Ya gotta do both, Mr. Gingrich.

You're fooling yourself if you actually believe that voters will accept you as anything other than an astute historian and analyst. 

You had your turn at the podium, Mr. Gingrich.  You did a fine job as Speaker in orchestrating the House into a "contract" with America, Mr. Gingrich.  But you lost that position by buckling to some questionable ethical charge about a book deal or speaking fees or something like that. 

End of political career, Mr. Gingrich. 

And criticizing the presidential debate format as an "undeclared" wanting to play it your way won't pan out with voters.  No more than it will pan out for Mr. Thompson.  Both of you chose to leave the very career you supposedly seek and now you want America to "beg" you to please run for the highest office in the land?  Without jumping through the proverbial hoops -- without being subjected to the criticism, the inquiries and the rebuttal that other candidates are facing?

Ut uh. 

Won't fly, Mr. Gingrich.  No matter how much "above" the process you and Fred place yourselves, the public and the political process mandate that you face your opponents head-on.  Sorry -- you can't call the shots and expect voters to fall in line behind you.

Oh, you and Fred can skillfully talk the talk, Mr. Gingrich:

"We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer nonanswers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work," Gingrich said.

In a speech to the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank, the prospective Republican candidate said he will not consider running until he has created a wave of reform.

He plans to spend the next several months preparing for a series of workshops that he will coordinate. They begin Sept. 27, exactly 13 years after he and other GOP leaders released the "Contract With America" that helped their party regain control of the House.

"This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest ... is wrong for America, and I would never participate in it," he said.

Gingrich told reporters there is room for a him in the race.

"There's a tremendous vacuum of leadership willing to stand up and talk to the country in clear ways about what we have to get done to create a generation of opportunity and what we have to do to avoid a generation for bureaucracy and problems," Gingrich said.

You don't have to hold hands, Mr. Gingrich.   You can even do your own shuffle and soft-shoe routines.  But to walk the walk you first have to "stand up" to talk the talk, Mr. former-Speaker.

Paul at Powerline ponders the "curse" of Senator John McCain's quest for the Presidency: 

The most common explanation for this phenomenon is that Senators are called upon to make tough votes that tend to undermine their popularity. Though this probably is an important factor, let me suggest another -- the Senate is a fairly rotten place. For example, it's the kind of place where 14 Senators can hijack the judicial confirmation process. Worse, it's kind of place where a handful of Senators can reach a deal on fundamental issues about the identity of America and then try to force a vote on the resulting 600 page bill with little time for the body as a whole to study or debate it.

This year, John McCain is the lone first-tier Republican presidential candidate jeopardized by the "curse of the Senate." But don't think of McCain as a potential victim of the curse; think of him as the embodiment of the sort of high-handedness and arrogance that lies behind the curse.

Curse of the Senate?  Nah.  He has always reminded me of John Murtha.  A volitile "bull in a china shop."  A hero, nonetheless -- McCain is a victim of his own undoings.

For the sake of what is left of your image, Senator, retire. 

This is the White House on the facts and myths of Immigration Reform:  Ten Issues. 

This is the Immigration Reform Bill (content being continuously updated, we're told) that will be offered for debate on Monday.

UPDATE:  TruthLaidBear has an exceptional reference to the legislation.

Observations and reactions (updated from my previous rant) ....  Forgive my brashness.  I'm eligible to draw my own Social Security benefits in a few months, and I'm a bit jaded about what I'm hearing about this "reform" our Senators will be debating.

Do I want to see 12-20 million illegal immigrants immediately deported?  No.  That's both unrealistic and non-productive.  I want those who want to become legal citizens and/or immigrants to have the option.

Do I respect and want our nation to remain fundamentally "open door" concerning immigration.  Of course.  I just want the cracks and chinks in the windows, walls and foundation closed. 

Do I want the children of illegal immigrants to have access to food stamps, education and medical care?  Of course.  I just want the adult illegal immigrants to carry their fair share in paying for these services. 

1.  I've never been a fan of backroom politics.  Most of us who believe that governance should be open also respect the concept of "Sunshine Laws" -- Especially when Teddy Kennedy is working the backroom.

2.  Those of us who've been around a while remember Teddy Kennedy personally (the low-life drunken sleaze-ball who evaded any responsibility for recklessly driving a helpless woman off a bridge and leaving her to die in a watery grave) and politically (grandfather of the welfare state we're still paying for -- which funneled trillions of tax dollars into entitlement programs in the 60's and 70's). 

This time, with George Bush literally opening the floodgates, Kennedy is preparing to drown America again. 

3.   Social Security benefits (including Disability Income):  There is absolutely NO way an illegal immigrant should be allowed by receive benefits earned via a stolen social security number.  I don't care how much they have allegedly "contributed" to the SS system .... That is theft -- of benefits, of money and personal identity.  

4.  Z visa:  I support an alternate route to legal citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in this country, BUT those who apply (for citizenship, a worker's permit and/or a student visa) must exit the country (within a designated period of time) and re-enter legally under any classification (citizenship, temporary worker, student, etc.) they deem desirable.  And for which they qualify. 

The sooner illegal immigrants apply for Z visas, the sooner their application can be processed.   And those who delay or refuse to sign up will simply go to the back into the line  ....

5.  The Fence:  It must be built before and without any "concurrent" provisions for immigration reform or "amnesty."  (If Americans don't want the job -- hire immigrants under legitimate worker permits.)  Concurrently with construction -- sufficient personnel (administrators, border patrols/electronic monitoring systems, local agencies, etc. -- MUST be employed.

6.  Employment Accountability:  The first administrative action should be to give every American employer a time-frame during which to verify and report all illegal immigrants currently employed -- before any "concurrent" provisions for immigration reform or "amnesty."

Want to boost our military?  Offer illegal immigrants the option of a viable "shortcut" to citizenship by serving (successfully) in the military for 8 years ....

7.  Tax out-of-country money transfers:  Immediately begin taxing all transfers of U.S. funds (wire, electronic, money orders, checks, etc.).  This will at least recoup a portion of the billions of dollars that are earned in the U.S. and "lost" out of the country.  If the federal government does not want the tax -- give it to local governments to support health care and education costs ....

How you gonna monitor the transaction?   Create a "pay to" and "location" section  for all transfers, money orders, etc.  Criminalize the process .... Since "everyone" with a valid visa will now be eligible for a bank account, banks can deduct the tax from the sender's account!  (Or require Bank of America to handle all transfers -- after all, they passed on defaulted illegal immigrant accounts to customers.  Let them pay.)

8.  Social and medical services should require registration as defined in #6.  And yes --- require recipients to become fluent in English.

9.  Driver's license (and insurance), bank/savings accounts (to include those with work permits), real estate ownership (for citizens only) should not be permitted without proof of legal visa status and/or citizenship status, including but not limited to a social security number -- and should be issued only for the duration of the current visa. 

Going to be here on a 2-yr work visa?  Buy a car that can be paid for within two years ..... Want to open a bank account?   Sure, but it will be closed in two years.  Want to send money "home" every month?  Fine.  But the funds will be taxed. 

Here on a student visa and want to drop out of school?  Fine.  Your school will report you to the authorities and your bank account will be closed.  When authorities find you, you will be deported.

10.  Federal and state/local law enforcement officials must be required to verify and confine illegal immigrants who violate criminal laws and (post- prosecution/imprisonment for the crime) process them for deportation.

No -- there is no way that 12-20 million illegal immigrants could or would be deported immediately!   That should not  be the purpose (from my perspective) of reforming immigration laws.  The purpose should be three-fold: to secure our borders and protect all citizenry, to improve the process of incorporating legitimate immigrants into our society, and to ensure  economic accountability from the millions of illegal immigrants who "take without contributing" to our national tax base. 

This is the gist of my opposition to this allegedly bipartisan "amnesty-by-any-other-name-is-still-amnesty" legislation.   Until someone -- anyone -- convinces me that the bill to be presented to the Senate tomorrow is anything else than amnesty --- I will not support it and will do everything in my power to encourage it's defeat.

Pick n' poke .... chomp a smoke --
homespun humor ... drawl a joke. 

If this is the real Fred Thompson : sound bytes with no substance -- I say, "no thanks." 

He appears to be living up to his reputation as a "lazy" politician.  I don't believe the rumor that his delay is related to a TV contract.  Bull butt.  (That's a southern expression, by the way.  It's a polite way to let folks know that it's hard to BS a BS'er.)  

That's all I've seen from Fred Thompson to date --- heavy on quips and innuendo, light on original ideas.   It's as if he's pickin' the best 'o what the others are saying to formulate his own platform for when (more likely IF) he chooses to run. 

Don't delay our disappointment.

He did have the courage to distance himself from his good friend John McCain on immigration .... Wonder what that means? 

We'll see.  Or maybe we won't.

Yep.  Since we're likely never to see a fence if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty (a rose by any name yada yada yada), use the money to build a highway from our southern border.

No traffic checks.  No speed traps. 

Name it the Ted Kennedy Freeway. 

Provide full-service pull-off's (courtesy of US taxpayers, of course) every 200 miles or so.  Preferably overlooking barren vistas, deep ravines or swampland.

Create an "exit only" ramp into the neighborhood of every friggin' senator who votes in favor of the current Immigration Reform bill.

At the bottom of each ramp, confiscate vehicles and bus each new American to the senator's front yard. 

Otherwise --

Build the damn fence, hold employers accountable, register illegal immigrants and THEN reform existing immigration policies.

For those who register -- offer viable options for temporary work permits and/or temporary designated legal status to those without criminal records who also have proof of health insurance and financial support.   

And while you're at it -- establish a class action suit for each state and all citizens who have been victimized by stolen social security numbers and/or personal identities to sue for compensation.

Nothing to gain personally, actually.  Just the satisfaction of participating in (hopefully) helping Mitt Romney gain a few of the 24,000+ supporters who signed on in the last 24 hours.  I made a small pledge in the process.  It's the least I can do.  I'll likely pledge more later. 

I'm impressed with the Romney organization.  He's solidified his team with a youthful support-base.  College kids.  Young adults.  Young professionals.  It will be the grassroots that carry him in the long run, however.  Including us elder-folks (i.e., our Over-the-Hill Coalition).  Youth is good.  They can blow up balloons and be go-fers.  (Last time I tried to blow up a balloon, I nearly passed out.  And I've never been too adept at go-fer-ing much except second helpings.)  They can also carry the signs and banners.  Over-the-Hill folks have problems waving those signs and banners more than half a block or so. 

The youngsters who choose to supplement their summer earnings will be reimbursed a portion of funds raised for Romney.  Nice gimmick.  Hopefully, they'll be respectful when they start knocking on doors .... I'm sure there will be plenty of supervision.

I contributed directly to the campaign.  I've not found other Romney support-sites too friendly or eager to exchange links.  I'll just let them fend for themselves to earn their funds.   Occasionally one or three have left comments on this blog.  I thank them for stopping by and try to visit their sites.  Most are Mitt Heads.  Folks my age are called blue heads.  (No -- even at nigh-on-to 65, I have less gray than Mitt Romney ===>)   Guess them youngsters don't wanna be affiliated with a Blue Mitt Head.  I don't knit, but a couple of O-T-H'ers do.  If they were included, they could be called the Blue Knit Mitt Heads.   One of the two gets snitty when she talks about Shrillary.  She could belong to the Blue Knit SNIT Mitt Heads.   Matter of fact -- she's so snitty she calls Shrillary supporters S**t-heads .... er-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r ..... 

Better stop while I'm a-head.    

What issues does MSM want conservatives to focus on in the Presidential campaign? 

You guessed it. 

Not what conservatives consider relevant. 

A recent Human Events survey identified 10 issues conservatives (and moderate conservatives, I might add) consider relevant to the 2008 election. 

The final results of the survey ranked the Top Ten Conservative Issues as:

1. Illegal immigration -- 86%
2. War on terrorism -- 80%
3. Federal spending – 65%
4. Supreme Court and other judicial appointments -- 64%
5. Flat tax/tax cuts -- 61%
6. Size of government -- 61%
7. Iraq -- 55%
8. Social Security -- 45%
9. Entitlement programs -- 38%
10. Abortion -- 36%

Funny how the first debate -- organized by MSNBC -- focused almost exclusively on what democrats consider important OR what libs want conservatives discussing  abortion, cloning, Iraq, Iran ....

More kudos to FoxNews and the moderators for zeroing in on what is important in the 2008 election.

hat tip: Powerline Blog

Leading dem Presidential contenders stood fell together this morning as a Senate vote to withhold military funding failed to garner sufficient votes.

Here's the report:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding - an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold's proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."

Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."

The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill.

"We stand united.... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war," said Reid, D-Nev.

Feingold's measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.

"We don't want to send the message to the troops" that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. "We're going to support those troops."

But other Democrats said the move was necessary.

"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Senate vote on Feingold's legislation was one of several expected Wednesday, as the Democratic-controlled Congress struggles to clear legislation for Bush's signature by the end of next week to continue U.S. military operations through Sept. 30.

The House last week passed legislation funding the war on two separate, 60-day installments.

The Senate must take the next step by passing its own measure. Given the political forces at work, that legislation will be a placeholder, its only purpose to trigger three-way negotiations involving the House, Senate and Bush administration on a final compromise.

As a result, officials said Tuesday that Reid and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had discussed jointly advancing a bill so barebones that it would contain no funds and do little more than express congressional support for the troops.

Negotiations on the final compromise are expected to take days.

Wednesday's votes on Feingold and other proposals "will provide strong guidance to our conferees and help shape the conference negotiations we have ahead of us," said Reid.

In addition to Feingold's measure, members were expected to vote on legislation by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would threaten billions of dollars in U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad does not make progress on certain military and political reforms.

Reid said he would oppose Warner's measure because it doesn't go far enough; the proposal would allow the president to waive the restriction on foreign aid.

"It is nothing," said Reid.

Levin pulled from the floor his proposal to set an Oct. 1 date to begin troop withdrawals, but allow the president to waive that requirement. He had pitched the idea with the expectation that the president would accept it because of the waiver; but, Levin said Wednesday he had been advised by the White House that the president would veto the measure regardless.

Finally.  Here's hoping Sen. Warner's legislation suffers the same fate.

Gutless buzzards.

If you haven't done so already, join Team Mitt and Sign Up, America!  This is a carry-through project from the Mitt Romney Debate Parties held through-out the nation last night. 

Mitt did very well in the debates.  If you didn't watch it live, you can find the full text and videos at FoxNews.com. 

Sign up for Team Mitt.  America needs Mitt Romney.