The GOP is toast in '08

This change to the bill is just frosting on the cow-pie, but I'm not sure AWW is correct. Hilary is just too off-putting and a leftist trying (some of the time) to disguise it, and Obama is a Chicago machine left/liberal who spouts platitudes. I think Fred Thompson could take them both.

AWW,

This doesn't matter. The ball is in Harry Reid's court. At a 19% approval rating, he can be very adept at sitting on his hands.

He, like Bush, is so bad, he's good.

PapayaSF - agree but when you've got a bill being passed that about 70% of the public opposes it is hard to feel confident about their prospects. Not mention the Bush/Rove political instinct machine seems to have been broken since 2005.

Brad - insiders know that Reid is in control but the MSM and casual follower are all hearing that this is Bush's bill i.e. a GOP bill. Plus this is a much divisive issue for the GOP base than the Dem base. GOP losses in '06 were higher than expected because a larger portion of the GOP base simply sat out in disgust. Hard to see with issues like this the GOP base showing up in '08 either.

Most Republicans support amnesty and merely emotional issues have short shelf lives.

The real Wahoos will turn out to vote against Obama.

I will say this: While I still think that the bill won't pass, I know what the turning point will have been should a bill get passed. That would be when Bush made his statements about the Wahoos that oppose any "comprehensive immigration reform package." He showed he wasn't going to get pushed around on this issue.

Makes one wonder why a guy with an average approval rating of 33% would have anyone willing to help him.

Yeah, there's a lot of tin-eared political instincts around this.

Orrin, the average GOPer might be said to support amnesty for the 12 million+ here now, but not if it just means an invitation to the 100 million more illegals you want to see here.

I agree with AWW. Republicans are finished in '08. Democrats are fighting Republicans, Republicans are fighting Republicans. You do the math.

They will once they're here.

Boy, I wish I had a Krugerrand for everyone who said the GOP is "Doomed! Dooooooomed!" every time there's a minor policy disagreement.

There's nothing for Democrats to fight about because they have no ideas. They just react to W. Idealess parties lose.

Bryan - this isn't minor. In addition to the nativists the national security types, who have been sticking with Bush and the GOP over the war, are now pulling away over this.

Idealess parties lose - except in '06.

"Idealess parties lose". Except when they don't.

Parties with divided supporters lose.

Immigration reform is the right thing to do.

If it costs the GOP the election in 2008, I hope the yahooos and national security types enjoy the Democratic bill in 2009 that eliminates the enforcement provisions.

I don't know, Sam, the mob side of the GOP has been exploding about every six months since Mr. Bush got elected. At what point does fatigue set it? I know how much nicer it is to be pure, untouched by the political process, but are you guys really pushing for President Clinton? You, Perot, Pat. A select group of people.......

The myth of GOP unity is a ludicrous canard. No party of ideas can ever be much unified. Over the last few cycles you had Reagan nearly knock off a sitting president, who then nearly won the election despite the pardon deal. You had John Anderson run as a third party candidate. You had a bitter fight between GHWB and Dole, yet Bush won easily. You had a challenge to Bush and Dole from a third party candidate and it was still barely enough to elect Clinton either time. You has a bitter fight between W and McCain yet W still beat a sitting VP in a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

All of the fights pitted social conservatives vs the more socially liberal/libertarian portion of the party.

The losses came exclusively to Southern evangelical governors.

The Right's hysteria means nothing for '08. There is no Ross Perot for them and Tancredo is faring so poorly he's essentially folded his operation. They'll back the nominee.

The "national security types" are the Zeus worshippers who opposed W last time, over social issues. The last thing they want is 100 million peon Christians flooding the zone. As '00 showed, they are marginal to the party and get in line after the base nominates a conservative.

The above two comments are OJ's refrain of "50-0" sates that Bush was going to carry in 2004, and the 60-40 Senate that the Republicans were going to have in 2006.

In the first instance, Bush barely sneaked by an "idealess" candidate, and in the latter, the party got hammered by an "idealess" party. Now, the stupid party leadership is pushing a proposal with even less appeal than the Iraq war. Go figure.

Yes, the occupation is a bad idea and has acted as a drag on the party. If only W and Rove were as cynical as the Left thinks they are the good politics of leaving would have trumped the bad policy of staying.