in October. It’s a dead heat in Iowa with Huckabee having so much more committment than Romney in Iowa.

8:08: Anderson Cooper previews questions. U-S-E-L-E-S-S.

8:10: A song that would get about 1,000 viral hits starts off the debate. This is really corny humor that will go over well with some and induce a lot of eye rolling by the rest.

8:12: The debate begins! A New Yorker asks why Giuliani ran NYC as a sanctuary city and if he would continue it. He explains why he left children exempt, why they could be treated, and why they could report crimes, and those were the only exemptions. Romney says NYC called itself a sanctuary city and that Giuliani brought a suit to that effect, and not everyone that was reported as committing a crime was deported. Two well-crafted and obviously practiced answers. Giuliani retorts by citing sanctuary cities in Massachusetts and a ’sanctuary mansion’ at Romney’s own mansion. Tough answer, and Mitt tries the direct response, and Giuliani retorts. Romney points out he hired a company and says he should not check employees of that company for immigration papers. Romney eventually segues into his record and the answer gets a lot less interesting. Seems like equals yelling back and forth, ending with Giuliani getting booed to the next question.

8:19: Pledge to veto any amnesty bill? Thompson says yes. This is inducing a lot of stump speeches. Thompson accuses Romney of flip-slopping on the Bush immigration plan ‘unsurprisingly.’ The Giuliani campaign is rolling, as we’ve already received an email about Romney hiring immigrants. Thompson accuses Giuliani of bringing a lawsuit to protect sanctuary city status, Giuliani repeats his exceptions line. McCain, using a really serious and low tone, says the plan was not amnesty and he would veto amnesty. Talks about lack of trust in the government to control the borders first, and everything else needs to be resolved second, and that the illegals are God’s children as well second. Cites demagoguing of the issue, and that the rhetoric contributes nothing.

8:24: Tancredo basks in the glory. An employer of seasonal workers asks what he would do about it. Tancredo talks about the evils of immigration as a while, and that he rejects the idea that there are jobs that no Americans will take. Hunter makes a cameo appearance, and shockingly talks about the double fence he built in San Diego. Did he jsut send the tape of him to the debate ala Leia in Star Wars?

[Continued at 2008Central.net]

1) Question to any candidate regarding immigration reform and leadership.
2) Question to Rudy Giuliani regarding why he has not visited Iraq yet.
3) Question to Mitt Romney regarding the information gap in the U.S. regarding the distinction between Sunni and Shia Islam.

Take a look, we’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the questions. Videos after the jump…

[1]

[2]

[3]

And I’m listening…

On terrorism:“What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?”

“Only we can change ourselves.” That’s one to remember. Because when we vote for leaders who will take away our civil liberties for promises of nebulous security, that’s us changing ourselves…not the terrorists. We have a choice, and just because somebody says a certain thing will make us safer does not make it so.

Next, on immigration:“America could not survive without immigration,” he says. “Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy. That’s the country my parents came to. That’s the image we have to portray to the rest of the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations, touched by every nation, and we touch every nation in return. That’s what people still want to believe about us. They still want to come here. We’ve lost a bit of the image, but we haven’t lost the reality yet. And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude — and by not taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something. It ain’t the case.”

Agreed. But first we have to perfect our border security and guest worker programs. Because we have to stem the flow before we can begin to renew the spirit.

On the post-war strategy…and this is just shocking:

“Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn’t do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, ‘Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.’”

Man, and these guys think history will be kind to them? And how many of you think we’ll be following the Powell Doctrine in the future instead of the Bush Doctrine?

The full interview is here.

In any event, Politico has some behind-the-scenes gossip…

The bitter fight over a comprehensive immigration overhaul has pushed President Bush and his fellow Republicans to the brink of divorce — and, for the first time, the opportunities for reconciliation appear severely limited.

House leaders played down the friction Wednesday, but Republicans have predicted a showdown with the White House over immigration since Democrats took control of Congress last fall. And that longstanding tension spilled out Tuesday when GOP lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to reject the Senate — and, by turns, the White House — immigration overhaul. [...]

Republicans theatrically opposed the Senate’s comprehensive immigration overhaul last summer. But the vitriol spiked again Tuesday during two closed-door sessions in which House Republicans considered a symbolic resolution opposing the Senate bill.

“This is our magic carpet ride,” one lawmaker proclaimed to the applause of his colleagues, according to a member present.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan said he and a group of fellow Republicans decided to move forward with their resolution rejecting the Senate bill after Bush berated opponents who called the legislation “amnesty.”

My prediction…it’s dead…again.

The numbers have been pretty consistent on this issue, but it certainly bears repeating when majorities from both parties keep saying they favor some form of legislation to grant illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship:

From LA Times:

WASHINGTON � A strong majority of Americans � including nearly two-thirds of Republicans � favor allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found. [...]

Only 23% of adults surveyed opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to gain legal status. That finding bolsters the view, shared by President Bush, that the bill’s opponents represent a vocal minority whereas most people are more welcoming toward illegal immigrants. [...]

Although the pathway to citizenship is one of the most controversial provisions of the Senate bill, 63% of those polled backed the idea � as did 58% of those who identified themselves as conservatives and 65% of Republicans.

So what is Bush doing about it?

Republican opponents floated the idea to Bush that he ask Congress for a new spending bill — similar to the requests he makes for the Iraq war — to pay for the extra enforcement measures proposed in the new immigration bill before any of its other provisions take effect. Others sent Bush a letter insisting that existing border measures be enforced without a larger bill.

Bush acknowledged broad public skepticism about the government’s credibility on enforcement of illegal immigration.

“We’ve got to convince the American people that this bill is the best way to enforce our border,” Bush said. “I believe without the bill that it’s going to be harder to enforce the border.”

I don’t agree that this latest immigration bill is the right one to pass, and I think it’s going to go down in defeat. But I hope that only helps to refocus the earned amnesty arguments, because we all know it’s going to have to happen sooner or later.

The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the legislation. When a bill has less popular support than the War in Iraq, it deserves to be defeated.

And scene.

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, June 7 �The sweeping immigration overhaul endorsed by President Bush crumbled in the Senate on Thursday night, leaving the future of one of the administration’s chief domestic priorities in serious doubt.

After a day of tension and fruitless maneuvering, senators rejected a Democratic call to move toward a final vote on the compromise legislation after Republicans complained that they had not been given enough opportunity to reshape the sprawling bill. Supporters of cutting off debate got only 45 of the 60 votes they needed; 50 senators opposed the cutoff.

And it seems like Bush doesn’t care that much…

The collapse of the measure came as Mr. Bush was in Europe for an international economic summit, and it was not immediately clear how hard he would fight to resurrect the bill upon his return next week.

Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman, said the White House still held hope that a bill could be passed.

“We are encouraged that the leadership of both parties in the United States Senate indicated that they would bring this legislation back up for consideration,� Mr. Stanzel said. “And we will continue to work with members of the United States Senate to make sure this process moves forward.�

But is McCain in as much trouble as people are saying? Public opinion polls suggest maybe not…

Public opinion suggests an electorate open to, but by no means wildly enthusiastic about, comprehensive change that provides the 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, but only if there is an effective border security plan in place.

Republicans are clearly divided, but perhaps not as the heated rhetoric of the campaign trail suggests. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that, on the question of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, the public narrowly approves: 52 percent to 44 percent. Democrats back such a plan 57 percent to 38 percent and independents 51 to 45 percent. Republicans are opposed, 53 to 43 percent — significant but not overwhelming.

It’ll be interesting to see what the fallout is from this.

(Picture created with the Tombstone Generator.)

From Washington Post:

The plan to overhaul the nation’s immigration system survived its most serious challenges yesterday, when the Senate defeated amendments to disqualify hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from legalization and to extend visas to hundreds of thousands more relatives of U.S. citizens and green-card holders.

But just after midnight, the Senate approved by a single vote an amendment to shut down the bill’s proposed guest-worker program after five years. The 49 to 48 vote, coming just days after the Senate cut the size of the guest-worker program in half, could upset the delicate bipartisan balance behind the deal. [...]

Still, the bill took a decidedly conservative turn last night with the adoption of amendments that would at once declare English the national language and designate English the “common language” of the United States. The Senate also blocked the bill’s newly legalized undocumented workers from receiving the earned-income tax credit, while denying legalized undocumented workers any Social Security benefits they may have earned after overstaying their visa.

Something much, much better can be crafted in the future, free from all of this last minute cutting and pasting.

This bill needs to be euthanized.

Pull the plug.