There's not too many good things you could say good about the last several GOP-led Congresses. The prescription drug bill and McCain-Feingold are two of the train wreck pieces of legislation passed.

That said, at least they didn't have the audacity to steal a vote when they were losing it. No, leave that up to Nancy Pelosi's "Most Ethical Congress Ever":

As time expired on voting, the sitting House speaker, Rep. Michael R. McNulty, New York Democrat, declared the Republican measure had failed on a 214-214 tie vote. But because some members changed their votes in the final seconds of voting, the electronic tally board showed the vote as 215-213, indicating the motion had passed, when Mr. McNulty struck his gavel.

Republicans immediately called for the 215-213 tally to stand, and began walking off the House floor in protest when Mr. NcNulty allowed more members to change their votes. The final tally was 212-216, with the motion failing.

For those who don't understand the archaic procedures of the House, once the gavel comes down, things stop and the vote is final but that's not what happened here. The Democrats changed a vote in the House of Representatives in full-view of the country. They aren't even trying to hide their conniving ways anymore, even when all the facts show the GOP won the vote.

To make things worse, the bill will provide illegal aliens (yes, criminals) with hard-working Americans tax money. Talk about insult to injury. Hey, if you can't win on the issues, just cheat and steal. I guess if you have an approval rating of 3% on your handling of the Iraq war, you can't sink much deeper so why not drop any pretense of being ethical.

The Republican party has had its share of divisive issues, the Harriet Myers issue being the one foremost in my mind. But nothing has shaken the party like the immigration bill currently on the table. This bill has used up the most of the remaining goodwill that conservatives had for Bush (retreating from Iraq would end all of it) and will be the lasting legacy of a failed pseudo-conservative.

Look at the sides in this issue: McCain is teamed up with Kennedy, the President is teaming up with both of them and the candidates for the GOP nomination (with the exception of Fred Thompson) have kept the issue at arms length so as not to alienate voters they'll never get. The right-wing blogosphere has asked nothing from the President except to shore up the borders and not grant amnesty. Instead, he has called us out as xenophobes and nativists in so many words.

Today, conservative columnist Linda Chavez takes her potshots:

Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

Chavez must be on Rahm Emanuel's e-mail list. This is the biggest bunch of BS in quite awhile. Chavez knows damn well that the main issue conservatives have with this bill is that we would be rewarding those who broke our laws. Those same people the President will reward will cost us as a nation billions if not trillions in entitlement programs with no return from our goodwill.

I say to Chavez; what of the people who have obeyed the law and have waited to legally emigrate? Should they be slapped in the face? What also of the OTM's who include Muslims who wish us harm?

Chavez is playing the racist angle and she is despicable in doing it. Those who are against this bill have no issues with Mexicans or other Latinos. We have issues with the porous border, our lack of security and the complete disregard for our laws.

Perhaps Ms. Chavez is worried that she may actually have to pay for a housekeeper to keep her house clean instead of getting "charity cases" to do it.

Tom Tancredo, darling of the immigration reformers, announced he would run for the Oval Office:

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) formally announced Monday that he is running for president and said his campaign would be focused on combating illegal immigration.

"I am running for president to give Americans a voice, to win this fight [on illegal immigration]," Tancredo said in his announcement address on an Iowa talk-radio show.

Thanks Tom. The platform of combating illegal immigration will not be enough to win over the American public. Of course, I'm for immigration reform, yet you are a one-issue candidate, ala John Edwards, and no one can win on one issue.

I've often wondered why candidates such as Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and others think they even have a shot. On the Republican side you have heavy hitters like Giuliani, McCain and the real Thompson who has a shot -- Fred. On the donk side you have Hillary and Obama. No one else even measures up (and I'm not quite sure those two do).

First Tom, you announced on a radio show in Iowa. Granted it's a state that candidates go to every four years and grovel for votes, but jeez, at least announce at the border or something. Second, you have absolutely no name recognition among the American people.

I'm a supporter of the president because he gets it when it comes to the War on Terror. We are facing an enemy that will not quit until they accomplish their much-stated goals. That doesn't mean I believe everything the president does is correct.

This week, the media and Senate Democrats, led by the camera-hogging Chuck Schumer, started a scandal that isn't. They accused the president of replacing several U.S. Attorney's to forestall or end investigations. The fact that the president reserves the right to fire these people at will is beside the point. The fact that the charge is patently false is the point. The fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 attorneys to get them off the cases of Dan Rostenkowski and themselves is definitely the point as well.

How did Bush choose to handle this situation? He trudged Alberto Gonzalez out in front of the media and had him issue an apology that was not only unnecessary, but served to increase scrutiny. This is a hallmark of the Bush White House. He will let Pelosi and Schumer win a political battle that never should have begun. The donks get the scalp, Bush looks shady. Win-win for the Dems, poor perception for the GOP.

During the aftermath of the November elections, conventional wisdom was that the American people voted against Bush and the GOP because of the direction of the war in Iraq. What pundits failed to realize was that there was another major issue that turned voters off, especially on the conservative side. That issue is illegal immigration and President Bush's lack of action on the issue.

For those who seek the GOP nomination for President in 2008, take heed, this issue is not going away until a fence that extends from San Ysidro, CA to Brownsville, TX is erected and patrolled. John McCain is grudgingly coming around to this fact as he was quoted in the latest puff piece in Vanity Fair:

A day earlier, in Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. "In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base," he said. "In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you'll pay a heavy price." Then he added, unable to help himself, "By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."