The immigration bill isn't a done deal yet:

In an unusual admission, two leadership aides - one Democrat, one Republican - told FOX News that they have no idea how the vote will go. Vote-counting is something that is normally down to a science in the Senate chamber. The vote to end debate, called "cloture," is expected at 10:30 a.m. ET.

The mood in the Senate took a perceptible shift Wednesday as lawmakers decided not to "table," or send into permanent limbo, one of the 27 amendments approved for debate. That amendment was designed to weaken worker verification standards that are key to the measure's approach to reducing the ability of illegals to obtain work with fraudulent documents.

Those two appear to be Kit Bond and Ben Nelson, plus add Pete Domenici. Others are sure to follow as the rats leave this sinking ship of a bill and save their political carrers in the process. Bush's play for some type of domestic policy legacy may well be kaput by Friday--the day he thought the bill would be passed.

A few in the Senate voted for cloture because they could always use it in the next election but will vote against it this time to muddy the waters so badly that they will be able to argue both sides. Of course, we conservative will surely remember who left us hanging in a time of need.

Others say that the bills supporters only have 59 votes and cloture will fail if that's the case.

What's the difference between the Republicans of 2006 and the Democrats of today?

The Senate has released its version of the emergency war and pork supplemental bill, Senate war bill features $20B in pork. Here's the text of the Senate version, S.965. It includes a few extra dandies, like $50 million for each of the party's political conventions in 2008, obviously critical in the war effort. And it includes insect infestation control in Nevada, put in for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Must be al-Qaida insects.

Like their counterparts in the House, the Senate has larded its version of an "emergency" war spending bill with nearly $20 billion in pork-barrel outlays, including $100 million for the two major political parties' 2008 presidential conventions. The $121 billion bill includes $102 billion for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as $14 billion for Hurricane Katrina aid and more than $4 billion for "emergency farm relief."

The article also notes that if this bill goes into the Senate/House conference committee to work out differences, they only things that the Democrats' will be arguing about is who's pork should be protected.

To pass the cloture vote, it's not just about getting the requisite number of Republicans. There is a significant set of Democratic senators who will need to be persuaded.

Three centrists whose razor-thin election victories in November tipped control of the Senate to the Democrats now hold potentially decisive swing votes on the immigration measure the chamber will try to revive later this week.

All three Democratic freshman senators - Jim Webb (Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) - voted against efforts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to shut down debate over the measure earlier this month. The freshmen each have controversial amendments in the package that will be considered once the Senate moves to resume debate later this week. And no member is decided on how he or she will vote on the underlying bill.

I was particularly surprised by the stance of Claire McCaskill, who was recently elected back in November as well, on most issues she seemed to be a standard liberal Democrat. But on immigration, she's pretty tough.

Harry Reid tried twice yesterday for cloture on the immigration bill. This move would have cut off debate on the bill and moved toward a straight up and down vote, needing only a majority of senators. But the cloture vote needed 60. He fell far short.

What this means is that unless Harry Reid pulls the bill, they are going to keep debating it and voting on amendments til the cows come home. Also if he doesn't pull it, then his threat to do so Wednesday would be revealed as a bluff.

The response to this from the immigration bill pushers was oddly upbeat. From Fox:

"I know where the votes are for final passage. ... We're going to get this done," Graham said, adding that the topic is not going to go away. "All I can say is, if you name a post office, you're going to be talking about immigration."

"There are ways we can do this," Reid said later. "There can be an agreement on the number of amendments. Hopefully we can do that in the next several weeks. We're very close." ...

"There are a lot of good things in this bill," Reid said. "I'm a creature of the Senate. I understand we live by the rules that govern this body. I accept that. We're going to do everything we can to pass this bill as soon as we can. When is that? I don't know, but we're going to work hard and try to put aside the hurt feelings that we have. The country needs and the Senate needs to do this."

Despite all the happy talk, it sounds like a couple of senators knew this setback was coming and were busy preparing some spin.

Senator Larry Craig of Idaho has made the decision to resign his position and the effective date of resignation will be September 30th.

Whether it is a case of a corrupt politician getting what he deserved or the case of a naïve politician trying to do what was best under a stressful situation, the end result was going to be the same no matter what. Craig's career was, for all intents and purposes, over the moment he was booked for actions in a Minneapolis airport bathroom that an undercover police officer deemed lewd behavior.

According to The Politico, Craig's future in the Senate was further doomed when President Bush made the decision not to provide any support to the embattled senator and, to make matters worse, top GOP senators such as Norm Coleman, Mitch McConnell and John McCain all publicly chastised him. With such obvious lack of support, it became clear that Craig needed to resign and he did just that. Instead of becoming the longest "reigning" senator from the state of Idaho, Craig will now go down in the history books as the senator from Idaho who resigned from a sex scandal that never included any actual sex. His replacement to be named by the governor is expected to be Lt. Gov. Jim Risch.

Well, this is interesting. From The Politico:

Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, is being floated in Senate GOP leadership circles as a possible replacement for the late Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), who died Monday night. Susan Thomas, the late senator's wife, has also been mentioned by Senate Republicans as a potential choice to take over for her husband, as well as former Justice Department official Tom Sansonetti.

One GOP insider said Lynne Cheney had been in Washington "too long" to be acceptable to the Wyoming GOP, despite her long resume, although that would change if Cheney were to return to Wyoming on a full-time basis. Susan Thomas is reportedly not interested in serving out her husband's term.

As anyone might have expected, Senator Thomas' death Monday night has triggered a power struggle in Wyoming GOP circles. The person nominated to serve out Thomas' term would have a leg up in the November 2008 election as Wyoming is heavily GOP. Survive a primary and you're there. A sitting senator can raise more money than a primary challenger, so there you go.

Lynne Cheney, apart from being the other half of one of Wyoming's most famous power couples, has an impressive bio of her own. That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that her husband, in his capacity as vice president, also serves as president of the Senate and breaks tie votes. If this happens, it just might be the first time that a husband and wife served together in the Senate.

I have been slow about reacting to the misdemeanor crime to which Senator Larry Craig pled guilty.

Should he resign his Senate seat? I don't think so.

Have we all gone nuts? Maybe the senator is a hypocrite. Scratch that: He is a hypocrite. But he didn't commit a crime. Maybe he was going to, but I listened to the tape and I can't imagine there was sufficient evidence for a conviction. The guy was in a hurry to catch a plane. He didn't want to be embarrassed further. He signed a paper. Paid a fine and got the heck out of the airport.

He pled guilty but I just don't see what crime he committed. He is just one more hypocrite who gets elected to one of the most prized seats in the world. Keep your seat, senator, but stay out of public bathrooms.

The GOP is set to keep the Senate according to the latest numbers:

Just days from the midterm elections, the final round of MSNBC/McClatchy polls shows a tightening race to the finish in the battle for control of the U.S. Senate. Democrats are leading in several races that could result in party pickups, but Republicans have narrowed the gap in other close races, according to Mason-Dixon polls in 12 states.

Rhode Island is back in play, Ford in Tennessee is getting beat soundly and Menendez holds on in N.J. if these polls are correct.

Senator Larry Craig was arrested in June for lewd conduct in a Minnesota airport mens room. I'm afraid it's about as bad as it sounds. Roll Call has it:

Craig's arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a "he said/he said misunderstanding," and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.

After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, "What do you think about that?" the report states.

Well, if I was the policeman, I'd be saying, "I think you're in deep, deep trouble." Which of course the senator now is.

Hugh Hewitt is calling for Craig's resignation and let me second that. There's room enough in the Senate for good men who do not pull this kind of crap. Let's find one of those. Maybe you can pull this off if you are a Democrat. Republicans, not so much.

Yes, that's about the size of it. 2006 was actually supposed to be a good cycle for the GOP. 2008 favored the Democrats already, as the Republicans will be defending more seats. But the situation just keeps getting worse as Dick Morris details here:

If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.

I can see the GOP saving Nebraska, Maine, and New Hampshire and picking off Lousiana, but that's about the best they can hope for. Swinging the other way 60 is probably hopeless, but the Democrats could get close.

One implication is that the current GOP senators in these states will not put their necks on the line for George W. Bush whether in Iraq or on any other issue. In fact, its amazing that President Bush is doing as well as he is with the Senate so far!

The big implication is that Republican primary voters need a win for the presidency and they will be willing to cut a deal with a certain pro-choice, anti-gun, thrice divorced former mayor if he can guarantee that he will keep the White House out of the hands of Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, all the money will flow into the presidential and House contests, not the Senate.

From the Detroit News:

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, said Monday he'll seek election to his sixth term in 2008.
"We have to change the direction" on the Iraq war and the economy, Levin, 72, told a group of reporters. "I'm in a good position to help shape that change."
William Rustem, an analyst with Public Sector Consultants in Lansing, said Levin's decision makes it much tougher for Republicans such as Reps. Candice Miller of Harrison Township and Mike Rogers of Brighton to run for the seat. Both had been considered likely candidates if Levin decided to retire, but may decide against challenging Levin.

This is a major save for the Democrats and hurts the Republicans chances of flipping the senate in 2008. Miller and Rogers stayed out of the 2006 election against the much weaker senator Stabenow in hopes for an open seat in 2008. Let this be a lesson to the GOP. Always run your strongest candidates. And in following this advice, they should run their strongest candidate against Levin. If you can't knock him off, at least see if you can scare him a little.

As a resident of California, where our Senate race is a gimme (Democrat Feinstein), it's been fun to follow the other key races as an outsider who can't affect the outcome. One of the more interesting sources I have found is The Fix by Chris Cillizza.

Every Friday he blogs for the Washington Post and addresses all sorts of politically relevant issues. This week he wrote about key House races, but last week it was the key Senate Races. According to The Fix, those races (as of a week ago), show the Senate landscape shifting towards the Democrats. His analysis is as follows:

• Washington - Republican Mike McGavick's "free-fall" following his mishandling of a past drunk driving arrest had ended, but the damage was done. Two recent polls showed Democrat Maria Cantwell leading McGavick by 9 and 10 points.
• Maryland - Republican Michael Steele continued to impress with his unorthodox ad campaign, but his central problem is his stance as a long-time supporter of George W. Bush. Polling showed the democratic candidate, Ben Cardin, with a mid single digit lead. Steele's chances hinge on an improvement in the national political climate, a change seen as increasingly unlikely.
• Virginia - A new Mason-Dixon poll showed Republican George Allen and Democrat James Webb tied at 43 percent -- a stunning reversal for Mr. Allen, who started the year running for president in 2008. A key to the outcome may be whether the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee or the National Republican Senatorial Committee weighs in with television ads between now and November 7th.

67-29 which is a veto sustaining majority in the Senate. President Bush has already declared an intention to veto, with some extremely masterful language:

Today, the Senate passed a State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill that fails to focus on poor children, and instead creates a new entitlement program for higher income households. In fact, the bill specifically eliminates the requirement that states enroll 95% of children in households under 200% of the federal poverty level.

The President will veto this bill because it directs scarce funding to higher incomes at the expense of poor families.

We encourage Congress to send the President a continuing resolution extending SCHIP so coverage for the children who rely on the program will not be threatened. We should take this time to arrive at a more rational, bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization bill that focuses on children in poor families who don't currently have insurance, rather than raising taxes to cover people who already have private insurance.

When the bill passed the House, it did not do so with enough votes to sustain a veto in that body. I would expect that the Democrats would want to put it up for another vote, just to increase the pressure "for the children." This issue is just too easy to demagogue, they won't give up that opportunity.

On the merits of the bill, I'm with the president completely. If the politicians want to do something to help working class families around health care, how about full tax credits for health care? How about coming up with a comprehensive solution to the portability problem? In my opinion this is all about fixing a problem that largely does not exist for the opportunity to beat your political opponent about the head and neck.

Pass SCHIP as it was last year and move on to a real issue.

It's funny we haven't heard about this in the mainstream media, although the investigation that forced Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein to resign from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee has been reported on since the middle of January...

In the November 2006 election, the voters demanded congressional ethics reform. And so, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues. But for many years, Feinstein has been beset by her own ethical conflict of interest, say congressional ethics experts.

As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

Remarkable. At first glance, this looks way bigger and more brazen than the scandal that put Republican Representative Duke Cunningham in prison after being forced to resign from the House. The only difference is that Cunningham personally received payments from the party that benefited from the awarding of contracts. In Feinstein's case, the money received from those billions of dollars of contracts awarded to her husband when she was the ranking member of the subcommittee benefited her by going into her marital estate.

Congressional Quarterly's CQPolitics.com has an interesting story up today by David Nather, Lieberman's New Party Line, telling us that during last week's circus over the Iraq war, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman was found in a surprising place:

Lately, though, Lieberman has taken his alliance with GOP leaders up a notch. During the abortive debate on the defense authorization bill, he attended daily tactical sessions to help them plan their strategy for combatting anti-war amendments and their rhetorical points for use against the Democrats. And in a fitting symbolic twist, some of those meetings convened just down the hall from the office of Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who essentially owes his 51-seat majority to Lieberman's continued caucusing with the Democrats.

Lieberman was successful in getting his amendment on Iran added to the now pulled 2008 Defense Authorization Act. That amendment points out Iran's current role in Iraq in attacking U.S. troops, requiring regular updates on how we are dealing with them. It passed by a vote of 97-0. That particular vote creates yet another logical conundrum for Democrats, as Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out, because what the Democrats are ultimately supporting (a retreat from combat and combat areas) would both hand Iran a victory over us and hand a large part of Iraq over to Iran.

Good for Senator Lieberman. This shows just how tenuous Harry Reid and the Dems' hold on majority status really is. If the Dems aggravate Lieberman too much, as is happening now, the Connecticut senator might find himself forced to caucus with the Republicans. If so, hello Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Hey, no one forced the Democrats to support Ned Lamont for Senate instead of Lieberman. One act of loyalty deserves another.