Okay, So ...

Let's see ...

Thompson is said to be getting into the race for Prez. Oh wait, no he isn't. ZZzzzzzz ....

It should irk you that this idiot was allowed to fly all over the world and, more importantly, leave and re-enter the US while carrying an untreatable form of TB. Borders in this country doesn't amount to much more than a bookstore chain.

A blogger poll on the immigration bill. Given the zzzz's above, I guess the bill is a nightmare.

CQ suggests he's the reason the bill might be killed. I think the issue's a little larger than that. Bush taking out the back taxes provision was headlines before the call and already being mentioned on conservative radio talk shows. But, come on, anyone who thinks the back taxes provision is, or was serious is either dumb, or playing so.

That and 24 hour background checks for the Z visa? Any serious enforcement measures in this bill cannot and will never be administered. So-called conservatives willing to sell out for this bill, or to help sell it discredit the very term conservatism. Since when has conservatism meant a complete disregard for law and order and no border security at all? Conservatives straining to be on the "right" side of this issue to pump their rep aren't grassroots conservatives, they're just more political detritus trying to grab onto the allegedly popular wave. They call that selling out, not conservatism in my dictionary. We need more gutless conservatives like we need more liberals in this country.

Still, it's a sweet irony to think CQ killed it, given that CQ was carrying the moderate aka McCain water on the bill within the blogosphere. And McCain in 08 is still more dead than the current bill, which hopefully will eventually implode, as well.

Comments

[dorian grey]

Correction, Fred Thompson is in..........http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-05-30-thompson_N.htm

[acroso]

“This is looking more and more like the Bush administration's domestic version of Iraq: a big risky gamble, based on wishful thinking and nonexistent administrative competence that will end in disaster?”

-May16th Kausfiles from slate magazine.

Dead on analogy for this debacle. The only way Bush can cement his legacy as the dumbest president in history is with Domestic Iraq. He wants to mess up our country like he has messed up our foreign policy.

We have to secure the borders over there so we don't have to secure em over here. Where can I sign up to secure Iraq's borders??

http://www.slate.com/id/2166678/

[Fred Beloit]

Pardon me, acroso, but only Congress can write and pass legislation. Don't they have any skin in this in your view?

[Barak Your World]

You have no chance! Make your time!
Barak Attack!

[Buzzy]

Thompson's in and he'll announce sooner than July 4. If Fred comes down on the right side of the BushKennedy Amnesty Giveaway (Secure the borders and then we'll talk about what to do with the illegal immigrants already here) he'll energize his campaign and help kill this misguided bill too.

[acroso]

Bush the dumber is the ultimate blame in this since he's the one pushing this shit.

[templar knight]

"Bush the dumber is the ultimate blame...."

I agree, as he is in the ultimate position, and has been in the ultimate postion, to have already taken care of this problem. The fact that he has let this languish, and now wants to pin his legacy on this fuster cluck is telling.

[Fred Beloit]

He can push all he wants, without the Dems in Congress he can't pass anything.

[nowingker]

He had six years to pass whatever the f**c he wanted to on immigration, guess he wasn't interested in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. Funny that.

[Fred Beloit]

The Congress also had six years. Only the Congress can write legislation. Plenty of blame to go around.

[Buzzy]

Bush, and his new world order types, knew better than to try to push this crap before 2004. He would never have been re elected. In 2006 he watched an attempt get crushed in the Senate and then in the mid terms he saw his chance. Bush is much happier with the Democrats in power when it comes to illegal immigration.

[Steel]

You all might want to read the post I did on tuberculosis, specifically XDRTB.

Things may not be as they appear.

I'm just sayin' is all.

[danni]

good morning all! hi freddy! not only do we share same "odd" sense of humor, but reading back, we share same political opinions! and steel.....i'm just sayin' i concur with your statement...things may not be as they appear!

nowingker....wake up! enjoyed discussion w/you yesterday; if we all agreed on these topics, well i'm just sayin'.....boooooring!

apologies if i am not abiding by usual protocal...this is format from a couple of years ago; you people are freaking amazing....not being patronizing! but like, i kinda feel stoooopid in comparison to how well read you all are! whether i agree with your viewpoints or not.....very interesting discussions.....great to be back!

[Not a CIA Agent]

"The Congress also had six years. Only the Congress can write legislation. Plenty of blame to go around."

I'm just impressed that Republicans languished for six years without addressing the issue in anything but stump speeches, while Democrats will have legislation on its way to Bush's desk inside the first six months.

You don't really understand what a "do-nothing" Congress is, until you see Congress do something.

[Phoenix]

Sure enough. This democratic Congress is something else. Shewee! Old farts, bitches, and prima donnas. And all those laws and junk they got passed. I can hardly keep count.

[Fred Beloit]

Personally I like a do-nothing Congress. They do nothing to spend more of our money and make less societal mischief. Of course some of the mokes er a folks who comment here may not care about taxes because they don't pay any. But our good friend Sen. Ted Kennedy has been around the senate for, I don't know, 30 years? In the majority, in the minority, nothing much doing accept to make a hash of our previous immigration laws.

[Not a CIA Agent]

"They do nothing to spend more of our money and make less societal mischief. Of course some of the mokes er a folks who comment here may not care about taxes because they don't pay any."

They took alot of bribes, stump speeched on bullshit legislation (that got alot of hot air but never actually got passed), gave the President enough rope in Iraq to hang himself with, and generally wrecked the federal budget.

Just because they did nothing doesn't mean nothing happened. Congress couldn't even pay its bills for the last two years. It's like saying, "Gee, my employees are too incompetent to do more than pick up their paychecks and wreck the company office, so I'm sure glad we're not doing any business." Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[seekeronos]

I'd like to see Congress re-vamped somewhat:

(a) absolute term limits - 2 terms (12 years) for senators and 3 terms (6 years) for representatives. Period. No more 50-year sitting senators or 30-year sitting reps who continually stuff legislation full of pork and manipulate and pursue their own agendas against the will of their electorate. You might loose out on a particularly skillful statesman who gets attrited by the term limit, but the overwhelming preponderance of congresspeople tend to be ill-qualified for the most part anyway, as they are humans.

(b) absolute pay ceilings - fix them into a paygrade similar to the civil service schedule, equivalent to a GS-15 (about $75,000 p.a.) with pay raises contingent upon the same cost of living/inflation increases the rest of the Civil Service and the military get. That means no sudden voting themselves a raise...

(c) Let them fly coach/economy class, with their official expenses subject to auditing. If they have a pressing need to get to DC in a hurry, they can be given priority seating.

(d) build recall ammendment procedures into the states' legislatures whereby a congressperson can be re-called by his state if he is an incompetent boob.

[seekeronos]

------ Not a CIA Agent wrote:

"...while Democrats will have legislation on its way to Bush's desk inside the first six months."

Yeah, man!

How's them articles of impeachment coming along, or that bill to defund the war?

Heh, that toolshed called the "Democratic Majority Congress" sure gave the Prez a lickin' and cowed him real good... I can just see all those C-130s bringing the troops home every day.

[Not a CIA Agent]

"(a) absolute term limits - 2 terms (12 years) for senators and 3 terms (6 years) for representatives. Period."

Cheers and bully to that. Honestly, I wouldn't feel bad about giving Congressmen 6 terms. In a way, it almost puts Reps and Senators on equal footing. But that's details. Any ceiling would be perferable to sky-is-the-limit incumbancy.

"(b) absolute pay ceilings - fix them into a paygrade similar to the civil service schedule, equivalent to a GS-15 (about $75,000 p.a.) with pay raises contingent upon the same cost of living/inflation increases the rest of the Civil Service and the military get."

What a novel fucking concept? At least this way when Congress votes itself another $10,000 cost of living increase, they can at least pretend they're "supporting the troops" but adjusting everyone else's salaries appropriately. I almost question why Congresscritters get paid at all, when their lifestyles are so heavily bankrolled by the taxpayer anyway.

(c) Let them fly coach/economy class, with their official expenses subject to auditing. If they have a pressing need to get to DC in a hurry, they can be given priority seating.

Eh. I'd like to see a mandate that Congressmen can't take private civil airplane rides period. But that's more a lobby-reform thing.

(d) build recall amendment procedures into the states' legislatures whereby a congressperson can be re-called by his state if he is an incompetent boob.

You lost me here. I don't have a problem with recall amendments in theory, but it feels a little too politically chaotic. I mean, Reps only sit two years anyway. Senators and Governors maybe. The recall in California seemed to have worked out all right. Why not? It can't fuck up the system any worse than it is, right?

Of course, the blissful irony is that the handful of reform issues almost everyone - regardless of party - can agree on, are the issues that inveritably never get passed. *sigh*

[Not a CIA Agent]

"How's them articles of impeachment coming along, or that bill to defund the war?"

I think it's been stated time and time again, the only thing worse than President Bush would be President Cheney. There's not going to be an impeachment. Bush knows it. Congress knows it. Enjoy the ride to '09.

And we passed a bill to end the war. Bush vetoed it. He then threatened to veto every bill that crossed his desk until the troops died of starvation in Iraq, if someone didn't cut him a no-strings-attached check for funding. So, maybe when enough Republicans flip or when Bush takes his gun off the temple of the GIs serving abroad, we can pass something. Until then, enjoy your war till '09.

[nowingker]

This is the fundamental problem with Washington, we have created a political class, and a class of vultures and sycophants that depend on it, having lived there I can say that 90% of people in DC are either working for a public official, a lobbying/PR/public affairs group, a federal agency, or a non profit that spends its time lobbying/influencing Congress and the White House. Nobody, on either side of the debate wants to see this change, it would put the whole place out of a job. That is why the Dems couldn't get their own guys to vote for meaningful lobbying reform, even in the most benign way, like making former officials wait 2 years instead of 1 year before getting on the private sector gravy train. How pathetic. These guys have been making money as elected officials or admin. officials for years, already going to get free health care and a pension and yet they can't wait 24 freaking months before starting their six figure lobby job???

I used to be against term limits because I think tampering with the basics of the gov. the founding fathers set up is done at our peril, however, I don't think they ever envisioned anybody making a career out of being a public official. I would make it 3 senate terms and 4 house terms, though.

[seekeronos]

As I read things, I believe the veto was primarily due to the demand for a withdrawal timetable, and secondarily for all the pork that was injected into that bill.

What I don't get here, though... is how Congress could not agree on that "non-binding" censure? A joke more than a statement.

Yet, if the Congress had the gumption to simply kill the budget to the military, the war would be over.

No cash, no bullets, no food... no army.

It would be an utterly ruthless thing to do, but if the Congress-Dems ___REALLY___ wanted to kill the war but fast, that would be the thing to do.

For some reason, the Dems don't see the need to listen to that "overwhelming groundswell of opinion from the 72% (the KosKidz and DUds) to pull the plug on Bush's war.

Could it be that Blue Dogs, and maybe even critters like Pelosi and Reid had to regard some invisible hand(s) that might disagree with that massive majority whose heartbeats sounded as one great crashing of the tsunami waves on the shores of Bush's private NeoCon beach?

Or may that the 28%ers in flyover-land are more numerous than previously counted?

[nowingker]

No. They are making a political calculation. If they cut off $$ for the war and make the troops come home then the Republicans will claim 'we woulda won' if only...Same thing the nutters claim about Vietnam now. They are going to let Bush hang himself and his party with the Iraq war, as he has done for the last 4 years. HOw that is going to play with the base that wanted the war stopped now, right now, I don't know.

Remember, Americans overwhelmingly supported the war in the first place, because we like kicking ass, anybody who actually looked at the data and so called intelligence could and did say it was all crap. The Democrats voted for it for the same reason: politics. They didn't want to be seen as 'weak' on terror and they knew, if the war turned out badly, as many predicted, all they had to do was say 'Bush lied' 'if only I had known the truth about WMD, blah, blah' and it would not come back to haunt them...all of this has come to pass. The country realizes that the war is lost, the only question is how and when to get out without the whole places falling apart.

If you think Guilianni is going to win the presidency and then "win" the war or keep the troops bogged down for another 4 years you are crazy. I don't even think McCain would do it. Everybody but the wingers realizes it isn't a question of if but when and how.

[Fred Beloit]

Nowi, an uninterrupted load of oft repeated and more often debunked BS. That is what is above this comment and is what your only specialty is. I really can only conclude that someone is paying you to keep it up. No sane person could keep doing what you do without the incentive of cash, in my opinion.

[nowingker]

What has been debunked?

What Democrat, other than Joe Lieberman, suffered from being initally for the Iraq invasion? Lieberman only suffered because he has continued to support it.

There isn't a poll out there that shows anything but a huge majority who think the Iraq 'war' is lost and want the troops to come home, most want them home ASAP.

It is my opinion that the Dems made a political decision that it was better to give Bush what he wanted and put the 'succcess' on him, than to continue sending bills that would be vetoed or cut the money off entirely, opening the door for more 'Dems want to lose' rhetoric.

It is also my opinion that there is no Republican who is going to get elected and continue Bush's folly of a war, whatever they say now and on the campaign trail.

Its also true that Americans supported the war in huge numbers and did so LONG after it was clear that just about every decision taht had been made was based on wrong information.

So, just exactly what is it that has been so thoroughly 'debunked' or is it another example of wingers when they are faced with something they can't actually come up with a cogent lie or dismissal simply declare victory and move on?

[Phoenix]

Fred,

I've thought the same thing about Nowi. He's relentless, unswayed no matter what, and verbose. Oh, and always available. Got to be money involved. Except he's added a second Derangement-Syndrome: DDS. Dan-Derangement-Syndrome. I wonder if he got a raise to go after Dan, too. As well, he *never* comments to or about the other libs. Singular, purposeful..... yep. Paid.

[danni]

last try...everyone went to bed around 7:00 here! j/k.....no one wants to come out and play???
ohhhhhhhhhhhhh dannnnnnnnnnnn.....any chance of an OT for those simple minded (but fun) bloggers WHO CAN'T FREAKING SLEEP???? just thought i would ask....once a PITA, always a PITA! hope all are sleeping well.....goodnight!

[Not a CIA Agent]

"As I read things, I believe the veto was primarily due to the demand for a withdrawal timetable, and secondarily for all the pork that was injected into that bill.

What I don't get here, though... is how Congress could not agree on that "non-binding" censure? A joke more than a statement."

Bush had no problem passing pork-packed legislation under a Republican Congress. Even you wingers can't be so memory deficent as to forget the "Bridge to Nowhere". As to how farm relief for crop failures in the midwest constitutes "pork"... maybe we're running on different definitions. Perhaps the Republicans were refering to the extra $15 billion in monies earmarked for Walter Reed and the VA. After the way this administration has completely fouled up those institutions, I can understand why 'Pubs would consider this 'pork'.

The non-binding censure just isn't given much billing. I don't think Feingold's censure even got out of committee. And Bush has already stated that he won't give two damns about it. So there's not alot of support for "flag-burning-esque" Senatorial whine-fests when the Senate and House are already so busy investigating everything from illegal wiretapping to Gonzo's obstruction of justice. The Senate did agree on an incredibly binding timetable war supplemental. I'm not sure what else you could ask for.

[wardmd]

Not a CIA Agent,

You're not going to get any argument from me (a Republican) - the Republican controlled congress (and Whitehouse) was CRAP on most things. If you recall, however, you won't be able to cite polls or rallies where Republicans (not politicians, but "we, the people" who happen to be Republicans) were PRAISING this pork.

Unlike you lefties (Neo-Progs, Clinton Cool-aid drinkers), when Republicans ("the base") disagree with what members of Congress do (or what President Bush does), WE are far more vocal in our opposition than ANY Democrat...

It was Republicans who opposed Harriet Meyers, it is Republicans who opposed the Bush/McCain/Kennedy Amnesty bill, it was Republicans who criticized the "bridge to nowhere" (yes, Democrats opposed the bridge, too, but they don't oppose the spending of the money, just that it went to a Republican majority State).

The "solution" to the crappy Republican congress, however, is NOT a Democrat congress (again).

The "solution" is to elect members of congress (both parties) who can READ (the Constitution would be a good start), and understand that the ROLE of Government (especially the Federal Government) is LIMITED (that it's powers are granted to it BY the people, not the other way around)...

Some weekend (when you've got nothing better to do), try going through the federal budget, and try (no, really, TRY) to identify the line items that REALLY are authorized by the Constitution (not some judges "interpretation" of what they THINK the constitution SHOULD SAY, but what it REALLY says)... Set aside your social/political feelings of how good intentioned any line item MAY be, and imaging our Founding Fathers debating that line item...

There are SO MANY things that WE, THE PEOPLE, have (by our inaction) allowed the government to take our tax dollars, and spend on all manner of "good intentioned" items that they have NO BUSINESS doing (at least without changing the constitution to grant themselves authority to do so).

I'll grant you, we've also had a number of Supreme Court decisions which have resulted in powers being granted to congress (and to we, the people, for that matter) which cannot be justified (by the text of the Constitution).

Oh, and NO, the Constitution is NOT a "living, breathing document" (if it were supposed to be self-adapting, why the hell would we need an Amendment process?).

Yup, the Lib. Congress has sure put it's best foot forward... They DID agree on a timetable for surrender (which, by the way, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL - there's that pesky constitution). If Congress REALLY wants to put an end to the war, then CUT OFF FUNDING (THAT is Constitutional - micromanaging the running of the war [like setting a date for withdrawal/surrender], is NOT).

I'm not sure, are you supporting the on-going hearings into whether or not the 8 U.S. Attorneys serve at the will of the President, and whether or not HE (the Executive Branch) can fire them (any of them) whenever the hell he wants, for whatever damn reason he want (or for no reason whatever)?

And I hate to burst your "illegal wiretapping" bubble, but at present, the NSA Survellance IS LEGAL (On October 4, 2006, a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the government can continue the program while it appeals the lower court decision).