I think one big question is WHICH Republican it would hurt. Run an establishment face-- Allen Rommney Frist whoever-- it probably hurts a lot. Run somebody who himself, rightly or wrongly, has a Perot factor as a radical outsider-- in other words McCain-- and he has a chance to stay on top of this issue. A chance.

Also, I think you dismiss the impact on Democrats a little too easily-- this kind of candidate would be aimed right at the lunchbox union voter who the Dems need to win at least some of-- but still, you're right about the big trend, the Dems only win when there's a split on the other side, and this looks like it.

For the record, I’m not a Secure Borders kind of guy. But the kind of candidate who is, would also be likely to stay the course in Iraq, and scare the bejeebus out of Iran. That’s someone I could vote for.

I think this is your most limb-straining judgment. I can easily see a populist in the Buchanan/Perot mold saying "screw the Iraqis, they gave up their chance." As for Iran, who knows how Ahmadinekook would interpret a guy willing to order bombing runs on Natanz but not Humvee patrols in Tal Afar. That being said, this is still net damage for the GOP, but I'm less optimistic that a Lou Dobbs candidacy would be positive in any way.

Well, Puerto Ricans aren't the best example, since they are legal, but point well made.

My how things have changed in the past couple years, when it looked like the Democrats were so dead the time was ripe for a third party. The Republicans have ripened it further, toward a self-juicing off the vine quest for fruition.

Agree with you, Mike. But the trouble for small government hawks (like me and the Vodkapundit) is that McCain and Giuliani are far more feasible as third-party candidates, where they can't win in a general election, than as Republicans (where they can't win in the primary).

So I think an establishment Republican versus an angry Democrat is what we're going to get. And I'm going to have a hard time voting for either over an independent I like. The only question is whether the Dem will sufficiently piss me off that I'll vote for another big spending Rep just because I can't bear a return to defeatism and the fantasy of an incentive-based diplomatic solution to Iran, etc.

My assessment of the political climate in America is that of a super-saturated solution once it starts to crystallize it will fracture both parties.

Not that there is a Party that represents me that will do these things. So we move from the Lesser of Two Evils to the Evil of Two Lessers, where no matter which party you vote for, neither has the Nation's interest at heart.

Welcome to the Zero Party State.

I would disagree with Mike G. as far as the unions: haven't they been courting illegal aliens? Haven't they been trying to branch out into Latin America? The unions would all try to convince their members this candidate is bad, he wouldn't have a chance against them. They would say as long as these workers are illegal they are "stealin yer jobs!" (to quote South Park) and that union members should want amnesty since (supposedly) it would level the playing field.

The only thing that might be good, is that more workers would wake up to the fact the unions do not have their best interests at heart. But I don't think enough of them would turn and vote non Democrat.

there was a time in this country when third parties were viable. as new single issue parties sprang up, the older more rigid parties either expanded and absorbed the ideas of the new, or died and one of the new parties became one of the famed "two" in our two party system.

those days are gone and they aren't coming back. the dems and the repubs have altered the rules to the point where third parties can't even get on the ballot. the dems took the greens to court to keep them off the ballot in the last presidential election. there was no outrage. it was barely covered by the msm and the public yawned.

unless a unique perot-like candidate occurs the third parties have been killed by the control by the two majors of the regulations and the purse.

jw

Unless African-Americans wake up and realize that the Democrats are working against their interests... Because they are the ones being hurt disproportionately by the importing of competition for low skilled and public sector jobs.

Republicans need to push a secure the borders bill. Then point out the obstructionists, loudly, pubilicly, and continuously. My wife's an immigrant. She wants the border secured, too. This issue is not a loser unless the stupid party lets it be. Of course, that's why they call it the stupid party.

If Karl Rove were so smart, Bush would have spoken at the 1 million person DC rally, after all, Bush supports Amnesty, guest-workers and is friends with Vicente Fox... Maybe if both parties had to fight over the immigrant vote (or the anti-immigrant vote) battle lines would get drawn and acted on... instead of the same old DC bullshit that changes nothing...
http://pharaohspeaks.blogspot.com/2006/04/politics-of-immigration.html

You know everyone is doing hand ringing about the latino vote. I don't deny its presence but there is another larger block -- the other 85% that has been consistent in saying -- "NO MORE". This is a classic case of product market cannabilization applied to the political arena.

Do the parties venture to get that 15% of the latino vote while still trying to keep their current market share? As in business, the question is, does the new market look to be equal or bigger than the current market? The answer at this time is patently NO. So both parties are screwed if in reaching for that new market they lose too much of the old.

The play? Take the hard line in the old market of voters and propose and fund The Fence. To the latino voters its a two pronged approach 1) For US Hispanic citizens point out to them that they are the economic canary in the mine. Devaluation of their labors, due to illegal immigration, devalues them. 2) That the US is not opposed to nonemployment extended stay visitor visas for family members so long as they have proof of health insurance. This defuses the family ties issue that keeps being brought up. It also prevents the collapse of the healthcare system.

Is it too late to try to redefine the message to pro-legal immigration vs. anti-illegal immigration?

It would take a concerted and coordinated effort from Bush on down. While many of us want to gag at the thought of another Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty, if 1) the visa quotas were raised to 500,000 2) employers were forced to use a website to verify the name and SSN of all hirees in order to deduct their wages and benefits and 3) illegals were denied access to benefits -- I could choke down my bile one more time.

Short of that (which is an admitted LONG shot) I'm ready to split tickets and keep Congress mired in less dangerous inactivity.

How's this for a third-party candidate's sound bite:

"We need to clean up our immigration policies. I'm for closed borders with lots of open gates. Legal immigrants will be greeted with open arms; illegal immigrants with handcuffs and a one-way ticket back home. You are welcome to our land with respect, honor, and the expectation of contribution and good deeds. If you can't fulfill on that through legal channels, then don't bother coming."

Too harsh? Too empty? Can't say a whole lot in 30 seconds.

Just musing....

nukeemhill-well said. my thoughts exactly.

jw

Another thing to remember about the current labor movement, the fastest growing (and therefore most politically influential) segment of it is the government employee unions. They obviously have an incentive to promote both amnesty (which increases the number of clients for government services) and increased illegal immigration (which increases demand for enforcement efforts provided by government workers).

There is NO way that the Republicans (while not good in this area) are as bad or worse then democrats on controlling spending. Yes democrats complain about the deficit, but other than on the military, democrats also COMPLAIN HOW REPUBLICANS ARE CUTTING TOO MUCH OR NOT SPENDING ENOUGH.

The 3rd-party candidate would only hurt the Repub candidate, as it always has.

On a previous topic I commented about forming a new party.

That was shortsighted.

The correct strategy:

Support the more conservative primary challenger, making the point to the incumbent. This may or may not cost the seat in the general election, depending on the candidates. If the incumbent survives, a message has been sent. If the challenger prevails, an opportunity for conservatism is apparent.

When the general election rolls around, you have to vote for the Repub candidate, whoever it may be.

As fed up as we all are with the crop of RINOs, they are doing far less damage than the Socialist-Marxist Dems would do if given the majority of either or both houses. Make the point in the primary, but DO NOT STAY AT HOME on election day, and don't vote 3rd-party out of spite.

That way brought us 8 years of Klinton.

For President, ditto -- support your preference in the primaries, but in the general election there is no logical choice to pulling the lever for the Repub candidate, be it McCain, Frist, or any other RINO.

At this point it would seem to be all about limiting the damage, short of out-and-out revolution.

"For President, ditto -- support your preference in the primaries, but in the general election there is no logical choice to pulling the lever for the Repub candidate, be it McCain, Frist, or any other RINO."

Ooops...should read:

"...there is not logical choice OTHER THAN pulling the lever..."

"Run somebody who himself, rightly or wrongly, has a Perot factor as a radical outsider-- in other words McCain-- and he has a chance to stay on top of this issue. A chance."

McCain is a big open borders guy. He'd have zero chance on this issue.

Some of the labor unions are helping to organize the illegal alien marches, they're looking for memebers there.

I'm about as enthusiastic for a war on migrant workers as I am for a renewed war on cocaine. After waiting 20 years for the Republicans to become classic liberals and the Libertarians to become realistic, I've given up. We're going to wind up with the Democrats, an ideologically dead party, running Congress because the Republicans, as soon as they get a little power, always begin alienating (pun intended) large blocs of voters. First it was homosexuals, and now it's the 40 million-strong Latino-American bloc.

At the end of the day, the Republicans are only partially capitalist, and in 2006 that's simply not good enough.

I'm with The Snob, a "Secure Borders" candidate will just as likely be an isolationist candidate, more than willing to retreat back into a myth of security in defense (or, as it applies to the immigration issue "security in da fence").

That said, I believe a strong third party candidate will always hurt the Republican because the core Democrat voters are much more party loyal than the core Republican simply by nature of the parties. The Democrats have evolved as a diverse group of individual issue groups bundled together for easy packaging and sales. The gay lobby, abortion industry, race peddlers, environmental neo-paleolithics all know that any political strength they enjoy is purely a factor of their association with the Democrat party and will never jump ship.

Of course you have to have a candidate first. All third party movements are personality driven first and issues second. The exception was the Republican party in the 1850s.

So who is this person? Currently in my view they don't exist. There is simply no credible candidate to run this crusade. Some obscure Colorado Congressman or Patrick Buchanan won't get it done. Perhaps someone has a name I have not thought of, if so let me hear it.

If such a candidate does emerge it helps Hillary Clinton greatly. The media will allow her to play the issue anyway she wants and keep her moonbat base and she wins the election with 40% of the vote.

The only GOP candidate that could pull it out under this scenario would be Rudy Gulliani. He has the terror credentials and can appeal to security conservatives.

Let us all hope it doesn't come to this.

Peter Boyles, morning talk show host on 630 AM KHOW, has been covering the immigartion issue the last several weeks.
Website has mpr and podcasts of his show, with interviews with Victor Davis Hanson, Zapata County Sheriff Ziggy Gonzalez, Weld County D.A. Ken Buck & Sheriff John Cooke, Los Angeles Talk Show Host Terry Anderson, Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi and legal immigration activist Yeh Ling Ling.

Peter also took his show to southern Arizona this week to talk to locals there about the illegals who cross there.

Of course you have to have a candidate first. All third party movements are personality driven first and issues second. The exception was the Republican party in the 1850s.

I agree with this, but I think it's only half the picture. Sure, a personality helps, but for the party to endure it requires more that a personality; see the Bull Moose Party and the Reform Party.

Single issue parties, if they're lucky, endure the same fate as the issue involved. Once it's been settled, the party's over.

I've been watching Kadima since Sharon first created it in November. Born in November, in power in March. And of course Sharon has been out of the picture since January, but Kadima survived because Sharon built the party around more than himself: he built it around disengagement, the fence, and moderate economic policies.

For a third US party to endure, it must be about more than a personality or an issue. It must be about a vision, and not a narrow philosophical vision as per the Libertarians, but a broad vision sufficient enough to keep a big tent inflated.

"but for the party to endure it requires more that a personality; see the Bull Moose Party and the Reform Party."

Please note that in both cases, the Republicans were harmed. The Bull Mooses got TR in for awhile, but that was all, and Taft was swept away. Perot siphoned votes away from Bush I and Dole, giving Clinton the big prize.

A viable third party will not rise from below; it will be the result of a major split from on of the two main parties -- similar to the Bull Mooses, but as Peter Jackson says, it has to be about more than the person to have staying power.

Here is anlother article about the Third Party wild card for 2008. This will really confuse people, as what is 'right' and what is 'left' will not be clear at all. Read the article.

Let me clear up my position. Immigration is a single issue. Like Perot and the deficit, Wallace and state's rights etc. Whoever addresses that issue will gain those voters but it will harm the GOP in the short run.

I just do not see a candidate that can carry this banner that would get more than 5% of the vote. Yes that would be damaging to the Republicans and certainly put a Democrat in the White House. If that is the main fear I agree with that fear. But as a lasting movement I just don't see it unless both parties completely ignore the issue which is not the history of third party movements.

I had not considered the Israel example. I'm not up on Israeli politics and the formation of the new party that holds power. But I believe it was personality driven in the beginning and may have won because of loyalty to that one person, time will tell.

I really believe in the modern era of American politics the personality must come first if the issue is to go anywhere. I'm still waiting for a suggested candidate of this yet to be named political party.

The union leadership may be reaching out to illegals, but I can guarantee you most union members, or at least those who understand the whole supply/demand thingy, oppose wide open borders. There have even been some MSM articles which have hinted at the enmity toward illegals from American blacks and legal Hispanics. And the more these folks hear about how illegals don't pay medical bills or traffic tickets, or fill up the jails, the fewer will want the open border. Remember these are the people who live in the neighborhoods effected by the influx of illegals....they see it much more clearly than most white collar types. And they aren't impressed.

/Go to a truck stop or big industrial plant and ask around if you doubt me. My Dad's in trucking.

Guliani is an open borders kind of guy, so he really doesn't count here. Unfortunately, because otherwise I love him in 08.

Remember that the whackos in submandave's post (neopaleoevirowhackos, ActUp, AlSharpton, etc) are not a large percentage of the 51% dems need to win. They are just the most vocal and obnoxious. I'd give them 25% of the electorate tops.

Illegal immigration is really at least five issues: (1)The current illegals -probably manageable. Most are hard-working honest people and the economy can accomodate them, (2) The continuing and possible future flow of illegals - not manageable. We can't take in everyone from Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East who sees the US as a shortcut to a better life, (3) The equity issue - factory owners and wealthy individuals get cheap labor while the middle class gets stuck with the bills for educating children and dealing with medical care - this is where immigration opponents need to concentrate their fire, (4) The security issues - mainly from the continuing flow, not from the existing population at the moment - The bulk of the existing illegals are probably not much of a security threat, but that could change if the economic/social problems in Mexico lead to a Hugo Chavez type gaining power there, and (5) Another equity issue: The existing illegals are line=cutters. They cut in line in front of the people who actually went through the legal process of trying to become a citizen. Giving current illegals citizenship ahead of people who are actually trying to become citizens legally is (a) Unfair, and (b) A real bad precedent which will cause further problems down the road.

Given all of the above, why not simply say that as of date X (maybe retroactive to the beginning of serious discussion of the bill) it is a felony to enter the country illegally, and anyone caught doing so is barred for life from attaining citizenship or any other form of legal residence in the United States.

Anyone who can prove that they have resided in the United States before X date would remain in their current legal limbo while we sort out the rest of the solution, which I could see being something on the order of them getting in line behind the people currently seeking citizenship through legal channels and being processed through the normal legal methods.

As to the issue of wealthy people getting the benefit and the middle/working class picking up the tab, why not set things up so that localities can sue individuals and companies with a pattern of hiring illegals for the cost of educating/setting up infrastructure for the illegals and their families, with some punative damages tossed in. Sounds fair to me.

So where does this lead:

Given the campaign finance laws the only viable third-party presidential candidate is a billionaire like Ross Perot. Recall that PJB received sizable votes in both the 1992 and 1996 primaries and then tanked completely when he ran as the Reform Party candidate in 2000. That was my last Presidential vote(for Buchanan). Two years after that I left the country.

The people of the US are suicidal; they have been indoctrinated by the MSM, neocons and loonitarians into thinking that everyone on the planet(except sometimes the French and "Islamo-fascists") is either already an American or a proto-American.Once they get a job in the US they are "Americans". A nation which thinks of itself purely in terms of Economic Man is doomed to experience a nasty demise.

A viable third party will not rise from below; it will be the result of a major split from on of the two main parties

The genius of Kadima was that it nailed both Labor AND Likud, and garnered independent grassroots support as well. That's the recipe for success I'm counting on.

You just can't "nail" both political parties on a single issue like immigration. The war against Islamo Fascism would be such an issue, not illegal immigration.

The Democrats have far more to lose from a strong emphasis on stopping illegal immigration. Just ask yourself: Would the Reagan Democrats have been happy with open borders? There's a reason Simpson-Mazzoli didn't happen until 1986. Take the percentage of Democrats who voted for Reagan in 1984 away from Hillary and take the percentage of Republicans/Libertarians who voted for Perot in 1992, and would otherwise have voted for Bush 41, away from the Republican candidate, and who wins?

Patrick1!

Israelis woun't vote for Labor because of their preference for appeasement and socialist economics. The beef with Likud was due to their support of a "one state" solution vis-a-vis Palestinians and their stance supporting "welfare for the Orthodox."

The US is in a similar situation. Both parties have "triangulated" for so long that in most ways they resemble each other a lot but no longer represent any constituency very well. That's one of the reasons the Democrats are so keyed on Iraq. It's the one issue where they can really distinguish themselves from Republicans.

The Futurist's article linked above in jwoks' post above talks about scattering the left and right over a vertical axis of pro golobalization and isolationists. It inspired me to write a post that contains a plot of that idea showing which quadrant some of us fall into. http://www.yankeewombat.com/?p=110

Like Vodkapundit and a lot of you I find it hard to believe that this wont end up hurting the Republicans more.

About that third party. We can forget about it because the 'mother's milk' isn't there unless we have another Ross Perot. More likely, and indicated by the Orange County CA special election to replace the disgraced Duke Cunningham, is depressed voter turnout. So, what will matter is who trudges to the polls. Who e-mails their congresspeople. As the late muckraker I.F. Stone said: "All politicans are running dogs." But by God, they go where the kibbles are, don't they. E-mails, letters and phone calls do matter. Send them. Meanwhile, the Democrats and MSM media are drastically misreading this thing. The 'far right' is the poster kid, but it speaks for a massive silent majority that is appalled by the demonstrations. The screaming left base - cozily in bed with big agriculture and big business - may be ready to open the borders, but guess which demographic group is most concerned about illegal immigration? Seniors, folks. Those dependable voters who embrace tradition and worry about their Social Security checks. Long-time legal Hispanic citizens are pretty quiet, but they are concerned about the illegals. Those groups are followed by environmentalists, who keep their mouths shut but know population increases suck up resources that are going going gone. Followed by private sector labor union rank and file men and women worried sick about losing everything. Followed by parents with kids in schools clotted with illegals' kids. Followed by a huge majority of the 75 percent of our native population that does not have education beyond high school. Followed by the parents of the nearly fifty percent of all American children who depend for their daily bread on a parent with a high school education or less. Followed by all those guys in their 50s who used to have union jobs and now are working janitorial jobs paying not much more than the minimum wage. Followed by 'Green Party' liberals who know in their hearts that their beloved 'sustainable communities' cannot sustain the immigrant influx. Followed by anyone who has survived airport security in order to board an airplane. As much as the politicos want us to believe this is the usual party food fight, and as much as the nightly talk pundits throw the game that way, the real story is that almost everybody is worried about the 'border.' Almost everybody is wondering when on earth we are going to secure it. So, watch for candidates who stand up for secure borders and throw spitballs at the immigrants' rights crowd. The situation is grave, but it is not yet lost. Remember what Admiral Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve." We are the giant.

In order to secure the industrial north (e.g. MI, OH, PA) and the southeast against an anti-im third party candidate, the Republicans will need to tap into a Black candidate for VP (Condi Rice, Ken Blackwell) with a Frist or Allen middle of the road conservative. Remember most of your anti-immigrant guys arent exactly fond of Motown, Gospel or HipHop either. He who is may be the unstoppable one. however more likely is a swap of the southwest and FLA to the Dems for the great lakes + MD (except Illinois) to the Republicans. A Tancredo would win the upper intermountain states and maybe a MO and WV.

All that is needed is for the 3rd party to take 4-5% of the popular vote. That would give Hillary the Presidency with just 46% of the vote.

Nader got 2% in 2000. Without Nader's cannibalization, Gore would have won Florida and NH, and the Presidency.

Actually I think a Democratic takeover of Congress would offer an opportunity for the Republicans. Consider what they have right now. A runaway deficit, an unpopular war with a policy dead Administration, and dysfunctional leadership at both ends of Capital Hill. What would happen if the Democrats tookover.
First, it would force the Republicans to take a serious look at their leadership and make some hard philosophical decisions they can't make while they are trying to hold onto power.
Secondly, it would require Bush to work with the Democrats and the Democrats to work with Bush. The most sucessful two term Presidents in the last fifty years did so with Congress's of the other party. Bush's sucessful Governorships were working with a Democratic legislatlure.
Third any Democratic Majority would be small and the Republican's could win back the Congress in a few years if they can get their act together.
Finally it is inevitable that the Democrats will eventually win at least one house of Congess in a few years. It is best to do so while Republican's are in the White House and hold the veto pen.
The Bush Presidency is in a state of collapse. The only thing that can revitalize it is a change in Congress. The irony of 2006 is that the only thing that can save the Republicans is a Democratic victory.

Anyone interested in reducing the size and scope of government should leave the GOP which has clearly become a conservative Socialist Party to match up with the liberal Socialist Party that the Democrats have become.

Then support candidates that truly advocate limited, constitutional government, such as ones in the Libertarian Party.

Their candidates may not win but you can feel good about your vote knowing that you have not contributed to the growing of Big Mommy/Big Daddy government.

The only way a 3rd Party Candidate for '08 will work is if there're 3rd Party members of Congress in '06. Remember the old Whig Party turning into the Republican Party?

What would have to be done is to have a sizeable number of congressmen who get elected/re-elected this November to switch their party affiliation to a new 3rd party just before they are sworn into office in early Jan '07. The number of congressmen would have to be a plurality, but not necessarily a majority, thereby gaining control of the Speakership and Majority Leader positions. And they all would have to have some basic tenants that they all agree to (could be the center-right Republicans with the center-right Dems).

With the "new" party entrenched for two years, it makes way for an '08 presidential candidate who mirrors that party's central tenants.

That's the ONLY way a 3rd Party can flourish (IMHO).

There are certainly enough diverse ideas posted on this blog I don't think I can add anymore and since I have already decided what I plan on doing I will post it here.
Unless there is a bill passed and signed by the president before the November election I will stay home election day.
The bill had better be an enforcement only bill that includes totally fencing or walling off the border. I can hear all the politicians moaning "It can't be done, it's impossible". BALDERDASDH!
I am MAD.
We elected Republican legislators because we were told(by them) they shared our values and they listened to their constituents. All we got in return was lies.
I don't know if a defeat in 2006 is what they need but it is definitely what they deserve.

"I'm for closed borders with lots of open gates."

Catchy,"Business as usual" not so much.

"You are welcome to our land"

Errr,isn't this what both parties have been saying for 20 years?
Along with..
"free health care,welfare,food stamps,free bi-lingual education for your kids and don't worry,we're picking up the tab".?

"if Karl Rove were so smart"...Bush wouldn't be screwing over the base every chance he gets.

"to get that 15% of the latino vote while still trying to keep their current market share? As in business, the question is, does the new market look to be equal or bigger than the current market? The answer at this time is patently NO."

Actually more like 3% and George W Yeltsin and party have probably already lost 3 times that many from the base already,including me.

"is that McCain and Giuliani are far more feasible as third-party candidates"

McCain is all about McCain.Giuliani is a liberal Dem,only on "law and order" does he stand out from that pack.As mayor,outstanding,but having a pro-gay,pro-abortion,pro-gun control guy with a shoot first mentality makes me queasy.

Which doesn't mean....

"where they can't win in a general election, than as Republicans (where they can't win in the primary)."

This IS the party that sent Bob Dole up in '96.

Bob Dole,people.

"For the record, I?m not a Secure Borders kind of guy"

And for the record,I expect open borders types to maintain a graceful but embarrassed silence as they pay that retro-active tax increase to cover the "Ted Kennedy National Health Care Act"(and all the other new entitlements the buy..I mean,umm..make our new fellow citizens feel at home.)

And in the event of a nuke going off,I suggest running like hell from the pissed off mobs.

And one final point for the war hawks here.

All over the world people who don't like us are saying..

"America?What's to worry?Those limp dicks can't handle Mexico!MEXICO!Naaaa,we got it made.Hyperpower?Yeaaaaaa,I gotcha hyperpower right HERE,baby.".

Who did John Anderson hurt in 1980? Who did Ralph Nader hurt in 2000? I do foresee a 3rd party candidate, have been thinking about it for a while. I am furious over the immigration issue, and live in an area where it is rare to hear Spanish. Even a candidate that took just a few million votes away from George Allen (my guess for Rep candidate) would propel Hillary to the WH. Perot took 19 million votes (not all Rep, but enough).

Had to form my own party of one: The Jacksonian Party because it is no worse than Democrats not understanding democracy or Republicans not standing up for the Republic. At least I know where I stand on the issues, foreign and domestic.

A shame there is no real party out there that represents that. Kinda sad when you have to form a one-man party... but at least I know I am not running for anything! Can't take the stress of fundraising and campaigning... or even walking around much, come to that. But at least I have a party that knows where I stand! And that is always a 'plus' in my book.

GOP Campaign to Focus on
Flag Burning,
Gay Marriage,
Abortion

headline from Fox news.
why don't they just fed-ex the keys to the senate to DNC HQ?
it'd be faster and save $$