President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq. The cynicism of that maneuver is only slightly less shameful than the president’s distorted priorities. Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children’s health care.Mr. Bush is threatening to veto most of the 12 domestic spending bills now before Congress because Democrats want to provide $22 billion more than the $933 billion he has requested. His argument? Something about the president’s responsibility to rein in lawmakers’ “temptation to overspend.”

The New York Times

What’s another $200 billion? After all, the National Debt is only approaching $9 trillion. That’s just a drop in the bucket.

I think the Times makes a point that will resonate with a lot of people. Bush is vetoing all of this domestic spending while asking for tenfold in Iraq. While I am very much against SCHIP, if the government is hell bent on flushing $200 million dollars down the crapper on foreign nation building, I’d rather see that money spent on our own people rather than those half a globe away.

From The Corner at National Review Online:

On the one hand, the results look encouraging for Giuliani – 64 percent said his views on abortion and gay rights would either make them more likely to vote for him or make no difference. But that 21 percent for whom it would make them more likely to vote against him is a pretty big number. And in perhaps the most important finding in the poll, Gallup also asked Republicans and Republican leaners whether Giuliani is “generally pro-life or pro-choice, or are you unsure?” Eight percent said Giuliani is pro-life, 37 percent said pro-choice, and 55 percent said unsure. Those numbers are a change from January, when 16 percent said Giuliani was pro-life, 20 percent said he was pro-choice, and 64 percent weren’t sure. It could be that the voters for whom that matters greatly already know Giuliani’s position, or it could be that that 55 percent includes voters who will turn against him once they learn more about him.

If more than half of Republicans surveyed “don’t know” Mayor Giuliani’s position on life, but will certainly learn as primaries come nearer and nearer, this might explain his commanding lead that is confusing to some, and how easily it can (and will, in my opinion) slip away.

This is the kind of news you wouldn’t want to wake up to if you were on the Thompson campaign. Fred got his nose tweaked by Romney.

WASHINGTON - The Senate rejected Wednesday an attempt to move ahead with a bill to allow illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military.The vote to move ahead on the Dream Act (the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), got 52 votes, eight short of the 60 needed.Among those voting against moving ahead with the bill were eight Democrats, even though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appealed to his majority to back him.

MSNBC

Amnesty in disguise fails yet again. This just reiterates what a powerful issue this is to Americans. Ogonowski gained significant ground on this issue in the People Republic of Taxachusetts. If Republicans hit this issue hard next year we could have a great chance of taking back some swing districts we lost in rural America. Also, though it is three years away, a strong Republican challenger to Harry Reid in 2010 could nail him on this.

And, as we enter the final push before primary votes are cast, Romney has accomplished a remarkable objective: He has gone from being a little-known governor of a liberal-leaning Democratic state to the leading Republican candidate in public opinion polls in both critical early-primary states, New Hampshire and Iowa.

In other words, by historic measures, Romney is better-positioned to win the nomination than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — both of whom are trouncing him in national surveys.

Politico

Oh God, say it isn’t so.  If the Ken doll gets the nomination we’re doomed in ‘08.

Nobody will argue that Republicans are all of a sudden favorites to take back the Senate, but recent developments suggest that things are looking up.  In Nebraska, first former Gov. Mike Johanns entered the race.  Then former Sen. Bob Kerrey decided against a bid, all but sealing the deal for Johanns (or Bruning, should he pull off a stunning upset in the primary).  In Texas, Mikal Watts, who was planning to self-finance his campaign, just shut down his exploratory committee.  In Louisiana, Rep. Bobby Jindal just got elected Governor, further shifting the balance of power within the state, while Republican Senate nominee-to-be John Kennedy was reelected Treasurer without opposition.  In North Carolina, Democrat state Rep. Grier Martin decided against a challenge to Sen. Elizabeth Dole.  Earlier this week, Kos released a poll showing Sen. Collins (not my favorite Republican, but a Republican without significant primary opposition) thrashing Democrat Rep. Tom Allen 56-33.

Does this mean that we have a realistic chance of taking back the Senate next year?  No, but it does suggest that the potential Democrat tsunami that has gotten been discussed lately probably won’t happen.  The long and short of it is that we’re going to lose seats, but the potential for a super-Majority that had gotten some chatter recently is now once again looking like a pipe-dream.  This isn’t exactly reason for celebration, but it’s certainly a relief that we’ll now have to work to hold 45-47 seats rather than having to put in the same effort to hold 41.