Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is reportedly going to make his long-awaited presidential bid official tonight . Thompson's entry into the GOP nomination race is expected to shake things up quite a bit. For months now former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been the frontrunner. Giuliani has high favorability ratings among Republicans, including their conservative base. However, despite being in the good graces of so many of the party faithfuls, there remains a sense of unease about his candidacy. This is largely because of the perception that he's liberal on social issues such as homosexuality and abortion.

That sense of unease about his liberal leanings has worked to diminish his ability to break out as the clear-cut favorite --- a sharp contrast with the situation in the Democratic Party where New York senator Hillary Clinton has steadily and solidly established herself as the frontrunner.

Thompson's official entry into the GOP race could change this dynamic. Thompson has been running neck and neck with Giuliani in some polls or slightly behind him, and if his official entry provides him the sustained traction he's looking for, he could overtake Giuliani in the weeks ahead and establish himself, like Hillary on the Democratic side, as the clear GOP frontrunner. But that's a big if. For it looks as if Thompson has missed his moment, and it appears as if the wind on his back has been softening recently. The spate of news reports about the unprofessional running of his preparatory organization, the persistent reports that his wife is meddling too much in the campaign and the incessant sniping against him by the big liberal media machines such as New York Times have undermined his image.

But if Thompson gets his act together, if he runs a more professional and effective campaign organization, if he can talk his wife into operating more discreetly and less intrusively in the campaign and if he can sell himself as a genuine social conservative, then he might indeed get another powerful blast of wind behind his back and surge ahead of Giuliani and the rest of the pack.

 

It's certainly premature to make any hard and fast predictions at this point, but could it be that the tide of war in Iraq is turning in favor of the U.S. and the Iraqi military and that the nightmare that the left and the Democrats have been dreading --- defeat of the insurgents and terrorists --- is about to be visited on them? As observed by William Kristol in the Weekly Standard and Michael Barone in the political website Realclearpolitics.com, some recent developments seem to point to a positive turn in the war for the U.S. and the Bush administration.

One of the most significant, as noted by Kristol is the fact that two leftist scholars who are no fans of Bush, Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution, recently penned an opinion piece in the New York Times in which they expressed guarded optimism that the war might after all be winnable . Kristol's piece is particularly noteworthy. He was one of the neo-conservatives who strongly pushed Bush to topple Saddam Hussein. However unlike many other neo-cons and initial supporters of the war he did not break away from Bush when his administration seemed to be botching the prosecution of the war. Neo-cons like Richard Perle were some of the most aggressive advocates of the Iraq invasion. But no sooner did the war seem to be a lost cause or another Vietnam than they turned against Bush and practically joined cause with the anti-war left to undermine him at his most weakened moments. Talk of fair-weather friends and allies. But Kristol faithfully stayed the course. He continued to back the war to the hilt and very importantly and beyond that, served as one of the most positive critics of the administration's prosecution of the war, rightly warning Bush against any attempt to retreat before the job was done. The consequences of retreating in defeat would haunt the U.S. for decades, he kept stressing. The only course was to stay the course, as difficult as it might be, until an honorable conclusion was arrived at. So given his consistent defence of the war and the possibility that history might ultimately vindicate his judgment, it's necessary to hear what Kristol has to say in regard to the recent events.

Hot July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara Coleridge's doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement, this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter fruit.

For the Iraq war's opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts--Democrats, no less!--reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable. It began with a plan for a series of votes in Congress that were supposed to stampede nervous Republicans against the continued prosecution of the war. It ended with the GOP spine stiffened, no antiwar legislation passed, and the Democratic Congress adjourning in disarray, with approval ratings lower than President Bush's. It began with Democratic presidential candidates competing in their antiwar pandering. It ended with them having second thoughts--with Barack Obama, losing ground to Hillary Clinton because he seemed naive about real world threats, frantically suggesting that he would invade Pakistan.

July also began with the liberal media disparaging the troops. It ended with the liberal media in retreat. The New Republic had to acknowledge that its pseudonymous soldier's account of an incident purportedly showing the dehumanizing effects of the Iraq conflict was a lie: It had taken place in Kuwait (if it happened at all), before this imaginative private ever saw the horrors of war. The New York Times was so shocked to discover in late July that public opinion hadn't continued to move against the war that it redid a poll. The answer didn't change.

This last incident, though minor, is revealing. On July 24 the Times reported that a new survey had found an increase in the number of Americans retrospectively backing the liberation of Iraq:Americans' support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. . . . Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.
In the Times's view, as explained on its website, this result was "counterintuitive"--so much so that the editors had the poll repeated to see whether they had "gotten it right." Turns out they had.

Kristol pointed out correctly that there is indeed very deep opposition against the war across the country. However, as he noted, recent opinion polls seem to indicate that the opposition may be softening.

In the real world, the public is skeptical of the administration's stance on Iraq--but not overwhelmingly or irretrievably so. Here's what a new Rasmussen poll says: "Twenty-five percent of voters now say the troop surge is working and another 26 percent say it's too soon to tell. A month ago, just 19 percent considered the surge a success and 24 percent said it was too early to tell." This means that 51 percent are now at least open to giving the policy more time. That's up from 43 percent a month ago.Given the mistakes the Bush administration has made over the past four years, given the real challenges still ahead, given mainstream media bias in general and the lag in public understanding of what has happened in the last three months on the ground in Iraq in particular, these numbers aren't bad. And they're moving in the right direction. The public remains more sensible than much of elite opinion--and more open to new facts. That's good, since progress on the ground in Iraq is likely to continue. It can't be taken for granted, given the nature of a war against a ruthless and adaptable enemy. Still, one British general--no cheerleader for our conduct of the war in the past--told me in Baghdad last week, "It's getting better--and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to do so." And, despite the mainstream media, reports of that progress should continue to seep into the American public's consciousness. "This war is lost," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated without qualification a few months ago, adding that it required "blind hope, blind trust" to believe in progress of any sort. But Reid is now in the position of holding blindly to his embrace of defeat. He has to deny facts in order to sustain his bleak judgment.

Columnist Michael Barone made similar points in an article in the political website realclearpolitics.com. He noted O'Hanlon's and Pollack's break from the gloom and doom forecasts of their fellow leftists and expressed the belief that after so many months in a seemingly endless long night of defeats, victory might just be possible . Barone went down the lanes of history to remind Democrats and the left that war is in a way like the wind. It's unpredictable. Now it it blows for you. Now it blows against you.

Wars don't stand still. In June 1942, the House of Commons debated a resolution of no confidence in Winston Churchill's government. Four months later came the war-changing victory at El Alamein.

For a long while now the winds of war have been blowing and blowing very strongly against the U.S. troops and the Bush administration. But may be, just may be it's just beginning to blow for the White House and General Petraeus and his men in Baghdad, Tikrit, and other theaters of war in Iraq. If that is the case, then may be the nightmare the Democrats have been dreaming and dreading have become a living reality that will pursue them right up to election day in November 2008.

Gen. David Petraeus, the author of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual and the commander in Iraq, is scheduled to report on the surge in mid-September. The prospect of an even partially positive report has sent chills up the spines of Democratic leaders in Congress. That, says House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, would be "a real big problem for us."

The Democratic base has been furious that Democrats in Congress haven't pulled the plug on the war already, and Democratic strategists have been anticipating big electoral gains from military defeat. But if the course of the war can change, so can public opinion. A couple of recent polls showed increased support for the decision to go to war and belief that the surge is working. If opinion continues to shift that way, if others come to see things as O'Hanlon and Pollack have, Democrats could find themselves trapped between a base that wants retreat and defeat, and a majority that wants victory.

President Bush made a blunder by prematurely and triumphantly declaring victory aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 just after the U.S. troops swept Saddam's forces aside and captured Baghdad. But may be the Democrats have made an even bigger blunder by calling the war a lost cause and demanding retreat in defeat. In April, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D - Nev.) practically declared the war as lost . Here are his exact words:

"Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything."

Up to now because of the great cost in blood and money the public's opposition to the war has been growing. But if by a favorable confuence of factors the war shifts favorably for the U.S. around election time next year, then the Democrats might pay a heavy political price --- and be made to understand that it never pays to wish defeat on your own country for partisan political gains.

 

Congressional Democrats are ratcheting up their onslaught against Bush and the White House . In a dramatic development of events they have cited two top Bush aides --- White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and White House Counsel Harriet Miers --- for contempt for failing to cooperate in the investigations regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Then rapidly ramping up the pressure they called for a special prosecutor to probe perjury allegations against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Paul Kane provides some details about the Democrats' charges against Gonzales.

Four Senate Democrats today formally asked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales lied to Congress in his testimony about a domestic surveillance program for terrorists...Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senior committee member, accused Gonzales of taking an oath, both when he assumed his current office and before each of his congressional appearances, that he has now broken through deliberately misleading testimony.

"He tells the half-truth, the partial truth and anything but the truth," Schumer said in announcing the request, made to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is acting attorney general in all matters related to the congressional investigations of Gonzales.

Schumer pointed to Gonzales's testimony to the panel Tuesday, when he said that a critical March 10, 2004 meeting with congressional leaders at the White House concerned intelligence activities other than the NSA's controversial warrantless surveillance program. Several Democrats who were at that meeting have said it was about the surveillance program, and a May 2006 letter from then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte to Congress showed the same thing.

Gonzales testified Tuesday that the intelligence program he referred to was supported by congressional leaders in the 2004 briefing, despite resistance from senior Justice Department officials who were refusing to re-authorize the program because of concerns about its legality. But several Democrats present have said they opposed the program and were unaware at the time that Gonzales, who was then White House counsel, and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card, would next attempt to persuade then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to overrule his deputies. The two went to Ashcroft's hospital room, where he was recovering from emergency gallbladder surgery.

But the most dramatic twist to the Democrats' offensive is their subpoena of top Bush aide Karl Rove in the attorney firing case. The Associated Press has more on the political fire fight.

President Bush is expected to claim executive privilege to prevent two more White House aides from testifying before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors. Thursday is the deadline for Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, to provide testimony and documents related to the firings, under a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also subpoenaed was White House political aide J. Scott Jennings. The Justice Department included both men on e-mails about the firings and the administration's response to the congressional investigation. White House Counsel Fred Fielding has consistently said that top presidential aides — present and past — are immune from subpoenas and has declared the documents sought off-limits under executive privilege.

Rove is clearly the chief target of the Democrats' multi-pronged attacks on the White House . The objective is not difficult to decode: bring down Rove and you bring down Bush. The Democrats have suceeded in using the setbacks in the Iraq war to critically injure Bush and even to cripple him politically. Using their relentless attacks they have forced him into a lame-duck status several months before his last term ends. But that's not enough for them. They aim to demolish him. In their strategic calculations regarding the 2008 general elections, the road back to power in the White House goes through Bush's political graveyard. A big portion of the Democratic base have a visceral loathing, indeed hatred, of Bush, and every attack on him and on his top lieutnants serves to whet their bloodlust and their determination to use the polls next year to oust the Republicans from the White House. And in the estimations of the Democratic strategists the most effective way to demolish Bush and maximize the opportunity for victory in 2008 is to demolish his top strategist, Rove. It's no secret that the Democrats have a deep-seated grudge against Bush's long-term chief political strategist. They have never forgiven him for being the mastermind of their defeats in the 2000 and 2004 general elections. In their eyes he's the man who made the election and re-election of George W. Bush possible. Although Bush and his White House team of strategists, headed by Rove, now appear fatally weakened politically, the Democrats still fear the man Bush described as the "architect" of his 2004 re-election. In the runup to the 2008 elections they can never really feel safe until Rove is neutralized and rendered incapable of masterminding the Republicans' '08 battle strategies.

And so they are going after his jugular. But Rove seems to have more lives than a cat. He has survived many previous assaults on him by the Democrats. A few years back Democrats unleashed special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald against him. For a moment it appeared they finally had him. But somehow Rove wriggled loose from the noose before it was yanked tight. But goaded by the baying of their far left Moveon.org base who will be satisfied with nothing but the dead political carcasses of Bush and Rove, the Democrats are back again in the hunt for Rove.

 

Despite a clear liberal political track record on social issues that puts him on the wrong side of the influential conservative base of the Repubican Party, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the pack of GOP presidential hopefuls. He has been the target of sustained attacks from both the left and the right, and yet as noted by Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard, Giuliani is still standing and advancing boldly toward victory at the head of the pack when by many expectations he should be trudging toward defeat at the backend of the race.

At the beginning of the year, many commentators assumed that Giuliani could not win the GOP nomination because he was ideologically out-of-synch with Republican primary voters. While this survey confirms that he is viewed as being to the left of most Republican voters, Giuliani also remains very popular. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans have a favorable opinion of America’s Mayor while just 23% have an unfavorable opinion.

What's more, a story today by Sam Youngman in The Hill seems to indicate that Giuliani's frontrunner status is not going away any time soon. More power brokers in the Republican party are rallying to his side.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) this week announced endorsements from four members of Congress, and one campaign official said more lawmakers would voice their support for the White House hopeful in the coming days.

Illinois Reps. Judy Biggert (R) and Jerry Weller (R) and Pennsylvania Reps. Phil English (R) and Jim Gerlach (R) endorsed Giuliani Monday.

“Mayor Giuliani is the only candidate for president who has demonstrated the ability to lead in a time of immense national crisis,” Weller said in a statement. “No one can forget how this leadership reassured America and brought New York City back from the 9/11 attacks.”

As things stand now, the biggest threat to Giuliani's ability to win the nomination appears to be former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who is presented by some polls as slightly behind the former New York mayor and by others as a neck and neck co-frontrunner. Thompson was widely viewed as being a solid social conservative on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, and this perception is the single greatest factor for his surge in support among the GOP base. But recent skeptical media reports, commentaries and editorials especially in leading conservative media outfits have started to chip away at his stalwart conservative image, and questions are being increasingly raised as to whether his hide of social conservatism hides a blood flowing thick in liberal genes. In a story that became a big talking point among the chattering class, Michael Finnegan of the Los Angeles Times reported that Thompson, contrary to his claims of being consistently anti-abortion, did lobbying work for a pro-choice organization in 1991.

Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.

A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.

News reports like this have worked to erode some of Thompson's credibility among the GOP conservative base and slow his surging momentum towards the front of the GOP nomination race. Some commentators such as Rick Klein of ABC News have even gone as far as speculating that the Thompson candidacy may have died even before it was birthed. Whatever be the reality of the dynamics of the race, the perception is that Thompson's stumble in recent weeks, particularly the seeming dip in support among social conservatives, may work to re-assert the frontrunner status of Giuliani and give him another oxygen shot in his quest to be the first openly liberal candidate to win the GOP presidential nomination race in recent times.

The question is, why? Why are social conservatives seemingly on the brink of handing the presidential candidacy of their party to a man whose social policies as a former government official and whose likely future policies, if he comes back to public office in any capacity, runs counter to most, if not all of their core values? For an answer, some have pointed to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and the continuing threat of more. According to this school of thought, the terrorist threat to the United States has fundamentally and radically changed the voting priorities of Americans, including conservative voters. The security of the nation is now the most important issue for voters, including conservatives, and they now care more for leaders with proven competence on handling high levels of national danger than those whose political rhetorics echo their social conservative values but are not perceived to be tough. But could it be that the more fundamental answer lies in the possibility that the social conservatism professed by so many voters was never really more than that --- mere profession. And could it be that Giuliani has seen through this and is riskily but cleverly hedging right his bets.

 

Five months to the GOP presidential primaries, social conservatives are still shopping for a candidate. The lack of a candidate of satisfactory conservative credentials and stature continues to be keenly felt in the party. This situation was reflected in a news report about the Iowa debate held Sunday morning.

As the Republican presidential candidates gather this morning in Des Moines for their fourth debate, Iowa GOP voters are expressing limited enthusiasm for the field of current and potential aspirants, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Their views appear to be a microcosm of GOP sentiment across the country and point to a wide open battle for the nomination.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has emerged as the early leader in the campaign for Iowa. But his support is both soft and shallow, suggesting that the Republican race in the state, as nationally, remains extremely fluid.

Just 19 percent of likely GOP caucus attendees said they were "very satisfied" with the field of candidates -- far below satisfaction levels among Iowa Democrats -- and poll respondents were badly fractured when asked to rate the candidates on political and personal attributes.

The top four candidates --- Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney --- are suspect in many regards to many conservatives. Giuliani despite his Republican Party affiliation and strong leadership credentials in national security matters is a dyed-in-the-wool social liberal. Social conservative he most certainly is not, and we can dare predict, may never be. Obviously trying to redeem himself before social conservatives, he has vowed that he will appoint "strict constructionist" judges in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But pray, if he did not as mayor of New York appoint lower-court equivalents of Scalia and Thomas, how in the world would he as a president do so? This is what Giuliani is reported to have told South Carolina Republicans in February.

"I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am," he told South Carolina Republicans last month. "Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts."

However a quite educative piece of investigative journalism done by the Politico clearly reveals that in terms of appointment of judges, Giuliani is an out and out pro-gay, pro-abortion liberal. For anyone who is not bent on denying the obvious, that politico story and a wealth of other evidence are enough to shatter the myth that as president Giuliani would appoint "strict constructionist" judges and be a defender of conservative values.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group.

For as every one who has served in that office must know, there's an almost unbearable pressure on a president when it comes to the matter of nominating judges and justices. Judges and particularly Supreme Court justices are the final arbiters of national culture and destiny. Every ideological bloc is aware of this and this is why ideological camps subject presidents to extreme levels of pressure, blackmail, threats and what have you whenever a Supreme Court vacancy opens up. In recent decades there's been only a few presidents who had conservative values and personal character strong enough to withstand that intense barrage of pressure and make a choice consistent with their conscience and values -- presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Previous other presidents, including Bush's own father who touted themselves as social conservatives and who certainly were no cross-dressers and supporters of gay rights found it difficult enough to nominate nominally conservative justices - some of whom, incidentally, turned out to be false conservatives and true liberals. Bush's father who can lay claim to stronger conservative values than Giuliani nominated two justices (Clarence Thomas and David Souter). Thomas proved to be a true constructionist judge while Souter turned out to be a dud. Even the man touted to be the archetypical social conservative President Ronald Reagan did not have a particularly brilliant record in terms of nominating true conservative justices. Reagan nominated three justices:Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy; William Rehnquist was nominated as associate justice by President Richard Nixon but he was confirmed as Chief Justice under Reagan. Of those three nominated as associate justices by Reagan only Antonin Scalia has proved himself to be a true strict constructionist. O'Connor and Souter were part of the 5-4 majority that defeated a challenge to overturn Roe vs. Wade in 1992. If a true social conservative like Reagan had all the trouble in the world to nominate justices who could prove to be true constructionists how much more ideologically and politically difficult would it be for a dyed-in-the wool liberal like Giuliani to nominate justices who would be true defenders of conservative social values? The point we are trying to make is that it takes a true conservative president true to his values to nominate true strict constructionist Supreme Court justices. Just as a lemon tree normally does not produce oranges so also do not openly liberal pro-choice presidents nominate true and strict constructionist judges. Believing otherwise is an exercise in self-delusion. That President George W. Bush was able to nominate two justices who hitherto have proved themselves to be true defenders of conservative national values is a testament to his true social conservatism. A less staunchly conservative Republican president would not have been able to do it. It takes true, deep-rooted conviction, moral soundness and courage to do it. Everything reproduces of itself, of its kind and of its quality. That's a law of life.

As for Romney, he touts himself and is touted by others as a strong social conservative. On the face of it, he seems to have many qualities that mark him out as a social conservative. Of all the top four candidates he's the only one to have married and stayed married to one woman. His children, generally, are said to be wholesome and well-behaved. He's a self-confessed pro-lifer. And he's also professedly against the legalization of homosexual marriage. But remember we said on the face of it. For when you dig deeper beneath that smooth and dazzling conservative image what you hit is a deep vein of obsfucation as to what he's really for and who he really is. In fact if you are the persistent kind and you keep digging deeper don't be surprised if you hit a rich lode of social liberalism trackrecord. He has flip-flopped so much on issues of deep concern to conservatives - notably, abortion - that one gets dizzy trying to keep up with his smoothly, frequently executed twists and turns.

As hard as that is to achieve, Romney makes John Kerry look clumsy and inexperienced in the game of twists, turns and backtracking. Very conveniently these changes of position often happen when he's gunning for a public position. We dare not call him feckless, shallow and calculating. But we can say he's amazingly good at reading the wind and going smoothly with the flow of it. Romney indeed seems to be a man who values traditional values such as family and marriage. The problem, however is that, one, those values may not be deep and strong enough and may have been constructed more to serve ambition than conscience. Second, he's an enormously ambitious and driven man, and his values and ambition are in perpetual warfare. This tension between his values and his ambition is one of the weakest links in his political character. For quite often in this inner war, naked ambition pulverizes values. And that is a most dangerous thing to have in a man who would be governing the affairs of millions and directing the destiny of an entire nation. For it's safer for a nation when the values and ambitions of a man who aspires to public office are allies rather than sworn enemies. If a man's values are not deep and strong enough, once he's in office don't expect values to be the driver of his policies. Ambition and cold, calculating pragmatism usually will be the driving forces. And it's just never good in the long term for a nation when mere naked ambition is the locomotive of a man's ride to power. Values, strongly and consistently and courageously held values is the best driver in this regard. A nation's interests are best served when its leader's ambitions are served, molded, influenced and driven by his values, not the other way round.

What about Fred Thompson? The darling-of-the-moment candidate is just as suspect in the eyes of true conservatives. As reported in an earlier write up the media have laid bare the falsity of his claims of being a consistent social conservative. If a man who lobbied on behalf of a pro-choice organization is a consistent social conservative, well then Thompson is indeed one. As for McCain, his long-running fire fights with conservatives on issues ranging from the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act to his bashing of Christian leaders like the late Jerry Falwell to his support for the aborted comprehensive immigration reforms, have worked to sap him of much of the reserve of good will and actual support he once had in the party. That he's arguably the most courageous and honest of the bunch, and potentially the best presidential material, do not seem to cut much ice with disenchanted social conservatives. The divorce indeed seems definitive. A big shame.

The two candidates that social conservative may truly call their own --- former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee and the senior Senator from Kansas, Sam Brownback --- have, for multiple reasons, failed to win the backing of the conservative base mainly because up to now they are yet to demonstrate their electability at the national level. Social conservatives want candidates who have proven policy and rhetorical track records on conservative issues --- as have Huckabee and Brownback. But they want them to have the image of toughness and electability as do the liberal candidate, Giuliani. Unhappily for conservatives these two men are yet to project that image of strength in depth. They certainly have the goods, true social conservative values. But for some inexplicable reasons they do not seem to know the first thing about how to sell them whereas Giuliani and Romney who don't have proven themselves skillful at marketiing that which they do not possess. But then isn't this politics, the game where you sell what you have not.

This has led to a situation where with only five months to the primaries, the GOP conservative base is yet to find a candidate that can inspire them and who they can support and cast their votes for without having to pinch hard their noses. So conservatives continue to shop. Problem being that pretty soon the shop will announce that it's time to close up and that shoppers must have to leave. And if the shoppers leave the shop with goods picked and paid for not out of true desire but just to leave with something then it becomes likely that after unwrapping the goods a case of shopper's remorse must follow. Social conservatives better browse hard and fast before the shop calls it a day and make sure they pick goods they will not regret buying.

 

Following the immigration fiasco that splintered the party into warring factions, the Republican Party is attempting to transform that bone of contention into an olive branch to appease their base disgruntled by efforts by some party leaders to ram through a Senate immigration reform bill hated by the GOP grassroots. Party heavyweights such as Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and his fellow Arizona senator and presidential candidate John McCain supported the defeated reform initiative. They formed part of the bipartisan group of senators who framed the failed bill. But according to the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and other media sources these same men are now the spearheading force behind a new bill that is in many respect radically different in emphasis to the aborted bill.

Unlike the defeated bill that put as much emphasis on enforcement as on charting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, the new legislation has a single-minded focus on enforcement. Los Angeles Times writer Nicole Gaouette, who seems to be their house expert on immigration issues, has an interesting piece on the new developments.

Conservative Republican senators on Thursday introduced a bill bristling with immigration enforcement measures, the latest in a broad range of efforts across government to crack down on illegal immigration after the Senate's failure earlier this summer to pass a broader overhaul. The bill would tighten enforcement on the border, in the country's interior and at work sites. It would make it easier for agents to seize smugglers' cars at the border, mandate jail time for individuals who overstay their visas — currently 40% of all people here illegally — and turn closed military bases into detention facilities.

Gaouette gives some insight into the thinking of the movers of the bill.

The bill's sponsors, who include both strong supporters and staunch opponents of the recently failed legislation, said the legislation was meant to restore government credibility on immigration enforcement and thereby smooth the path to comprehensive overhaul.

"It's a place people can go to see what we mean when we say 'enforcement,' " said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who described the bill as "a compendium of all the law enforcement-related things we thought were important in the debate."

The new measure comes as momentum is building behind bolstering enforcement measures at all levels of government. The Bush administration is to unveil a rule making it tougher for businesses to hire illegal immigrants.

And an upcoming report is expected to show that state and local governments introduced record numbers of immigration initiatives in the first six months of 2007.

Lawmakers and others who want tighter restrictions on immigration contend that if existing laws are more strictly applied, illegal immigrants will eventually leave of their own accord. But the rapid proliferation of enforcement measures concerns immigrant rights advocates.

Why this sudden hard turn to the right on the issue by these men, particularly by McCain? Apparently the Arizona Senator, who fell heavily out of favor with the GOP base over his support for the failed reform, is attempting to use his new hardline stance to win back the grassroots and revive his failing campaign. McCain was touted as an early favorite for the GOP nomination. But his support for the failed comprehensive reform bill so enraged the GOP base that, according to a new NBC/WSJ poll, barely 17 percent of them continue to back his bid as against 33 percent for former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 20 percent for former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson who hasn't even formally declared his candidacy. What's more, in the second quarter fundraising period, McCain barely managed to raise $11.2 million, less than the $13.5 million he got in the first quarter. He is reported to be so cash-strapped that he was forced to carry out a major downsizing of his campaign staff to stay afloat financially. Will McCain's re-calibration on the issue help salvage his campaign? Only time can tell. The GOP presidential nomination race this campaign season has been extraordinarily fluid and only the foolhardly dare make hard and fast predictions at this moment of the race. McCain can literally dissolve and dissappear from the race just as he can stage a storming comeback if by some favorable confluence of factors the political wind pushes against his back rather than against his front as has been happening lately.

In the meantime the new GOP enforcement-only immigration bill that McCain is co-sponsoring is arriving in the Senate just as the Homeland Security Department is reported to be planning a massive nationwide crackdown on businesses hiring illegal immigrants. Federal authorities aim to use the crackdown to strike fear, if not terror, into the executives of such companies and the immigrants they hire and compel businesses into self-purging of their illegal immigrant workforce. The ultimate aim of the crackdown is to make it increasingly difficult for illegal immigrants to find employers willing to hire them, thus making illegal immigration to the U.S. a less and less attractive enterprise. The thinking is that if people intending to illegally immigrate to the U.S. to find jobs know that fewer and fewer employers would risk hiring them, they wouldn't come in the first place. What drives much of the illegal immigration to the U.S. is jobs and if intending illegal immigrants see no prospects of jobs in the U.S. they would stay on their side of the border. Suzanne Gamboa and Anabelle Garay of the Washington Post provide more details about the looming crackdown.

Employers across the country may have to fire workers with questionable Social Security numbers to avoid getting snagged in a Bush administration crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The Department of Homeland Security is expected to make public soon new rules for employers notified when a worker's name or Social Security number is flagged by the Social Security Administration.
The rule as drafted requires employers to fire people who can't be verified as a legal worker and can't resolve within 60 days why the name or Social Security number on their W-2 doesn't match the government's database.

Employers who don't comply could face fines of $250 to $10,000 per illegal worker and incident.

Will the new federal crackdown on illegal immigration work to stanch the flow of immigrants into the country? Will the crackdown on businesses dissuade enough of them to stop hiring illegal immigrants? Again only time can tell.