Sometime on Thursday, as most of us now know, GOP presidential candidate John McCain stopped by D.C. in a now-rare appearance at the Capitol to help put the finishing touches on the immigration deal. Impatient with some of the final deliberations, he cursed at fellow Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Scott Johnson at Powerline has put together some context and background around what happened there. It has deep implications for those of us considering who can best lead the GOP in 2008. As Scott notes:

The eruption of Senator John McCain at fellow Republican Sen. John Cornyn (TX) is an incident that reverberates on several levels. It renews lingering doubts about whether Senator McCain possesses the proper temperament to be president. It also raises serious questions about the substance of the "grand bargain" immigration bill that Senators Kennedy, Specter, McCain and others are attempting to rush through the Senate.

As to the substance, the problem is that Senator Cornyn was attempting to make sure there was an infrastructure to deal with those who didn't comply with the new immigration law. Kennedy said that was a deal breaker and McCain, impatient and with a flight to catch agreed and pushed on.

To show how absurd the immigration bill is becoming, the AP has a story out titled Immigration Deal Survives GOP Threat. What was that threat? An amendment by Sen. John Cornyn that would bar any felon from receiving amnesty under the bill, including illegal aliens who have already been adjudicated and are waiting to be deported. In case the reader is unaware, if you're an illegal that's being deported, you were most likely discovered after being caught committing a serious crime. Deportations of non-felon illegals are, unfortunately, quite rare. That's why we are in the situation we're in. So let's sum this up: you first break the law by being here illegally. Then you break another felony statute, showing again how little you regard our laws in the first place. Makes sense to ban those people, doesn't it?

Apparently not to the bill's sponsors, including John McCain. They defeated Cornyn's amendment and replaced it with one of their own:

The vote was 51-46 against the amendment. Democrats succeeded in sucking support from Cornyn's proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization. The Senate backed that amendment 66-32.

For the life of me I can't find either the text of the approved amendment or a list of criminals that are acceptable to Kennedy, McCain and Co. Notice the article doesn't say "alleged" criminals. That means that the immigration bill will be allowing certain groups of convicted criminals to file for a "Z" visa, which would allow them to remain in the U.S. forever, without ever having to apply for citizenship -- free to pursue their criminal careers.

I'm waiting for the next series of debates, when I hope the panel will ask the supporters of the immigration bill just what types of criminals do they support giving permanent residency to.

Senator John Cornyn (Republican) is now asking President Bush (Republican) why he can pardon his friend Scooter Libby while allowing two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, to serve 10 year sentences for shooting a drug smuggler. His statement today from National Review Online:

"I am deeply concerned with some of the information that came to light at today's Committee hearing today. Among other things, it would appear that the government allowed this drug dealer to violate the terms of his immunity agreement with impunity. Further, it would appear that this drug dealer was allowed to commit perjury with impunity. I would also note that several jurors have since come forward to state that evidence which they were prevented from hearing would have changed their verdict. I have serious concerns with the government's decision to suppress certain information from this jury. Finally, I am perhaps most concerned with the very excessive prison terms that were handed down to these two individuals.

"Agents Ramos and Compean were on the front lines; their duty was to enforce our immigration laws and protect this nation. The prosecutors had a duty to dispense equal justice under the law. It seems to me an open question whether Agents Ramos and Compean were treated differently because of their status as law enforcement officers. What I do know, however, is that if the Scooter Libby case is one which the President believes was excessive then I have a hard time understanding why these two individuals would not warrant a similar review."

This issue has been smoldering in the background of conservative ranks for awhile now, but I am surprised that a high profile Republican senator has been willing to challenge the administration on this. That's a good thing, but a little surprising that it's a Republican. Where are the Democrats on this issue? This is a golden opportunity for them to contrast the presidents pardoning of a friend of his while letting two hispanic federal agents rot in prison. Are the Democrats more concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug smugglers? I doubt it, yet so far only Dianne Feinstein has latched on to this issue. That should change and this issue may blow up at any time.

The immigration bill continues to divide the Republican party. President Bush has maintained that this is a good bill in spite of overwhelming criticism from his base, legislative allies and the majority of the American citizenry. One by one, Senators are waking to the fact that voting with the Chief Executive is not good for their careers and have come out against it.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush urged lawmakers Saturday to "summon the political courage" to support his top domestic priority, an immigration overhaul that is hanging by a thread in Congress.

"We have an obligation to solve problems that have been piling up for decades," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "The status quo is unacceptable."

No, Mr. President, this bill is "unacceptable." As for "political courage," it would be absolute political suicide to vote yes for cloture. Everyone but the President seems to have this figured out, if you give amnesty--and that's what this bill would do despite the pleadings to the contrary, you would be rewarding people for breaking our laws and that it not only wrong, but unfair to those who've attempted to immigrate legally.

Texas Senator John Cornyn is leading the charge against this failure of a bill:

Cornyn cited fellow Texan Kay Bailey Hutchison, as well as Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, as examples of Republicans who may have supported the measure and are now opposed. Supporters said they weren't counting on those senators to reach 60 votes.

A June 7 Senate vote fell 15 short of the total needed, with seven Republicans joining 37 Democrats and one independent to move toward final passage. Cornyn voted in opposition.

No matter how they amend this bill, it will have little support until they secure the borders, omit any language that even resembles amnesty, and sets clear compliance language for businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Someone has got to get Bush to understand that we are not playing around on this one. The right-wing information machine on blogs, TV and the radio will hound this bill and those who support it until they are voted out of office. Even the most arrogant supporters will feel the wrath.

The secret deal that the Grand Bargainers made with various Senators to get them on board to vote for cloture on the Immigration Bill was released late this afternoon. The text of the amendment is here. I warn you, it's a PDF document, and 373 pages long. It was written in secret between the senators involved. The bill, coupled with this amendment, is supposed to be voted on within 48 hours. The sponsors of this bill, once again, ignored the committee process. To make matters worse, this amendment wasn't even debated on the floor before adoption. No further changes to the bill will be allowed before the final vote. I started to read it and stopped at page 8 - it is unintelligible to the normal person. I'd need a full loose-leaf copy of the bill, a full loose-leaf copy of the amendment, numerous highlighters, pens, and legal pads, and many, many hours to mark up and compare this thing to get it to an understandable format.

This from Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas):

Hot off the Majority Leader's printing press and just delivered to Senate offices, is the "clay pigeon" amendment – see attachment - a 373 page document for Senators, and the American public, to read and analyze before voting begins in less than 48 hours.

Just for once I'd like the senators, during the roll call vote on this bill, to tell us if they've read and understand the whole thing. This is not the way our government is supposed to work.

Republican Senator John Cornyn offered a Sense of the Senate Resolution this afternoon, requiring a three fifths majority, decrying the personal attacks that we've witnessed over the past two weeks on General Petraeus and his troops' integrity. As General Petraeus was confirmed to his position as head of Multinational Forces in Iraq unanimously by this same august body, one would assume that this resolution would also be unanimous, or close to it. Especially when you read the entire text:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

That's it. No hidden language, nobody specifically mentioned. Just 47 words. A good time for the Senate to unite in a bipartisan way in support for the commanding General currently in combat in Iraq. It passed, 72 to 25, with three Not Voting. The "Nays" consisted of 24 Democrats and 1 Independent. The 3 "Not Voting" were all Democrats.

NAYs ---25 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3 Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Obama (D-IL)

Ah, true profiles in courage. Well, at least the troops know who their friends are - who has their back up on the Hill. And al Qaida knows who their friends are, as well.

Thank God this guy never became president eh? See the earlier post by Scott here. Since that already hit the high points let's talk about the reaction.

To the righty blogosphere, John Kerry is like a gift from heaven. Everytime he says something, it launches a billion blog posts, because a: It's usually something completely inane, and b: It supports every usual Democratic stereotype.

To the left wing blogosphere, John Kerry is an idiot. Oh not because of what he thinks, it's because he says it out loud. For example:

At an economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, John Kerry was asked a question about the U.S. government's relations with Iran prior to the election of Ahmadinejad. Kerry had the audacity to answer the question honestly and correctly recognizing the reality of Americas place in today's world diplomacy. Unfortunately, he failed to couch the answer in phraseology that would prevent the misuse of his thoughts.

Fool! Never say what you really think! Clearly unfit for command. You gotta be sneaky to be a Democrat.

John Edwards is not gaining any support of men by having his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, constantly fighting his battles. First it was his ongoing battle against Ann Coulter, now she's fighting his fight against Hillary Clinton:

Elizabeth Edwards is again making sharper comments on the presidential campaign trail than any of the actual candidates, giving a particularly pointed critique yesterday of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In an interview with Salon.com, Mrs. Edwards said Mrs. Clinton was not as vocal an advocate for women's issues as she wished she were and lanced what she said was a suggestion by the Clinton campaign that people vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman.

Besides the fact that she may be right -- John Edwards does seem to have unusual insight into women's issues -- the fact that she is increasingly fighting the nastier fights for her husband can do nothing but hurt Edwards. It will bring up the same issues as were raised when Hillary was on the campaign trail with Bill in 1992 -- who exactly are we electing, Bill or Hillary Clinton? Unfortunately, we ended up with both but that's a topic for another day.

While I have to agree with so many that John Kerry's "joke gone bad" toward our soldiers was unfair and uncalled for, I wonder if Senator John McCain is possibly looking ahead with his early criticism on Kerry.

Of course, Kerry is doing the same. Remember it was Kerry who accused McCain last month of playing politics by blaming Korea's nuclear weapons test on Clinton. Now McCain is targeting Kerry.

I wonder if the strong response to Kerry's statement is really just about demanding an apology from Kerry. I think there is more to it, as this article beautifully states. I think it's about gaining seats in the house, and our soldiers are trapped in the middle of it . I also think that both John Kerry and McCain are already seeing each other as political opponents for the 2008 Election.

Keep in mind there was much talk about their long time friendship during the last presidential election. Some even thought that McCain was going to be Kerry's running mate back in 2004. And we all recall how McCain called the swift boat adds against John Kerry unfair. It could be of course that Kerry feels strongly for our soldiers. After all he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

However, all of a sudden both of them seem to be the first in line to to criticize each other. I guess the long friendship ends when it comes to a possible run in 2008 with both being in the opposite party.

John Edwards puts Hillary Clinton in the same box as the Republicans and unloads on all of them. From Marc Abinder:

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their Presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

Marc responds by noting that Rick Lazio tried this approach and it did not work, and that the majority of Democrats do not think that Hillary is corrupt. But that's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. A large slice of Americans do believe that there is something wrong with Hillary, as evidenced by her favorability (or lack thereof). Lazio brought it up as a Republican running against Hillary in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Edwards brings it up as a Democrat running nationally against Hillary in a primary, not a general election.

This would be a great attack if John Edwards had any chance at all of winning a national election against a Republican. He doesn't. All John will do is succeed in raising Hillary's negatives without helping Edwards or Barack Obama at all. I believe that neither of them are credible opponents. Bill Richardson is stuck at the bottom. The Democrats have no one to turn to except Hillary. But remember that John Edwards is saying what many Democrats are saying to each other.

You have no idea how hard it is for me to call ex-Marine John Murtha that. I respect anyone who has served...at least until the point that they take off the uniform and demean our troops like Rep. Murtha and Sen. John Kerry did.

John Murtha said shortly after several Marines were charged with murder in Haditha Iraq that they killed "in cold blood" when the hadn't even gone to trial. Most of the charges were dropped including the most serious charges and the Marines have effectively been cleared. So why hasn't Murtha apologized for his comments and why didn't the media question why a sitting congressman would first portray our troops as murderers than not apologize when it became clear they would not? That was a rhetorical question.

I guess if you can't get the old media to do the job, it falls to new media bloggers to ask the corrupt congressman the pertinent questions:

It seems that at that exact moment Murtha would like to have redeployed himself to Okinawa. Murtha loathes those who he once belonged to and he should be ashamed of himself. Unfortunately shame is not something Murtha knows anything about.

Congressman John Murtha is an absolute disgrace and he is exulted by the Democrats. He accused our troops of committing a vile act and when they are proven innocent, he runs away. Ladies and gents, enjoy your new Congress, the Most. Ethical. Congress, Ever.

This is a side of John McCain that we should see much more often:

After being grilled by Stewart , McCain jokingly told him that he had a present for him - an IED that he could place under his desk.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., was furious and publicly assailed McCain on the House floor.

...

"I don't know how to react to that kind of hysteria to a comedy show," he told Diane Sawyer on "GMA." "All I'm going to say to Murtha and others. ... Lighten up and get a life."

Sure, this is a fat easy target, but McCain has been down, desperate and almost frantically hardcore on Iraq and other depressing news lately. This was a great opportunity to show a lighter side and he took it. Good for him.

So you're John Edwards, and you're in 3rd place in most polls and still reeling a bit from a bad misstep with some lefty bloggers. What do you do when Ann Coulter jokingly calls you a "faggot?"

You milk it like there's no tomorrow!

We must show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire.

Can you help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry?

There are three links on the homepage and one of them is Elizabeth Edwards joining in.

Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha confounds me. He is a former Marine and war hero, yet he is putting into action a plan that would hurt the military more than any other single political action since the Vietnam war:

Rep. John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 U.S. troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.

Mr. Murtha, I implore you to take the right action in this case. Your actions are putting some of the brightest young men and women (in spite of what John Kerry says) into a predicament they did not sign on to. They agreed to join the military knowing full-well that they would see action somewhere. They also went in under the presumption that their government would provide the best of everything. You sir, are reneging on an unwritten promise made to them.

How can you, Representative Murtha, do this to a force who needs the backing of our government? As one who served in our military, I feel sad and betrayed that you are putting my fellow servicemen and women into such a situation. They are fighting a battle that needs to be won and you choose to hamstring them and put them in jeopardy.

The time is long past that I considered you one of us. Now I'm at the point that I have trouble believing that you have America's best interests at heart. Politics is your religion and power is your god, both to the extreme detriment to those who took the oath to protect our nation.

One of the most enduring questions of the presidential race on the Democratic side is why did both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards vote to go to war in Iraq. Clinton has handled this question much better than Edwards and it's showing in the polls.

This week the issue that won't go away was revived again. According to the New York Times:

Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq, but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had "simply misunderstood the question" and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.

I find it hard to believe that a candidate of Edwards experience with a background as a lawyer "misunderstood" the question. It's evident he read the NIE and voted based not on what was contained in the document but for political expediency according to 2004 running-mate John Kerry:

That fall, as a vote loomed on the resolution giving Bush authority to go to war, Edwards convened a circle of advisers in his family room in Washington to discuss his decision. He was skeptical, even exercised about the idea of voting yes. Elizabeth was a forceful no. She didn't trust anything the Bush administration was saying. But the consensus view from both the foreign policy experts and the political operatives was that even though Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, he was too junior in the Senate; he didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution. To my continuing regret, I said he had to be for it. As I listened to this, I watched Edward's face; he didn't like where he was being pushed to go.

As I said, he voted not with his heart but with the political portion of his brain. He looked at the blow back and decided to vote for it to increase his chances of becoming vice president.