Posted by: AndrewR at 05:49 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

"Fuck you. I know more about this than anyone else in this room."

Oh wait...that wasn't me talking. That was Johnny "Jose McAmnesty" McCain addressing Senator Cornyn, after Senator Cornyn dared to raise a concern over the bills scary-lame enforcement mechanisms.

Smart. Tough. Nuanced. Presidential.

I do give Cornyn his props for the following though:

Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."

The only way that line could have been sweeter is if Cornyn had added "and you just parachute in here on the last day to engage in a mutual masturbation session with Senator Kennedy".

You know, say what you will about Vice President Cheney, but at least he saves his F-bombs for the people who really deserve them like Senator Leahy.

But then, the last 7 years of Senator Johnny "Jose McAmnesty" McCain's tenure have been a big "Fuck You, I know more than anyone else" to Conservatives anyway. So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.

Hasta la vista, Senor Jose McAmnesty. Hasta la vista.

Posted by: Jack M. at 05:33 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.

This should make it easier for you California types, who are all laid-back space-cases incapable of doing much beyond stuffing your bong-bowls.

DROP THE GOP TODAY!

Thanks to Gabriel.

More... Geraghty is optimistic this bill is in a no man's land -- there is no centrist sweet spot that can appease both the lefties and the righties.

(Actually, there is: It's called Enforcement First, Generosity Second. But the liberals are opposed to that first step -- even if it gets them the amnesty they crave -- as is El Presidente Chimphalliburton. Sorry, had to go there -- and it felt good. No wonder the KosKids and DUers do it so much!)

Kaus has a similar take, by the way. He likens it to Nixon's abortive attempt at replacing welfare with a guaranteed, government-paid minimum salary -- money, literally, for nothing -- which was rejected by conservatives on principle and by liberals because it was too stingy. (If only they'd seen the future, of course, they'd've jumped at it.)

Incidentally, the fact that the left and right combine to defeat a bill is hardly proof it's a good, balanced bill. It could just be a bad bill that satisfies the demands of neither wing (insufficient generosity as the left sees it, lack of any real enforcement and security as the right sees it) and in fact creates far more problems for everyone than it solves.

Kind of like the 1986 amnesty deal.

Those who want to say "both the left and right are against this so it must be good" should be reminded that both the left and right are both against implementing a full-on jackbooted police state, too. That doesn't make the 2007 Jackbooted Police State Omnibus Fascism Bill a "good compromise."

I Will Gladly Give You Enforcement Tomorrow For Amnesty Today: Improving on my vegetables before dessert analogy (or meat/pudding, for Pink Floyd fans), Michelle Malkin likens this deal to that proposed by Wimpy in the Popeye cartoons.

Wimpy never quite got around to paying for his hamburgers, if I recall correctly.

Posted by: Ace at 01:03 PM | Comments (164)
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

Smart, tough. Just what I expect from the government.

Kaus notes the "triggers," which really could be entirely ignored by a president determined to build a legacy on amnesty anyway, aren't even of the results type. They're of the attempt sort. The triggers are pulled when so many border agents are hired and so many border-patrol vehicles are bought -- not when it's demonstrated those men and vehicles are actually deterring, detaining, and deporting illegals. Inputs -- how much we throw at this -- rather than outputs -- how much we actually accomplish.

There's Bush's conservative principles in action again -- "Judge me by my intentions!"

And even the inputs are meager.

He also catches Michael Chertoff already announcing his delight at beigg empowered to take ICE agents off illegal immigrant duty -- in other words, while the amnesty proponents are promising tough new enforcement of immigration laws, they're simultaneously promising they'll be more effective in catching drug-dealers because they no longer will be devoting precious manpower enforcing mere immigration laws.

Ah, I see now. I guess I missed Section 4, pararaph 5 of the bill which states that "To the extent it complies with the US Constitution and state laws, the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum is deemed suspended as it may apply to this bill."

Posted by: Ace at 01:00 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

"We should scrap this comprehensive immigration bill and the whole debate, until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders, or at least made great headway.

"And then we'd give the proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who have played by the rules is not really amnesty."

Subbing in for Paul Harvey. Starts about 40 seconds in (after Harvey's commercial), lasts till about 4:35.

Windows Media Player link; QuickTime link.

Again, I'm not really bothered by the amnesty part. I mean, that's a given. What else are we going to do, realistically?

But I refuse to grant amnesty unless I get my part of the quid pro quo first. Amnesty is acceptable only if it's the last amnesty, and the government needs to secure the border, finally, to prove that.

12-30 million new American citizens I can accept. The problem is the 40-60 million to almost immediately follow. Amnesty, if necessary, but as a one-time deal, and I'm going to need some serious evidence to show it's a one-time deal rather than an ongoing cycle of runaway illegal immigration followed by periodic amnesties.

Thanks to A. Weasel.

Eh, Maybe This Is No Big Deal: After all, illegal aliens are already voting in US elections.

I have to say I'm not terribly upset they're breaking the law by being here. They are driven, as most are, but economic need, and a desire to have a better future.

But illegally voting in our country? That's not economic need at work. That's a sense of arrogance and entitlement. The idea that no gringo government is going to tell them what they can't do, and that they have some special right to take part in the elections of a country they occupy illegally.

Newt's Against It Too: Good.

We might need to have a word with him about global warming, though.

The reaction to the immigration announcement was swift. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and perhaps future presidential candidate, denounced it on Sean Hannity's radio show as "a sellout of every conservative principle." The Heritage Foundation agreed. Congressman Mike Pence issued a statement calling the bill an amnesty.

While the deal was being picked apart by talk radio and the blogs, John McCain was appearing on television with Ted Kennedy to promote it. Arlen Specter's presence -- and insistence that the Senate isn't talking about amnesty -- doesn't give McCain much cover with conservatives. Neither does the news that the bill was drafted with the help of liberal groups like the National Council of La Raza.

Is it amnesty? Like past versions of McCain-Kennedy, the bill offers illegal aliens a path to citizenship and creates a new guest-worker program. Supporters argue that the measure only applies to illegals who have passed a background check while paying fines and back taxes. In a new twist, guest workers could only be admitted and unlawful immigrants legalized after certain enforcement provisions have taken effect. And in the long term, the legislation may shift the immigration system's focus away from family reunification and toward employment skills.

But there are already concerns that the "enforcement triggers" may prove more fungible than advertised. If the Democrats win in 2008, do conservatives trust Hillary's Department of Homeland Security to certify that the borders are secure? Worse, the bill creates probationary "Z visas" for illegal immigrants present and working in the United States since the beginning of this year as well as their parents, spouses, and children.

The probationary period begins before any of the enforcement triggers are pulled.

Posted by: Ace at 12:12 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

In somewhat poor taste, given the 9/11 hijackings.

Which is why I'm happy they followed the Hollywood bowlderizing code and changed the terrorists to Germans. If they used Musllims or ("Persians") it would have been too real and not funny at all.

Errmm... now that I watch the whole thing, that shot of the Spartans pushing the meal-cart was ill-advised.

Thanks to dri. Better click quick; the last upload was "deleted by the user" (in other words, censored by YouTube).

Deleted Again! I guess it's being deleted as it was part of the MTV movie awards, and Viacom is at war with YouTube.

Dri provides this new link, which isn't on YouTube and so should work.

Again, a warning: Watching it in full, and reflecting, I really don't know that 9/11 parodies are cool yet. That shot of the meal-cart is just a bad idea, and unavoidably recalls that which is necessary to forget in order to enjoy this.

Still, I sort of like the idea of American air-travellers becoming Spartans in response to a skyjacking. So I'm more inclined to view it as a tribute that a mocking parody.

Posted by: Ace at 11:40 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

She'll give up to 40,000 blowjobs in exchange for votes. Let's face it, that beats promises of increase social spending all to hell.

Especially when the politician looks like this:

Mark in Mexico notes her rules -- five minutes only, so you better "fluff up" beforehand if you don't want to miss the big finish -- and calculates that fulfilling this promise would take more than a year even if she worked every single day for eight hour shifts on nothing else.

In fairness, it is, of course, a stunt, a retaliation against her opponent, who she accuses of making exorbitant promises.

On the other hand, I'm emigrating to Belgium, where the oral sex flows like wine.

Posted by: Ace at 11:30 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

In the American system politicians are free to do whatever they like, so long as it's safely far enough before an election. Parliamentary systems exert a bit more voter control between elections, as enough pressure from constituents can spur a parilaiment to vote "no confidence" in its government.

We don't have that. But I think that's the cool thing about de-registering from a party. It's not an actual vote of no confidence but it certainly sends the message. And directly from the voters to boot.

Here's another reader's no confidence vote, sent to Heather Wilson:

May 18, 2007

Representative Heather Wilson

Washington, D.C.

Re: The Immigration Bill

Dear Representative Wilson:

I have been a Republican my entire adult life and I have recently moved back to New Mexico. I voted for you in the close race against Patricia Madrid.

However, I will never again vote for you or support the Republican Party with donations or time if the immigration bill currently under consideration passes the Senate and House Republicans do not stop it.

The border must be secured first, before any amnesty legislation passes. I understand it is not a viable option to deport all the illegal aliens in our state, let alone our country. That said, the last amnesty during the Reagan years was supposed to be the last amnesty. Now? We have over 10 million more illegal immigrants in our country. If the border is not secured first, nothing will prevent a new flood of illegals waiting for yet another amnesty.

The border needs to be secured, not only to prevent a flood of illegal immigrants, but also for security. The porous borders are an ideal way for would-be terrorists to come into the country. How a party who is so dedicated to fighting terrorism worldwide can allow an unsecured border is ludicrous! I have to take my shoes off before i get on a plane, can't have more than 3 ounces of liquid in a bottle, but we can allow 10 million people to come into our country because we don't have any kind of border security? We have no idea who these people are, no record of them coming, and no way to track them!

If this bill is a politically motivated attempt to bring more Hispanics into the party, I feel it will backfire greatly, and this amnesty will result in the GOP becoming a permanent minority party. Today, I am contacting the Bernallio County Clerk and requesting a form to change my party affiliation from Republican to Independent. If this legislation passes and is signed by our "Republican" president, you will receive a copy of my form changing affiliation. I will re-affiliate myself with the Republican Party only if this legislation is defeated.

Respectfully,

[name redacted]

Write the Blue Dogs, Too! Centrist Democrats in purple districts and states can be pressured as well.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., announced Thursday that he will move to kill the guest worker program because it would hurt American workers.

Via Hot Air, which writes of a permanent Republican minority should this pass.

Much is made of Bush winning 44% of Hispanics -- except, you know, 44% is still less than half, meaning that the other guys got 55% or so. For every 100 Hispanic voters, we're 11 in the hole, even in a good performance.

Further, that 44% number has been revised down to 40%, which is where it always is. Bush did not in fact perform better with Hispanics than most Republicans.

And lastly-- even that 40% includes, of course, long-time Americans of Hispanic descent. In other words -- just Americans who trace their ancestry to Latin America. They are far removed from the politics of their home countries, which almost always presume cradle-to-grave socialism (even under "conservative" governments).

Recent immigrants will not break merely 3:2 for Democrats. They'll break 5 or 6 to 1 Democrats.

Allah quoting from NRO:

[A] reform package may be a feather in W’s cap, but that’s all. Sure President Bush will get credit from Hispanics for helping them, but he’s not eligible to run for another term. In all likelihood, he’ll get some marginal kudos while editorialists will beat the brains out of the “racist, nativist Republicans” who always screw over minorities. The likely end result of this will be a nasty fight in the Republican primaries of 2008, an alienated business community, very few Hispanic Republicans, more Democrats, and a depressed GOP base. The textbook definition of a disaster is getting the worst of all worlds.

Let me address that "racist, nativist" thing. A while ago it was thought that Quebec might break from Canada, leaving that country sort of incomplete. Some speculated further that, should this happen, the Nefoundland provinces and the Western provinces might petition the US for statehood.

At the time -- way back in college -- I was of course enthusiastic about this prospect, seeing it as way to finally get that 54-40 thing we've always wanted.

But now? Again recently the prospect of Canada breaking up came up, and this time, I was dead-set against taking in any Canadian states. Even the more conservative western ones. These people are accustomed to socialism. These people are accustomed to despising the US for its power and its wealth. These people are accustomed to opposing the US in each and every foreign policy move it makes.

In other words, these people are hard-core left-liberal Democrats. Actually, they're quite beyond that, but the Democratic Party is as good as they can get.

(For now, at least. Who knows where our politics are heading in the future.)

And Candadians, unlike Latin American immigrants, are fairly wealthy and would not be a net-drain on government resources. Maybe not a net-plus, but not, overall, a net-drain either.

Now if I don't want these pasty-faced Canadian iceback snow-wops in my country, either, how the hell is it "racist" to feel the same way about Dominicans, Mexicans, Haitians, Columbians, and Venezuelans?

The Democratic Party has thoroughly alienated most Americans. So it's little wonder they want to bring in more socialism-minded foreigners and make them Americans with voting rights. Liberal politicians always are in favor of doing so -- if the voters won't select you as political leaders, then you, as political leaders, should select new voters who might.

Of course they're big in favor of adding 40-60 million (or more) thoroughly socialist and temperamentally anti-American voters -- those are the Democratic Party's core planks!

(And please, don't tell me that Latin American immigrants aren't "anti-American." They're at least as anti-American, by temperament, as any other group of foreigners in the world. Look at their press, look at their basic antagonism towards "gringo" and "El Giganto Norte." That would likely moderate over several generations -- as they lose the biases and beliefs of their home countries and partly incorporate those of the US -- but not for a while. And at best-- they wind up breaking 3:2 Democrat after two or three generations.)

And lastly-- the biggest political issue among illegal immigrants seems to be illegal immigration. They want more rights, more benefits, and more illegals (or former illegals) allowed in. At some point we swell the voting ranks with an almost unsurrmountable numerical advantage in favor of ever-increasing immigration, verging on open borders. And what then?

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 1229 words, total size 8 kb.

Eh. Still seems to me the charges against him are trumped-up, including brand spanking new charges that he illegally discussed national security matters with a hospitalized John Ashcroft in a non-secure environment, but I really don't care.

I won't join the left's pitchforks and torches rabble against the administration, but then neither am I going to fuss about it much anymore.

They figure they can get by without us. So, you know, let them.

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Figured I'd highlight this comment of Mark's before it gets lost in the debate:

Heh, the RNC's phone lines are in a meltdown. I dropped my Republican Party affiliation like a sack of shit. RNC's fax line is open - just wrote ADIOS! on the voter registration form. This amnesty can be stopped if we are militant about it. This means harassing the shit out of the hacks in DC, and locally.

The internet provides many easy ways to get in touch with our elected officials.

The GOP homepage provides information on how to call your representatives and has an easy form you can use to write them.

Here's information on how you can get in touch with the White House.

Enjoy.

Apropos of Nothing:

Confederate Yankee sent his own "It's not you, it's me, well actually to be perfectly honest it rather is you" letter to the RNC.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which is responsible for getting Republican Senators elected, contact me about one of those blogger calls I usually don't bother with.

WHAT: NRSC Blogger Conference Call

WHO: NRSC Chairman Ensign

WHEN: Wednesday, May 23 at 7:00 pm

WHY: To discuss the 2008 Senate elections and other Senate related issues

This one I'll be on. Most of my questions will concern what Senator Ensign thinks I can do to help Democrats win the Presidency and a supermarjority in Congress. He must have some good ideas, as the Republican Party has excelled at just this lately.

Added by Ace.

Posted by: Slublog at 09:48 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.