Another Good Republican Gone Bad on Spending

This one pretty much speaks for itself:

Washington – When it comes to spending bills in the Senate, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is looking more and more like his counterpart across the aisle, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

The Senate has voted on four appropriations bill so far, three of which President Bush has threatened to veto for exceeding spending limits, but Senator McConnell has voted for all of them without so much of a peep or whimper. He has also voted against every anti-pork amendment offered so far, including an amendment offered by Senator Coburn to eliminate funding for a Montana baseball field and North Dakota Peace Garden (Roll Call #335).

In contrast to the House, where Republican leadership has rallied the necessary votes to sustain a presidential veto on spending and is fighting for stronger earmark reform, the Republicans in the Senate, with a few exceptions like Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), and others, are marching in lockstep with the Democrats, rubber stamping one bloated spending bill after another.

Are ya listening, Kentucky?

Craig to Resign

It's still in the stages where officials will only speak on the condition of anonymity, but...

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Craig will announce at a news conference in Boise Saturday morning that he will resign effective Sept. 30, four state GOP officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

His replacement has already been chosen, it appears:

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter appeared Friday to have already settled on a successor: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, according to several Republicans familiar with internal deliberations.

Rumor has it Risch was planning a run for Congress anyway, this just sort of gives him a running start.

Now, if only the Party of the Donkey would clean house as quickly and effectively.

Democrats and Gitmo

In a sort of follow-up to my piece yesterday about the dilemma of the Dhimmicrat party, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) points out a bit of evidence that supports my conclusions.

Two weeks ago, while most Senate Republicans were focused on the parts of the defense-authorization bill that related to military training and support, several prominent Democrats drafted an amendment to the bill that would have mandated sending terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay to the states. The bill never got a vote, but a Republican alternative prohibiting such a move overwhelmingly pass the Senate the following week. Amazingly, every Democrat sponsor of the original amendment ended up voting for the Republican alternative.

"Overwhelmingly pass" is a bit of an understatement... it sailed through 94-3. In short, the Senators from the Party of the Donkey don't want to have to tell the voters, "yes, we voted to bring the terrorists from Guantanamo Bay into your neighborhoods."

The next time some lefty starts bloviating about Gitmo, shove that vote in their face. Their reaction should be priceless.

HamNation: Harry's Sleepover

My favorite conservababe, Mary Katherine Ham (blog) has posted her most recent installment of HamNation (video wall) - Harry and the Dems Sleepover Party.

The vlog features First Lt. Hegseth of Vets for Freedom. Hegseth and members of his group were on Capitol Hill the day of the Senate Iraq Debate/Sleepover. Pipsqueak Harry Reid had time to meet with members of Moveon.org and other anti-war groups, but didn't have time to meet with First Lt. Hegseth.

Read NRO's Stephen Spruiell's First Lt. Hegseth Takes the Hill

Was Harry's Sleepover a slumber party, or just a snoozer?

Why Iraq Debate in Senate Right Now?

The Democrat lead United States Senate has set aside this week and next to debate the Iraq War and try to figure out a way to make sure we lose.

It has been asked, why must they do this now? Why don't they wait until September when General Petraeus reports to the President and Congress on the effects of the surge and his outlook on the situation in Iraq?

I think the answer to those questions are found in the Senate calendar. The Senate is in recess from August 6 to September 3, 2007. If they don't do this now, in July, when the Senate reconvenes in September it might be too late. If General Petraeus reports that the surge is effective and his outlook positive, the democrats could have their legs cut out from under their defeat plans. That's why they have to have their defeat plan in place before the August recess.

Despite Harry Reid's best efforts, the democrat surrender plans may not work.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007, saw two amendments (S. Amdt. 2012 and S. Amdt 2032) to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R.1585) go down in defeat. Both amendments would have set limits constraining Department of Defense and the Commander in Chief in deploying troops to Iraq.

If they can't get amendments passed limiting deployment lengths or dictating time between deployments, it could be they will not be able get anything passed dictating a withdrawal mandate.

The only way the anti-war caucus in the Senate can be sure to get the defeat they seek is to cut the funding for the war. That is clearly in their Constitutional bounds. Except the democrats won't do that, as that will put our defeat in Iraq squarely on the democrats shoulders and they don't want that.

Note: On S. Amdt 2032 the roll call vote was 52 Yeas to 43 Nays. Roll Call vote summary for the amendment indicates it was rejected despite the vote. The summary does not show it was a cloture vote. I'm not sure what is going on with that, unless it was brought to the floor under some special rule requiring sixty votes for acceptance.

After Amnesty After Action

Illegal Immigrant Amnesty (formally known as Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 {S. 1348}) died on June 28, 2007. Despite the best efforts of its advocates, it failed. The opponents of the legislation prevailed. The bigots, nativists, loud people, and right wing talk radio hosts, prevailed. Most of all this odious piece of legislation died because of the tens of thousands of citizens contacted their senators and told them it sucked big fat rotten eggs. Or something like that.

Since then there have been many articles and blog posts written, heralding it's demise, chronicling it's death; postmortems written detailing the maneuvering of both sides in the legislation battle and analysis's on the future of immigration reform and the current status of our illegal immigration problem.

We learned we could have an impact. I learned that any major legislation with the names Kennedy or McCain is probably bad legislation. Some GOP Senators stood strong on conservative principles, helping to defeat the bill. Some of them were old reliables like Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Some were less well known like Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA). There were others, including the MLB Hall of Fame pitcher, Jim Bunning (R-KY). And there were others.

If you are so inclined, take a minute or two and send an email to one, or all of those Senators that stood strong and helped defeat this legislation. Thank them for doing a great job.

We breathed a sigh of relief, believing we had dodged a bullet, and celebrated our victory. However, it's no time to rest. There is still work to be done on immigration. We still have a porous border, we still have millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

It is time to demand that the administration enforce our current immigration laws. It's time to build the really big fence, time to enforce work place employment rules, time to find and deport visa over stays. Time do whatever is required to secure our border and let illegal immigrants know they can't blatantly violate our laws and sovereignty.

The President needs to hear that we want the border secured, existing laws enforced. Send the White House an email. I sent one the day after the bill was defeated. If the President receives as many emails or faxes as the Senate received during the debate, maybe he'll get the message.

Contact your Senators and tell them the same thing. You want the existing immigration laws enforced.

Some Senators are already trying to get some movement on this. Senator DeMint sent a letter to the President on this issue:

June 12th, 2007 - Today, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress. The text of the letter is below:

Dear Mr. President:

We respectfully ask that your Administration enforce the border security laws that have already been authorized by Congress regardless of whether the Senate passes the immigration reform bill. The bill assumes that several critical border security benchmarks can be achieved within 18 months. These security triggers are already authorized under current law and can be completed without the immigration bill. We believe these enforcement measures are vital and should not wait until Congress passes additional immigration reforms.

Securing the border is the best way to restore trust with the American people and facilitate future improvements of our immigration policy.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina), Tom Coburn (R – Oklahoma), Mike Enzi (R – Wyoming), David Vitter (R – Louisiana), Jim Inhofe (R – Oklahoma), Jim Bunning (R – Kentucky), Charles Grassley (R – Iowa), John Ensign (R – Nevada) and Jeff Sessions (R – Alabama).

USA Today op-ed piece:

We do not need the Senate immigration bill to secure the border.

Congress has already passed laws authorizing border security, but the Homeland Security Department has failed to fully implement them. The administration already has the authority to build hundreds of miles of border fencing, hire and train 6,000 border patrol agents (bringing the total number of agents to 18,000), end catch and release, and create a national employment verification database. Essentially, all of the security benchmarks in the current Senate bill are already law.

[...]

There are Congressmen who are working to get our borders secured. They need your support. This democrat Congress seems to want to investigate or have hearings on everything. This would be a legitimate subject for their inquisitiveness. Let them call Secretary Chertoff up to Capitol Hill and explain why our southern border isn't secure.

Whatever the administration does, it has to make the effort to enforce the immigration laws and secure the border.

There is about sixteen months until the 2008 elections. There is time to make great strides on border security, to make this a winning issue for the GOP, and time to make it a winning result for America.

Graham In The Crosshairs

Consider this a public service announcement. If you, like I, had your fill of Lindsey Graham during the illegal immigrant amnesty debacle, then you might be looking for any news about his reelection fortunes in the upcoming South Carolina Senate race in 2008.

I've been looking around and compiling some links on the blogs and websites that have sprung up to document Lindsey's transgressions and rally support to recruit a primary challenger. They're looking for a way to get Lindsey out of office. They're mad.

There are a handful I've come across that seem to be fairly active and in depth. This one: Lindsey Graham.info seems to be the best of the lot. And the guy appears to have been on the dump Graham bandwagon for a while. This was an interesting bit of info:

There has been much speculation about a potential challenger to Senator Lindsey Graham. One thing seems certain, any challenge must come in the Republican primary. When asked about a potential challenger in the general election, former SC Democrat Party chair Joe Erwin said he doubted any Democrat would run, saying, “We already have our best Democrat up there in Lindsey.” That’s a pretty devastating comment coming from a Democrat.

If any readers are interested, I'm posting the links of the Graham sites I've rounded up -

LindseyGraham.info DumpLindsey.org BootLindsey

ToastGraham DumpLindseyGraham

Lindsey Graham at Source Watch Congresspedia

McCain: Courage or Foolhardiness?

Yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote a piece on NRO praising the "courage" of John McCain (R-AZ) in bringing forward the amnesty immigration travesty bill.

It saddens me that so many commentators will judge Senator McCain’s actions by how his role in this debate will impact the next poll or fundraising report. Survival is not the highest virtue in politics. Sacrifice is the highest virtue. In battle we don’t ask which soldier was a success — the one who charged the hill and lives a long life or his friend beside him who falls and leaves a widow and children behind. Whether this week helps or hurts Senator McCain politically is not the point. What matters is that without courage, we all lose.

I've been doing some ruminating, and I think I must respectfully disagree with Sen. Coburn. I see it not as political courage but political foolhardiness.

Coburn relates McCain's courage in military terms, so I will follow his example.

First off, McCain was fighting for the wrong objective. If we go with a military parallel, he was attacking the third house on the block when the objective was the fourth house. He was pushing a de facto amnesty, regardless of how the supporters spin it, and that has been shown by past experience (see 1986 Amnesty bill) to be of little help and probably much harm. As has been pointed out by many others, at the time of the '86 amnesty, we had an estimated 6 million illegals. Now the number is estimated to be two to over three times as many, 12 to 20 million. I don't call a 200-300% increase in the number of illegals a "success." By pushing a bill that would effectively grant all of these people amnesty, McCain showed that he was fighting for the wrong objective.

Secondly, McCain was using the wrong tactics. He was using sneaky closed-door bill-writing, playing fast and loose with the rules of the Senate, bypassing key steps (i.e. committees), and even stooping to tossing around insults about opponents of his bill that are reminiscent of the farthest left wing of the Party of the Donkey (i.e. racist). In military terms, this one is hard to find a parallel for, but we could say that he was relying on a plan that wasn't really kosher and above board, if you see what I mean.

Third, McCain's timing was way off. Doing something this controversial while running for President is ill-advised at best, and the factors above make it an almost sure-fire guarantee of political suicide. In military terms, he's hitting the house at high noon instead of in the dead of night when the US Armed Forces' advantage in night-vision systems would have given a great advantage (yes, this metaphor breaks down a bit when you consider that much of his political maneuvering was "in the dark"--work with me, here). If he could have waited until he was no longer a candidate, for whatever reason, he might have had more success, both with the bill and with his campaign.

Fourth, and finally, he's assaulting an objective that didn't need to be taken. There are laws already on the books that cover everything except his desired amnesty. The proposed bill would have authorized 370 miles of border fence... last year they passed, and Bush signed, a bill authorizing 700 miles of border fence (note that the proposed bill would not have added another 370 miles to the fence). The proposed bill offered another guest worker program... there are already five guest-worker programs in operation. So we really didn't need this bill. Continuing the military metaphor, McCain is assaulting a building that has nothing we need or really want at this time.

Wrong objective, wrong tactics, bad timing, and an unnecessary fight at that. That's not political courage, Senator Coburn. That's political foolhardiness.

McCain Camp Lashing Out

I know it's not straight from the candidate's mouth, but an anonymous source in the McCain camp had this to say to the WaPo:

A top fundraiser for the Arizonan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk for the campaign, was more blunt: "It's hurting with the main money guys. Overall, it's definitely a negative."

He added that the constant barrage of criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh is making it difficult to raise money from the conservative wing of the party.

"Like it or not, our base listens to that stuff," the fundraiser said. "Whether it's a good bill or a bad bill or an indifferent bill doesn't matter. The folks who are listening to that stuff, it's hard to persuade them with facts."

Uh, Mr. Fundraiser, don't you mean it's hard to persuade us with spin? Because the facts are very clear about what that bill would have done, and we want no part of it; nor McCain, who was pushing it; nor arrogant fundraisers like you.

With staffers like this, it's no wonder McCain's campaign is going under for the third time.

The American People Win One!

The immigration travesty has gone down in flames, and by a humiliating 46-53 vote. In short, they couldn't even get enough votes for passage, let alone cloture.

The American people, through calls, emails, faxes, and letters, convinced enough Senators that their jobs were on the line if they voted for this, and that's a good thing.

However, don't think that this is the end:

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the key members of the coalition that crafted the bill, warned is Republican colleagues ahead of the vote.

“Remember this day if you vote ‘no,’” Graham said, adding that this bill would not come back in its current form and it is “as good as it gets.”

I guess Senator Graham is looking to be unemployed, because if he keeps angering his constituents, that's where he'll be after his next election.

Addendum: Senator Graham appears to be unclear on how negotiations like this work. If a bill fails, generally one wants to make the next version better, not say this is "as good as it gets" and bring forward a worse bill. I doubt if a bill that's not as good as the one that just died will even get cloture on the first motion. However, if the gentleman from South Carolina wants to commit political suicide by trying even worse bills, far be it from me to stand in his way.

Roll Call on Cloture for Immigration "Reform" Travesty

Linked above is the official Senate roll call on the cloture vote for the Immigration Bill Travesty that is currently being pushed by the increasingly out-of-touch White House.

For ease of reference, here's the Yea votes... if one of these is your Senator, and you oppose this bill, be sure to let them know they have just thrown away your vote in the next election... and then follow through!

Akaka (D-HI) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV)

Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)

Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Cornyn Nails It

Courtesy NRO's Corner, remarks from the Senate Floor by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):

"I continue to hope that we can pass meaningful, safe immigration reform. Everyone knows that our immigration system is broken, and I would like to see it fixed. This bill does not do it.

Finally, one of the biggest problems we have had with this legislation centers around the way that it has been handled. Written behind closed doors, this bill did not even see the light of a committee room. Instead, it proceeded promptly to the floor of the Senate. The short term result was predicable: Senators offered numerous amendments, many of them including important improvements which might have been most appropriately dealt with in the committee process.

The majority leader’s frustration led to that bill being pulled after almost two weeks on the Senate floor. Now, a new bill is back. Instead of learning from our mistakes, the bill has once again been secretly negotiated, and will once again forgo the committee process.

What’s worse, we’ve been told that it will be presented to us with bipartisan amendments already chosen by a select few negotiators, unrepresentative of the wide variety of strongly held views in the Senate.

There are a list of Amendments which I believe ought to be included in this bill, amendments that I think may find support from many of my colleagues. Provisions, Mr. President, such as one which would prevent criminal aliens from delaying and even avoiding their deportation by filing frivolous Z Visa applications and appeals against their denied applications.

Another amendment would prohibit criminal aliens, including gang members and absconders, from tying up our courts by frivolous appeals from the denial of a request for a waiver of grounds for removal. The bottle neck, sure to ensue without these two provisions, will cause extensive delays that will only increase the costs involved with this bill, and allow abuse of the system.

A third would require judges to consider national security implications before issuing nationwide injunctions against immigration enforcement, an essential provision to protecting our border, something this bill claims to do.

I would like to add an amendment preventing those who have committed terrorist acts or aided terrorists from asserting “good moral character,” something which seems so inherently obvious that I am shocked that this bill would allow it. Last year, Mohammed El Shorbagi pleaded guilty to providing material support to the terrorist organization HAMAS. His conviction, however, did not specifically bar him from becoming a U.S. citizen, because under the law aiding an organization which routinely fires rockets on families and neighborhoods, abducts innocent civilians, and has most recently staged a violent coup of an established unity government, does not in any way affect your “good moral character.” It is a dangerous shortcoming of our laws which will not be addressed because of the closed and secretive manner by which this bill is being considered.

I would also like to limit the time frame for an appeal to two years, so that court proceedings don’t drag on endlessly, wasting tax dollars, and allowing an illegal alien to remain indefinitely, under the cover of an appeal.

These are only 5 of the amendments which I think are necessary to make this bill better. Others would make it harder for gang members to qualify, force immigrants to file a change of address notification to DHS when they move, and authorize the detention of dangerous aliens during their deportation trial.

Unfortunately, the majority leader has provided us with no opportunity for these measures to be considered and included in the final bill. Rather, the world’s greatest deliberative body will be presented with a bill that they have not had a full and fair opportunity to debate and amend. Since when did the Senate have so little say in the shaping of the legislation which they vote on? Since when did the majority leader get to force legislation on the rest of the Senate?

I cannot support this flawed bill or this broken, secret process that produced it. I hope my colleagues will join me in insisting upon the free and open debates which are the hallmark of the Senate, and which are the only possible path forward to providing a rational and common sense answer to the challenge of immigration reform."

Go get 'em, John!

Immigration "Reform" Supporters Claim Empty Boxes Contain Letters

Somebody got caught trying to pull one over on the media and the public, and it wasn't the opponents of the so-called immigration "reform" bill.

Lawmakers were pointing to "empty boxes" at a press conference last Thursday, a Capitol Hill newspaper reports.

"At a pro-immigration rally Thursday, a group of politicians including Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) addressed reporters while picturesquely standing in front of an impressive tower of boxes they said contained letters from a million supporters of comprehensive immigration reform," Emily Heil reports for Roll Call's 'Heard on the Hill.'

[snip]

"As the Members repeatedly referred to the letters and gestured toward the boxes allegedly containing them as evidence of the support for the immigration bill that is struggling in the Senate, a crack Roll Call photographer on hand at the event began to grow suspicious," Heil continues. "He could see light shining through the handles of the boxes, indicating that they weren’t full."

The paper reveals, "Sure enough, a quick check revealed that the boxes were, indeed, completely empty."

Ya know, that makes a perfect metaphor for the immigration bill itself. They make grandiose claims, but when you look inside, what they claim isn't in there.

Hat Tip to the indispensable Wizbang.

Comprehensive Immigration "Reform": Making It Easier for Terrorists

The Heritage Foundation took a good hard look at the current bill and finds some serious issues with the claim that it increases homeland security:

Under Sections 601 (h)(1) and (5) of the bill, if an ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agent apprehends any alien who appears eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot detain him. Instead, ICE must provide the alien a reasonable opportunity to apply for the Z visa. This stands in stark contrast to the status quo, in which ICE can place the alien in detention and immediately initiate removal proceedings.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Read the whole thing (link in the title) to be really scared.

Godspeed, Senator Thomas

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas, a three-term conservative Republican who stayed clear of the Washington limelight and political catfights, died Monday. He was 74.

The senator's family issued a statement saying he died Monday evening at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. He had been receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

Political considerations (and there are some) can wait.

May God bless his family in their time of grief.

Here's The Details

For those who wish to read the actual words of the travesty being called an immigration bill now being shoved through the Senate at warp speed, the title above is a link to the text of said travesty, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.

Read it and be scared.

More on McCain's Immigration Plan

Here's some of the details on that "comprehensive" immigration package that's being pushed through tout de suite, the better to keep the American public from learning the nuts and bolts of it:

Title VI of a draft copy of the bill breaks down amnesty visas into three categories:

• Z-1 — Illegal aliens present and working in the United States up to Jan. 1, 2007.
• Z-2 — Parents and spouses of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.
• Z-3 — Children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.

These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.” They also would be able to get Social Security numbers and benefit from some welfare programs. Shockingly, there is no cap on the numbers of amnesty recipients in the draft language. The only thing the Z Visa holder can’t do is vote — until, that is, a liberal judge declares this limitation unconstitutional or until a liberal president can railroad through a “technical corrections” bill.

Let me highlight part of that: These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.”

This is what the Republicans in Congress that voted for this bill don't want you to realize. What the Z Visa does is grant immediate and permanent amnesty to essentially every single illegal alien in this nation at this time. Even the terrorists!

And Mr. McCain has decided not only to support this bill, but to try to convince conservatives that it's a good deal.

And people wonder why I absolutely refuse to support McCain.