All the candidates had their spin doctors ready to proclaim their man the winner of Tuesday night's debate in New Hampshire. But regardless of who won, the loser was clearly President George W. Bush.
Support of Bush from his own party faithful continues to unravel, as outlined recently by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan.
The Associated Press picked up on how freely the GOP candidates distanced themselves from the President. Iraq and immigration were the central themes, with the Iraqi criticism centering on what happened after the fall of Saddam Hussein rather than on the decision to invade. The AP also labelled it "startling criticism".
FOX News announced "Republican White House Hopefuls Distance Themselves From Bush".
National Public Radio proclaimed that Bush was "the biggest issue of the night." The Washington Times writes that Bush "took a bruising".
It was noted in the Arab world, where one article concluded that the GOP contenders all felt "their best chance comes by distancing themselves from him [Bush]."
Debate sponsor CNN reported, "Republican presidential candidates directed as much of their firepower at President Bush as they did at each other." (The others also freely criticized Sen. John McCain for being a principal supporter of the pending immigration "reform" bill, which Giulani labelled "a typical Washington mess.")
Congressman Tom Tancredo even told the audience that since Bush had disinvited him from the White House, that if elected he would reciprocate by telling Bush "not to darken the doorstep" of the White House.
Bush-bashing was expected and frequent at the Democratic candidates' debate, but when it happened at the Republican debate, that was news. The Dixie Chicks must have loved it.
Bush the Loser at GOP Debate
Key Analysts Predict Hillary vs. Mitt
'Consensus' on Global Climate Change? A Hoax!
Oh, really?
Canadian writer Lawrence Solomon began six months ago to check the credentials of every scientist who publicly spoke out against Al Gore's alarmism.
His conclusion?
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction.What about the claims of Al Gore and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that 2,000-2,500 top scientists support their position? The UN group won't even release their names! Says Solomon:
I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007." . . . Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.You can read Solomon's latest full article here.
And for a great analysis of the truth behind the hype, check out this article at The Heritage Foundation's www.insider.org, "Global Warming: A Guide to the Hype."
Bush Accused of Wrecking GOP and Conservatism
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan has a devastating critique of President George W. Bush. Beyond abandoning the conservative cause, she accuses Bush of creating a wrecking ball White House that is destroying the governing conservative coalition of the Republican Party. 
Her comments are an absolute "must read".
The last straw, she writes, is the Bush accusation that it's unpatriotic to oppose his immigration plan:
"The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism.""
Noonan concludes:
"Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.""
Connect the dots between Noonan's column and the new Washington Times report that donations to the Republican National Committee from its small-donor core base are dropping by 40% this year--and its whole telemarketing staff has been let go (after suffering scorched ears from hearing angry comments about immigration whenever they dialed for dollars).
This may be the start of a dam bursting, with a wholesale abandonment of the Bush White House by many of its supporters and apologists.
Thompson to the Rescue?
All over the news today is the "unofficial" confirmation--Former Senator Fred Thompson will jump into the Presidential race on the Republican side. July 4th is the possible date for becoming "official"--but that's just a tactic to assure continuing media attention.
To conservatives who have been asking, "Is there anybody else?", Thompson has had the advantage of being viewed from a distance. Don't most of us look better at a distance than up-close? One media outlet, Congressional Quarterly, has already posted a summary of Thompson's U.S. Senate voting record. Another has posted his history as a lobbyist. Now that he's evidently made a decision, there'll be a rush to examine his record and history.
Meantime, another conservative icon, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, will be watching Thompson's campaign rollout, looking for useful lessons in case Gingrich joins the fray, possibly in September.
Pundits love this, because it provides a multitude of new angles for making news by voicing their speculations (which many prefer to actual hard news), such as:
- Will this help Giulani by further splitting the conservative vote? Or hurt him by countering one celebrity with another?
- Surely it can't help McCain by putting one of his good buddies up against him!
- Romney has banked on conservatives who cannot stand Giulani or McCain flocking to him, but now those voters have another option. On the other hand, Romney looks more like a Hollywood star than the real-thing Thompson!
- Will social conservatives truly rally around him? After all, Dr. James Dobson already questioned Thompson's faith!
And get this--A former girlfriend of the former Senator, country singer Lorrie Morgan, has already announced her support for Thompson. (No, I'm not making this up!)
Be prepared for lots of spin talk about Thompson's being in the mold of Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger, thanks to his TV and movie work. But which is it? Reagan or the Governator? Those two have very different politics!
The only sure thing is that the Thompson move creates a new job opening: Who wants to play the D.A. now on NBC's "Law and Order"? Maybe one of the many who have recently departed the U.S. Justice Department?
Is It Really That Bad? Yes!
Thanks to bloggers, the immigration "compromise" proposal is available online in a version upon which you can post your comments. It disastrous consequences have conservatives up in arms.
The power of the blogosphere over the weekend has collectively dissected the draft bill--a task the "mainstream media" couldn't do in two weeks!
The Heritage Foundation has also posted the full text of the draft bill online.
As Mark Steyn writes:
"Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas."That's the travesty of the "non-amnesty" Z visas! As Brian Darling of The Heritage Foundation writes about the "GOP Sellout":
"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. "Denying that this bill is amnesty is the worst distortion of the English language since ebonics and Bill Clinton's inability to understand what "is" is!
Interestingly, most public wrath is falling upon Republican sponsors, even though they are outnumbered by Democrat supporters. That's because many outraged Americans at least had higher expectations that Republicans would resist rather than cave-in.
Many Democrats in Congress, are holding back because--incredibly--they think the bill isn't liberal enough!
Even if this bill never becomes law, it could be the final nail in the coffin for GOP prospects of reclaiming Congress in 2008.
Ironically, a stronger Democrat majority and a Democrat President would almost certainly guarantee that an even worse version would then be enacted. But so long as the GOP's high-profile leaders in Congress fail to show fighting spirit on this issue (including taking the White House directly to task), much of the Republican base feels they must choose between rebellion and disillusioned apathy--and too many will choose apathy.
The Beginning of The End?
The American people's faith in Washington will now plummet from its already low level. Regardless of how the "imigration compromise" may be revised, or whether it passes the Congress, the announcement of the amnesty deal clinches the argument that political leaders "just don't get it."
Some businesses may like the proposed deal, but few everyday Americans will. Any plan that creates a "Z Visa" or anything else that lets millions of illegals stay is amnesty. Period.
As bad as the announcement was, it can get worse. Democrat leaders are already harping that it needs to be liberalized more.
Key components of the immigration plan, as described by Senator Ted Kennedy:
- All illegal immigrants who arrived before Jan. 1, 2007, could stay and work after paying a $1,500 fee, passing a criminal background check, and showing a strong work record.
- They would also have to pay a fine of $5,000.
- After eight years, they could apply for a green card.
- A new visa category would be created for parents of U.S. citizens, allowing them to visit for up to 100 days per year.
- A temporary-worker program would allow 400,000 immigrant workers to enter on two-year visas, after which they would have to return home for a year before reapplying. The visas could be renewed up to three times.
- A new point system would add factors for green-card eligibility to lessen the "chain migration" of family members.
- The Border Patrol and interior enforcement would be expanded, and a new security perimeter would be created. Such border enforcement provisions would have to be implemented before immigrant-rights measures take effect.
Do As I Say, Not As I . . .
Is Democratic majority doing what they condemned Republicans for?
Politico reports that "Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power. 
"So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
"On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822."
Silencing the Minority
UPDATE: Roll Call has a detailed look at what happened, why, how Republicans delayed the plan by going nuclear, and what might occur next.
Drudge Reports a new liberal effort to muzzle dissent has prompted Republicans on the floor of the U.S. House to launch parliamentary delaying tactics in protest.
Since 1822, a cherished right of any minority party has been the ability to offer a "Motion to Recommit" before a bill can be presented for final passage in the House. Both parties have used it as a tool to propose amendments that totally change a bill, often in ways that are very embarrassing to the majority party.
Reports say Speaker Pelosi plans to end that minority right or to restrict severely the content of any Motion to Recommit. Crying foul, Republicans are using parliamentary tactics to slow things to a crawl on the floor of the House. They also are reminding the world that Democrats (including Pelosi), claimed the GOP had abused them as a minority, but vowed they would be "different" by protecting minority rights.
Being in the majority isn't enough for liberals. Rather than just defeating the opposition they want to silence them, too:
xThey muzzle pro-life speakers at the Democratic National Convention
xThey limit free speech with suppressive campaign finance laws
xThey stifle criticism of their global warming claims
xThey want to shut up the voices of talk radio
xAnd now they want to muffle every idea in Congress except their own.
Big Billions Boost Bloomberg?
NYC Mayor Considers Spending $1-Billion of Own Money!
He says he's not "planning" to run for President, but evidently he's preparing just the same.
With a personal wealth estimated at $5.5-billion, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is rounding up those who pieced-together Ross Perot's third-party run for President, reports the Washington Times, outlining how behind-the scenes arrangements are underway so all will be ready if Bloomberg decides to go for it--with plans to use $1-billion of his own money.
That means major advantages for Bloomberg:
=No time spent raising money,
=So he can wait months before declaring.
=He can brag he's not beholden to any donors or special interests (a major appeal to disenchanted voters).
=His wealth lets him massively outspend all of the other candidates combined, and
=Without having to compete for a party nomination.
The wealthiest of the other candidates, Mitt Romney, may have personal wealth of around $250-million--less than 5% of Bloomberg's $5.5-billion+ fortune. Depending on when he starts, a $1-billion Bloomberg commitment would let him spend $2-to-3-million each day between now and November 2008.
Bloomberg's well-paid advisers obviously are stressing how the other GOP contenders haven't caught fire. But Bloomberg isn't the hero that conservative voters are looking for: he's very much a social liberal, regardless of what he might promise on fiscal issues. Because he would bypass the primaries by running as an independent/third-party, he will disregard the GOP's social conservatives, threatening to split the GOP base.
What a New York City soap opera! Hillary vs. Rudy vs. Bloomberg!?
aWall Street Journal analyze's Bloomberg's potential.
aWashington Times reports Bloomberg is laying the groundwork to run.
aForbes ranks Bloomberg as the 34th richest person in America. (Ross Perot is #40.)
aThe company website behind his wealth: www.bloomberg.com
Bush on Roller-Coaster with GOP?
The trickle of veto threats by the White House is becoming a steady stream, even as the GOP's willingness to uphold such vetoes becomes more uncertain.
Friday's letter from OMB Director Rob Portman is a shot-across-the-bow to Congressional big spenders. The letter warns that if appropriations bills exceed Bush's budget (which is tens of billions lower than Congress' proposed budget), then the spending bills will be vetoed.
Even as Democrats predictably scoffed at the veto threat, there was a silence from Republican leaders about whether they would uphold vetoes based on the amount of spending. So far, his party has hung with Bush to keep troop-pullout deadlines out of bills, but 80 Republicans just last week voted to spend $7-billion extra for "emergency" assistance to agriculture, despite an explicit veto threat on that bill. Their desertions helped the bill to pass by a veto-proof margin.
When you couple this with last week's contentious White House visit by moderate Republicans, it's clear that everyone's resolve is being tested. One of the clear messages from voters in the 2006 election was that Congress needs more spending discipline. Even if most GOP Senators and Congressmen agree with Bush, it doesn't take very many Republican Members deserting on spending discipline to reinforce the disillusionment of the GOP base. That would be a major barrier to GOP efforts to recapture Congress.
Bush Veto Threats Are Mounting
Pro-Life Letter Is Latest Challenge To Congress
This week's new pro-active and pro-life letter from President Bush is the latest of several accumulating veto challenges he is laying down to the Congress. It's a marked contrast from the first six years of his Presidency, when he vetoed only one bill (an expansion of federal funding for using human embryos in stem-cell research).
Most veto threats are in response to a specific bill, but the new letter is different. Even before any abortion-related measures are considered, Bush pre-empted them by stating he will veto any effort to expand taxpayer funding of abortions or to undo protection of human embryos.
In the first four months of the new Congress, Bush has vetoed one bill, pledged to veto four others, and issued this week's pro-life letter promising to veto any inconsistent bill. The veto was of the Iraq funding bill (with troop withdrawal deadlines). The other veto promises:
r A re-veto of a second Iraq bill that would only fund America's troops for a few months
r To veto so-called "hate crimes" legislation that recently passed the House and is seen as an effort to silence ministers and others who criticize homosexuality
r To veto a House-passed bill that would give an official seat in Congress to the District of Columbia
r To veto a House-passed bill if it maintains language that would grant collective bargaining rights to the 170,000 employees of the Homeland Security Department
Talk on Capitol Hill is that the White House is developing a strategy to promise additional vetoes, mostly related to spending. The goal is to highlight the budget discipline differences between the Democrats in Congress and the Administration and the Republicans in Congress. Meantime, the Democrat majority hopes to maneuver Bush and Republicans into opposing spending measures which are popular with many voters.
ADD TWO MORE: Since this post, the Bush Administration has issued additional veto warnings--announcing that he would veto a "pure withdrawal" proposal being voted on today (with no money for American troops) and that he would veto a separate proposal to provide several billion extra dollars to America's farmers--who as a group are enjoying record levels of revenue.
Lobbyists Start "Grassroots" Push for More Gambling
The push to expand gambling in America via the Internet continues!
Working to help you lose money from home in your spare time, British vendors have hired lobbyists to generate a "grassroots" campaign to pass Congressman Barney Franks' bill. Their promotional website is in its start-up phase.
Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley has just introduced a bill promoting a National Science Foundation "study" that she hopes will decide that last year's Congress erred when it acted to ban Internet-based gambling (by making it illegal to collect the payments). Berkley filed HR 2140 and she's attracted 60 co-sponsors.
As part of their effort, the group claims it has developed Internet software that will pinpoint the age and location of bettors--to prevent betting by minors, they say, and also claims "technology to detect compulsive gambling and money laundering."
Not only do they want to help Americans lose money from home in their spare time, but also to help Big Brother watch you as it happens!
No Time for Bush!
Here's hard evidence of what the people at TIME magazine want you to think, and how they're trying to shape your thinking to conform to theirs. 
How can they publish a list of the "100 most influential people in the world" and leave off the President of the United States?
The President of Venezuela made their list, as did Osama bin Laden and even Fidel Castro's brother, Raul (though not Fidel). Rosie O'Donnell is there with Leonardo diCaprio, and of course Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Al Gore is an automatic--and they've promoted him from 'politician' to 'thinker'.
But no President of the United States! Like him or hate him, you cannot deny the influence wielded by President George W. Bush--unless you have an agenda of trying to persuade people to shun, ignore and marginalize him. Only the most radical of leftists have such an agenda--and of course TIME magazine.
TIME's is not a list of who IS the most influential, but rather a list of who they want you to follow. It forecasts who TIME will quote with approval, just to bring you around to their East Coast elite view of the world. So the only real surprise is that they also left off Barbra Streisand!
Click here to view TIME's list, which they divided into categories rather than numbering 1 to 100:
Oklahoma Tackles Immigration But Governor Wavers
