Is it possible to find a middle ground on the right in the immigration debate that can unite both sides and forestall the eventuality of schism and holy war that would lead to disaster at the polls in November for Republicans?

Perhaps. If people were to get off their haunches and sit down like the friendly, rational, adults that we truly are, it may not be too late to salvage something from this mess. Let’s examine what we have in common before looking at where we part company.

First, and most importantly, there isn’t a conservative out there who isn’t for strengthening our borders. I think there is also overwhelming agreement that this issue should take precedence over all others. Shore up the borders first, then deal with the other problems.

How to accomplish this is open to question. But certainly most conservative would argue for some kind of physical barrier and increased border patrols. The President has already informed us that he supports an end to “catch and release” along the southern border (why not everywhere?) as well as the construction of additional fencing and more border agents – augmented by the National Guard on a temporary basis who we assume will be handling the logistics of this increased effort.

Secondly, most conservatives support putting much more emphasis on assimilating new arrivals. This includes respecting the heritage and culture of the United States (without surrendering any pride in their native culture in the slightest) as well as adopting English as a primary language. To some, that makes us “Latinphobes.” (Leave it to liberals to invent a new name to call their political enemies whenever they’re losing an argument with the American people.)

What it makes us is America Firsters. Lost in all the debate on this issue is the clear delineation between the open borders crowd and those of us who want sanity and the exercise of our sovereignty on border issues; some of us are looking out for the interests of the United States of America first and foremost while others, to put it charitably, are just as concerned with what Vicente Fox thinks about all this.

I have nothing against President Fox. He seems a typical Mexican President, perhaps even a little less corrupt than what the Mexican people have had to put up with in the past. But he seems to think that the border between Mexico and the United States is his own private fiefdom, a Mexican preserve. Any demonstration of US sovereignty such as increasing patrols or moving troops closer to the border to assist in securing it is met with statements that seem to suggest the United States has no right to stop Mexican citizens from entering the US illegally. If Fox is smart, he will keep his mouth shut on this issue and let Americans decide it without any nonsense from his office. His threat to sue if the National Guard actually takes part in rounding up illegals is a stupendous blunder as it only proves the point I made above; President Fox thinks that he has a say in the internal affairs of the United States.

What many of us desire above all else is simply a more nationalistic approach to the problem of border security. If that means Vicente Fox throws a tantrum, so be it.

Conservatives generally agree on all of the above. The problem is that there seems to be a total lack of trust regarding the Bush Administration’s commitment to rectifying our border security problems. I never thought I’d see the day where conservatives would abandon President Bush on a matter of national security. The Anchoress has a good perspective on this:

I have to tell you folks, your passion is not persuading. What it is doing is suggesting to me that – as he did on the issue of Embryonic Stem Cells – President Bush is trying to find a way to deal with this decades-in-the-making problem that will work in the real world, in the world “as it is,” and not as you would like it to be or wish to believe it might be. Pope John Paul II also said – often – that we had to deal with the world, “as it is,” if we were going to foment change that was just, lasting and effective. Everything a president does cannot be popular – or exactly right – all the time, but my goodness, taking into account all the ways this man has delivered, (in the face of a spineless GOP and a heated and hostile opposition) I’d say the scales still fall in his favor.

We all have many issues with the way President Bush has carried out his duties as President. But the unreasoning “mouthfoaming” as the Anchoress calls what’s been passing for analysis of the President’s immigration speech is simply beyond my understanding. I was not prepared for the virulence, the over the top rhetoric used by some of my friends on the right not about the President’s ideas but about the President’s character.

This is not conducive to the effort of trying to reach a compromise on anything which leads me to believe that while some of us may be willing to reach out and meet our brethren halfway, there has yet to be any reciprocal gestures on the part of those whose views differ.

The point being, are you on the other side interested in getting something done about immigration or are you more willing to destroy the party, this President, and perhaps the country simply because you believe you are more right than everyone else?

Tony Blankley:

The president has moved measurably, but insufficiently, toward that position. He has offered about 6,000 new Border Patrol agents. That number is insufficient by a factor of about four — the probable need is between 20,000 and 30,000 agents. He has, for the first time, agreed to some structural barriers and sensor technologies — but his vagueness on the details suggests that we will have to hard bargain for substantially more than he has in mind. The 6,000 National Guardsmen that he proposed for one year in limited roles are essentially rhetorical window dressing. But if we get sufficient permanent forces, structures and technologies mandated and fully funded in law that will suffice.

President Bush has made significant movement toward the hardcore conservative position on border security. If we could temporarily suspend our disbelief and distrust and examine what he’s proposing, I see much for conservatives to agree on. Not enough border agents? Let’s work to add them in conference committee. Ditto the fence issue. And stiffer penalties (and rabid enforcement) for employers who hire illegals would, as Mr. Blankley points out, help reduce the flow of lawbreakers to a trickle.

As for the issues that divide the two sides, they are certainly serious and can’t be swept under the rug. Many of us draw the line at rounding up illegals already here and placing them in camps while they await their deportation hearing. Yes they’ve broken the law and should not be rewarded for doing so. But such a policy is not politically viable. The American people, the press, the left, and many of us on the right would never stand for it.

And Bush’s insistence on including some kind of amnesty program – call it what you will – will almost certainly be opposed by the House conference committee members. Some compromise may emerge that is more acceptable than what the President has proposed although I can’t imagine anything pleasing those of us who oppose it. But remember, we’re trying to compromise here – give a little, take a little. If we have to barter some kind of guest worker program for more border control agents and more miles of fencing, would it be worth it to you?

As Blankley points out, we should be concentrating on what is politically possible – that is, if we want any kind of immigration reform at all:

If — and it is a big if — all of that can be gained by congressional negotiations over the next two months, the question remains whether the anti-illegal immigrant and resident movement should accept some undesirable guest-worker or path-to-citizenship provisions — if that is the price we have to pay for getting a secure border.

This is where the sanity matter comes into play. Especially regarding the guest-worker provision, if we pass no legislation this year we will continue to have a de facto guest-worker program with millions of new arrivals every year and no secure border. Moreover, it is inconceivable that the November election will elect a Congress more amenable to our cause. The next Congress will have, if anything, more Democrats.

Disgruntled conservatives will have no way of strengthening the anti-illegal immigrant vote: Their choice will be a soft Republican, a bad Democrat or abstention (which in effect is the same as a bad Democrat). It would seem to me that we lose nothing by trading an otherwise inevitable de facto guest worker condition for a genuinely secure border and employer sanction regimen.

Have we conservatives been in the political wilderness so long that we really have no idea what it means to govern a nation of 300 million diverse citizens, the majority of whom have different ideas on this issue than our own? Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate the best possible deal on border security that we can get while leaving some other issues for a later day?

The only other choice we have leads to no bill at all and the very real possibility that the Democrats will win in November and bury immigration reform for years.

Think about it please.

UPDATE

Judging by the emails and comments, it’s amazing how far a little civility will go in getting people to talk to each other rather than call each other names.

That said, a couple of clarifications:

1. It should go without saying that this is pretty much a debate between conservatives. We know where the Democrats stand and their lip service to “border security” is pretty unconvincing if only because they are totally unwilling to do anything more effective than shake a finger at people as they wander all over the southwest. An exaggeration, but no one believes the Democrats are serious about doing what needs to be done to actually patrol the border and put obstacles in the way of people who want to sneak across in the dead of night.

2. I must re-iterate that rounding up illegals is not a viable option – politically or morally. Jesus Christ, people! What kind of a banana republic do you think we live in if we have to keep these people in what are sure to be called “concentration camps” for years? How long would it take to have deportation hearings for 11 million people? It is not practicable.

I would be in favor of deporting illegals convicted of crimes upon their release from prison, especially those who committ a criminal act like using forged drivers licenses or social security cards to get a job. Catching them should be a higher priority than it is presently. If we increase our vigilance there plus put employers in jail for hirering illegals while dramatically increasing border security, we could really make a dent in the problem.

But like Andrew McCarthy has written , we’re kidding ourselves if we think that there’s some kind of “Big Fix” to this problem. Better to do what we can within reason to dramatically improve the situation rather than turn our borders into an armed camp or disgrace ourselves by being forced to imprison millions of people for years in order to adjudicate their cases.

***SEE UPDATE III BELOW FOR THE LATEST***

Now that all three Telecom giants who were mentioned in the original USA Today article have strenuously denied giving the government access to the kind of data mentioned, we should begin examining the possibility that the story may have gotten key elements of the NSA telephone program wrong.

This does not mean the program doesn’t exist. In fact, Senator Hatch came out yesterday and virtually confirmed that part of the NSA story:

Two judges on the secretive court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance were told of the broad monitoring programs that have raised recent controversy, a Republican senator said Tuesday, connecting a court to knowledge of the collecting of millions of phone records for the first time.

President Bush, meanwhile, insisted the government does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans. But he declined to specifically discuss the compiling of phone records, or whether that would amount to an invasion of privacy.

Meanwhile, Verizon has joined Bell South and AT&T in denying they turned over their call records to the government en masse:

One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls.

This is false. From the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago, Verizon had three major businesses – its wireline phone business, its wireless company and its directory publishing business. It also had its own Internet Service Provider and long-distance businesses. Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records. None of these companies – wireless or wireline – provided customer records or call data.

Another error is the claim that data on local calls is being turned over to NSA and that simple “calls across town” are being “tracked.” In fact, phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls. In any event, the claim is just wrong. As stated above, Verizon’s wireless and wireline companies did not provide to NSA customer records or call data, local or otherwise.

I think it could very well be that USA Today got several aspects of the story wrong. And the reason is that their source was probably unfamiliar with details of the program and just assumed that the Telecoms had cooperated. Or, it could even be that their sources had no direct knowledge of the technical aspects of the program and were guessing. Either way, it points to a disturbing trend in recent days as two news outlets – ABC and USAT - have written scare stories that have now proven to be at the very least, overblown and perhaps even factually wrong.

In ABC’s case, Brian Ross breathlessly wrote on the ABC blog The Blotter that the phone calls of ABC reporters were being “tracked.” How they got this news is like reading something right out of the Watergate era:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.

I wonder if they met in a basement parking garage?

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

This was the scare quote;”...whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.” The fact is, that was pure speculation – and not even good speculation a that. What they found in a follow up report was the legal (but admittedly troubling) practice carried out under the auspices of the Patriot Act that allow the FBI access to phone records without a warrant through the use of so-called “National Security Letters:

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being “tracked.”

“Think of it more as backtracking,” said a senior federal official.

But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

So Ross was wrong in most of his original piece that swept the internet like wildfire and instead we find that the FBI (not the NSA or CIA) is conducting a legitimate investigation using tools in the Patriot Act that were passed by Congress and signed by the President. (Note: I’m not sure if the NSL’s specifically were upheld in the various cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act). In short, absolutely nothing illegal or untoward was occurring. But if you happened to be reading lefty blogs a couple of days ago, with headlines like “This is the End,” you would have thought the Republic had fallen.

ABC News reporters calls were not being “tracked.” And now we have these categorical denials from the major Telecoms about the NSA story in USA Today.

Is this a case of scare mongering by the major media?

Unlike the first NSA story that leaked back in December, where there were literally a flood of leaks about the program following its initial release by the New York Times, there has been hardly a peep from our cadre of leakers about this aspect of NSA terrorist surveillance. No deep background explanations. In fact, very few follow up stories have been written by major media outlets. All of this leads me to believe that there is something either incomplete or just plain wrong about this story. And my guess would be that USA Today got the data collection angle wrong.

Of course, we’ll probably never know for sure given the secrecy of the program. But unless the Telecoms are just plain lying, I don’t see how you can reconcile what was written in USA Today with the statements made by the companies.

UPDATE

More breathless baloney from ABC News blog this morning:

The Department of Justice says it secretly sought phone records and other documents of 3,501 people last year under a provision of the Patriot Act that does not require judicial oversight.

The records were obtained with the use of what are known as National Security Letters, which can be signed by an FBI agent and are only for use in terrorism cases.

In the immortal words of Secretary of Defense Albert Nimzicki from Independence Day, “That’s not entirely accurate.”

First of all, there should be no doubt that what the FBI is doing is perfectly legal. We can all be leery of many aspects in the Patriot Act but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the law of the land and any aspersions cast otherwise is biased reporting.

That said, is what ABC News says the truth? In the immortal words of John Wayne’s unforgettable character Jacob McCandles from the film Big Jake, “Not Hardly.”

The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199), P.L. 109-177, and its companion P.L. 109-178, amended the five NSL sections to expressly provide for judicial review of both the NSLs and the confidentiality requirements that attend them. The sections have also been made explicitly judicially enforceable and sanctions recognized for failure to comply with an NSL request or to breach NSL confidentiality requirements with the intent to obstruct justice. The use of the authority has been made subject to greater Congressional oversight.

I’m not a lawyer but I remember when they re-authorized the Patriot Act, they made some slight adjustments that allowed for judicial oversight. ABC News has no idea of such a review took place in their case which means their statement is incorrect.

As for their use “only” in terrorism cases, that is an overstatement as the statute talks about “national security” not terrorism with regard to NSL’s.

UPDATE II

CBS News Blog is wondering about the NSA telephone story too:

Are we watching a story fall apart before our very eyes? Something is certainly going on with that USA Today front-page splash about the secret NSA program to collect and analyze all the phone calls made within the United States. The story, published last week, sparked a fierce debate about privacy and the government’s ability to spy on Americans. It drew rebukes from even administration allies. There were no blanket denials made by the administration and no protestations of inaccurate reporting by those in the know. And there were no denials made by the phone companies named in the story as having provided information to the NSA – at least until now.

[...]

It is curious that these two companies took several days to issue these denials (the story broke last Thursday and the companies did not deny it then). A BellSouth spokesperson said the company wanted to do a thorough review to ensure that no such agreement had been made. It’s also worth considering there have been several class-action lawsuits filed in the wake of the USA Today story, so that could have something to do with the denials.

Still, we’re entering some rocky territory, especially for a story about a “secret” program based entirely on anonymous sources. Given the administration’s refusal to confirm or deny the report, the company denials and the anonymous sources, it may be time to ask how we’ll ever get the truth out of this story.

Does anyone else find it laughable that CBS seems to be in a snit because the Administration won’t confirm or deny the existence of a top secret program?

Is he serious?

UPDATE III

Think Progress has unearthed a “Presidential Memorandum” dated May 5 that would direct DNI John Negroponte to release the Telecoms from their legal obligation to be truthful in their transactions and activities. The Memorandum was published in the Federal Register and refers specifically to giving Negroponte the authority to waive certain sections of the law for purposes of “national security.”

This could mean that the companies have been given leave to conceal the truth about their cooperation with the NSA in the telephone records program. Then again, since I’m not a lawyer, it could mean that the government just wanted the latest ringtones available for download.

Either way, someone should look into this with a little less of a partisan eye than the good folks at Think Progress who have been known in the past to let their enthusiasm get the better of them. (Where’s Lawyer Volokh when you need him?)

Either way, a first class piece of sleuthing on their part to dig that out.

I culled my blogroll yesterday for the very first time. Out went about 20 sites that are either defunct or which have displeased me in some way.

I don’t make a big deal about the latter as I hate blogosphere dramas. But if someone notices that they are no longer on the blogroll, it is usually because you haven’t posted regularly enough or because you’ve gone nutzo.

That said, I am taking applications for the blogroll. Preference is given to those blogs who have already linked me or are willing to. Preference doesn’t mean inclusion. There are very few sites on the roll that don’t post at least once a day. And, it should go without saying that if your site prints objectionable material, I’d say you have a better chance of getting into the Space Shuttle program than getting on my blog.

Send me an email with your blog URL and I’ll take a look.

I didn’t really feel like writing about the President’s speech because, quite simply, I didn’t feel that I had anything useful to add to either side of the debate. The President struck all the right notes but he did it in a desultory manner, as if ticking off items from a shopping list. I thought his stressing the rule of law was diminished by his throwing up his hands and saying that we can’t throw 11 million people out of the country. I agree. But there are ways that we can enforce the law without rewarding the lawbreaking.

The very good aspects of the speech include a halt to the “catch and release” of illegals (that Malkin rightly points out should be followed everywhere, not just along the southern border), the building of additional fencing, and a slightly more nationalistic tone when talking about the flag, the English language, and assimilation in general.

The bad parts of the speech…well, actions speak louder than words and Bush has a long way to go to get even part of his conservative base to rally around him on this issue. I agree with Ed Morrissey that we were probably expecting too much, that Bush has been a centrist on this issue from the get go. And AJ Strata has a good point about rallying behind a policy once it has been announced.

This is well and good and important to remember. But something else much more fundamental is at work here. Perhaps its the final realization that after more than 5 years in office, Bush will never be what we wanted him to be – a Reagan conservative.

Dan Riehl fleshes out this point in an excellent post on the possible Republican downfall:

Sure to be a tremendous disappointment to the majority of center right and conservative Americans, they could easily come to see themselves as leaderless on domestic issues for the next two years. And perhaps they are.

Over-riding the timely struggle over immigration, conservative Republicans and Reagan Democrats also have to contend with a Republican majority in the Senate which seems just as out of touch.

Without an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the Senate, and many of those now appearing to be far from conservative, it is quite possible that Democrats will be able to hide from any responsibility for our current government’s failures, saddling Republicans with most of the blame, possibly leading to electoral victory for the Democrats in the Fall. It’s unclear if even political pressure will be able to effect anything like a genuine solution on immigration this year. Certainly the President offered nothing in terms of a serious solution. And the details behind the Senate version of an immigration bill only serve to make it worse.

That Senate version, thankfully, is probably DOA once the immigration bill goes to conference. If what the Heritage Foundation says about it is true – that it will allow 100 million new immigrants in the next 20 years – House Republicans better plant their feet in concrete and not allow such a bill to see the light of day. If they do, we may be looking at revolution and not just dissatisfaction. The probability of a third party would skyrocket and President Bush would be presiding over the destruction of the modern Republican party.

Personally, I wouldn’t leave the party over immigration. There are, after all, much more important issues. For instance, what good would it do to build a fence to keep people out of a country that has been destroyed by a terrorist attack? And for my money, until the liberals show that they are serious about protecting this country (much less, as AJ points out in this jaw dropping post, that we are at war in the first place), what good does it do to switch parties? Or start a new one for that matter?

For some reason, when trying to analyze what is going on with this immigration debate, I keep hearkening back to the Civil War and the way Lincoln governed the last 2 years of his Administration.

Beset by Copperhead Democrats on the left and weak-kneed Republican moderates who were faltering in their support for the kind of brutal war that Lincoln was finally beginning to fight by 1863, the Great Emancipator turned to his hard-core base of support in the Abolitionist movement. Support for war policies that led to the rivers of blood being spilled by the spring of 1864 didn’t necessarily require all Republicans marching in lockstep as much as Lincoln being able to rely on the 1/3 of House and Senate members who were “hard war” men – people who wanted to take the war to the South and make them suffer for starting it.

Lincoln was not so much a “hard war” man as much as he was a “quick as possible end to the war” man. In this, he knew that the South must be subdued, not just defeated on the battlefield. Using the passion and energy of the hard war crowd, Lincoln was able to sustain the one commander who thought as he did; Ulysses Grant. In so doing, Lincoln assured a northern victory. What his alliance with the bitter old men meant to reconstruction didn’t concern him as much as winning the war first. He believed (even though he never got the chance) that he could control the reconstruction debate by marginalizing the hard war men and dictating a kind of peace that all Americans could live with.

Couldn’t Bush have done something similar? He has so underutilized the conservative base for 5 years, only calling on them during the election of 2004. For the rest of the time, there have been deficits, the Prescription Drug Plan, big spending initiatives, K Street shenanigans, and a host of disappointments that may have caused people to just tune him out on immigration even though some of what he says should be pleasing to the right. By trying to govern by pleasing all, he pleases none. And it has cost him much goodwill and support.

Finally, Andrew McCarthy pointed out that one of the problems is that there actually is no “Big Fix” to be had on immigration, that the best we can hope for a graded steps on the road to sanity. I think there is a lot of truth in that notion – one that conservatives should take to heart when looking at the President’s immigrations proposals. Not perfect by any means. But a pretty good place to start.

There have been many superior episodes in the history of the series and I’m sure you have your favorites. The “outing” of Nina in Season 1 should be near the top of everyone’s list. And it was hard to top the utter shock and sheer drama of the episode where Jack was forced by circumstances to execute his putative boss Ryan Chappelle on the orders of a terrorist.

And, lest anyone forget, simply saying the word “hacksaw” brings back a flood of fond memories.

But last nights taut, well written installment needs to be considered right up there with the best of them. There was drama, tension, misdirection, hidden clues, and the audience satisfaction of watching as Hayes gave Miles a Judas slap – in short, all the things that are so addictive about the show and have inspired me for two years running to write my little weekly summaries.

In this week’s New Republic, staff writer Christopher Orr analyzed the politics of the series and asked the obvious question; why its popularity?

“24” is, in some ways, the perfect cultural artifact for this post-September 11 moment. It extols patriotism but doesn’t quite believe in it, preaches a self-sacrifice it practices only intermittently, and offers up a world in which the choices are always impossible but the answers are always right. On the surface, it flatters our belief that we’re better now, more stoic and unselfish, committed to ideals larger than our individual wants and needs. But, below, it reassures us that it’s OK to place our own households first, that politics is empty if not actively corrupt, and that belief in a cause will only lead to disillusion or betrayal.

It’s been four and a half years since “24” first stepped out into the unexpected shadow of a national tragedy. But it remains to this day what it was from the beginning—the orphan of a more frivolous age, trying hard to prove it is tough and serious enough for the rigors of a post-September 11 world. Just like the rest of us.

If you can get beyond the subscription wall, you will want to read the whole thing if only for Orr’s prescient analysis of the conservative/liberal political argument about the show. I disagree with Orr in that the show has always seemed a very well written cops and robbers series with elements of a morality play and superhero comic book. The show is what it is and functions without apology to critics like Orr nor to conventional wisdom in general. The 24 universe doesn’t need politics to function properly – all it needs is the heroic self-sacrifice of most of its characters and the absolute ruthless determination of Jack Bauer and the terrorists to succeed.

This, of course, has always been the series’ fascinating dichotomy; Jack’s goals are different but perhaps he’s so good at going after the terrorists because in some very basic ways, he is just like them. This is a theme well explored in literature through all the ages and in every culture and answers an atavistic need in all of us to discover the roots of good and evil. It’s why human civilizations have laws and conventions. Without them, we actually wouldn’t be able to see the difference between Jack and the terrorists.

This has been an interesting year for the series; not quite as bloody, a little more introspective, and a more personal quest for Jack as he has lost so much, so many friends. And I learned the hard way last year not to expect too much from the finale. If we do, we are bound to be disappointed. Not all loose ends will be tied up, some plot holes will remain, and clues about next year will probably prove to be wrong.

But wild horses won’t be able to keep me from watching it.

SUMMARY

After getting the Attorney General on the phone for a conference call about the tape, the gang discovers to their horror that the voices have been erased. Hastily cancelling the call, Jack and Chloe put two and two together and come up with the prime suspect: Miles Papazian.

Jack, an avenging angel, swoops down on Miles, brushing aside the pitiful attempt to stop him by hapless CTU security. He grabs the traitorous lout by the throat. His actions, while satisfying, will not bring the tape back. Finally realizing this, he releases the toady who is then forced to confront his ex-boss Granny Hayes. Der Tru Miles, who has stood by her for years, has betrayed her and the country – not for thirty pieces of silver but for an office in the White House. He doesn’t bat an eye when he coolly informs Hayes that he is untouchable now that he is working for Logan.

The sounds of Granny’s hand smacking his face is loud and crisp but doesn’t faze Miles very much. The fool, not realizing how truly worthless his existence is to people who would no sooner give him the time of day as put a bullet in his bureaucratic brain, leaves CTU in disgrace.

The topper comes when Logan has the balls to call Hayes and inquire about the now cancelled conference call with the Attorney General. He also casually mentions that after scrambling her command for the last 5 hours in a fruitless search for Jack, she can now let Bauer go “at her own discretion.” He is oily, smarmy, and insufferably triumphant – for the moment.

That’s because Bill breaks in to inform them all that Bierko has escaped. The lone surviving agent informs them that Bierko is planning another nerve gas attack which sends the team scrambling to get on top of the situation.

At the ranch, poor Martha doesn’t know what to do. Almost swallowing enough pills to off herself, she changes her mind at the last minute. Finding Aaron’s cell phone, she asks a nearby agent to return it to him “in Washington.” The look on the agent’s face seems to convince her that somehow, Aaron is not there.

And he is not. He is in an outbuilding of the ranch, tied up in a chair, bloody but unbowed. Logan finds this out personally when he pays Aaron a visit, asking him to cooperate and forget about the tape. Aaron gives him the answer we all were hoping for:

AARON: There is nothing you have said or done that is acceptable to me in the least. You are a traitor to your country and a disgrace to your office. And it is my duty to see that your are brought to justice for what you have done.

Is there anything else?...CHARLES?

That last word is drawn out with venomous irony. It is the ultimate slap at Logan – a man formerly charged with guarding his life shows him the ultimate contempt by using his first name. Unable to answer, Logan leaves the room followed by the lickspittle Agent Adams who seems eager to off Pierce. With a look, Logan orders it done.

Jellyfish then calls Mr. Big who is surprised that the President of United States has not committed suicide. Like a 7 year old little boy telling his parents what he did in school that day, Logan tells Mr. Big how things are going swimmingly now that the tape is destroyed and Jack Bauer being out in the open so that he can be dealt with. And like an approving parent, Mr. Big tells Logan what a great job he’s doing.

Logan seems immensely pleased with himself until Mike Novik gives him the bad news about Bierko. Throwing another tantrum, Logan demands constant updates (as if they were going to keep him in the dark).

Back at CTU, the gang seems stymied. Hayes sees a possible answer first; distasteful as it may be, they will have to give an immunity deal to Henderson. Bill concurs while Jack, clearly locked into single combat mode with Banzai, violently disagrees. But there’s nothing for it, Henderson is their only hope. Jack gets Granny to let him present the deal his own way.

The scene in the holding room between Jack and Henderson is one of those delicious moments in the series that needs to be savored. The confrontation between the two – long anticipated since the first hours revealed Henderson as the bad guy – was unusually well done.

Bauer doesn’t talk to Henderson as much as he spits out his hate. After entering the holding room, the two size each other up. Jack, trying to be menacing. Henderson, curious but at ease. Jack informing Henderson of Bierko’s escape hardly causes Buckeroo to blink. And he sees almost immediately what’s going on; Jack needs him and will offer him a deal to help catch the terrorist. Appealing to his patriotism doesn’t work. And Henderson’s speech justifying his actions echoes the words of every traitor from Klaus Fuchs to Philip Agee who has tried to justify their crimes by hiding behind the flag:

HENDERSON: I’m sorry about David Palmer. I am. But what I did, I did in the interest of the destiny of this country and I’m not talking about the version you read about on the OpEd pages of the New York Times. I’m talking about the politics of survival, the way the world really works.
(Pause)

JACK: You want immunity or not?

HENDERSON: Immunity is worthless.

That’s because the tape was the only thing standing between Henderson and an ignominious death at the hands of his co-conspirators. When Jack asks who they are, Henderson laughs him off; “You don’t think Charles Logan masterminded this whole thing, do you?” Jack drops his inquiry into the conspiracy for the moment and concentrates on Bierko. Yes, Henderson will help but on his terms.

The information that Henderson gives CTU strikes gold; one of the names on the list, arms dealer Joseph Molino, has been in recent contact with Bierko. Henderson convinces Jack that he should go in alone to confront Molino in order to get the information on the arms dealer’s computer.

Jack doesn’t trust him but has little choice. Curtis takes a TAC team along with Jack and Henderson to Molino’s address.

Back at the Ranch, Martha sees a car pulling up to one of the outbuildings. Curious, she approaches only to discover it is Agent Adams dragging Aaron Pierce into the car’s trunk. Not able to talk Adams out of it, Aaron desperately fights for his life only to be interrupted by Martha. Half in the bag from pills, exhaustion, and the day’s horrific events, Marth unsteadily approaches Adams who has a gun on her. She asks “You’re going to shoot me? I’m the First Lady. Are you going to shoot the First Lady?”

Good question. Since this seems to be way above his pay grade, Adams takes out his phone, probably to call the President and ask him what to do. He never gets the chance to talk to Logan because Aaron delivers a kick to the back of Adams’ knee that sends the gun flying. At a disadvantage because his hands are tied, Adams subdues him and reaches for a knife in order to dispatch the agent, only to stop short. We hear the muffled cough of an automatic weapon and Adams falls to the ground. Chalk one kill up for Martha.

At Molino’s place, Henderson convinces Jack that he should go in without a wire. Reluctantly, Jack agrees but as Henderson rings the bell, Jack is making alternate arrangements to listen in on what’s happening. He climbs to the roof and places a listening device on the skylight.

Immediately, it appears that Henderson is betraying CTU. He tells Molino to destroy his files because a “phalanx” of CTU agents are outside waiting to come in. As Molino begins to erase the evidence, Jack breaks in through the skylight and makes his way downstairs. Before Molino can get very far in destroying his hard drive, Jack intervenes and in the short firefight that follows, Molino and Curtis are slightly wounded. Henderson explains that he was playing Molino, getting him to defang his computer firewalls so that the information could be accessed. Jack doesn’t quite believe him but downloads the files to CTU so that Chloe can get busy with the encryption.

Tending to Aaron at the ranch, Martha volunteers to help Aaron get rid of the body. But Aaron has other plans. He will get rid of the body while Martha, returning to the ranch house so as not to arouse suspicion, will spill the beans to Novik and tell him to meet Aaron where he lies, beaten and bloody but apparently still kicking.

Chloe breaks Molino’s codes in record time and discovers Bierko’s final gambit; the hijacking of a Russian sub anchored in the harbor being inspected by Americans as part of the recently signed Anti-Terror Treaty. We are informed by Henderson that the ship is equipped with 12 missiles, all MIRVed up and ready to fly and hit dozens of targets.

Not losing a moment, Jack gets in touch with the ranking American officer on the sub and tells him about the plot. Battening down the hatches, both the Russians and Americans scramble to make the ship secure. The American commander for some reason, goes topside and opens the hatch presumably to look around. He is immediately taken out by Bierko who was evidently waiting for just such an opportunity. Without hesitation, Beirko arms that last cannister of nerve gas and tosses it into the sub where it does its deadly work quickly and silently. Within minutes, Bierko is able to enter the sub and take control of its missile systems.

And so the finale is set. In what is sure to be a heartstopping two hour blockbuster season ending extravaganza, Jack will have to stop Bierko, expose Logan, save Aaron and Martha, take CTU away from Homeland Security, and deal justice to the lickspittle Miles. And that’s just the first hour and a half. The last half hour traditionally has been something of a goodbye and preview of next year’s show.

One thing for sure; Jack is going to be busy next week.

BODY COUNT

7 of 8 CTU agents killed in Bierko escape. Agent Adams will now be protecting the Gates of Hell. And an untold number die on the sub but we’re sure of the American officer’s demise.

JACK: 30

SHOW: 193

MARTHA: 1

Why not? It’s her kill. Let’s give her credit where credit is due.

And make sure you stop by frequently over the next week as I will have several items of interest for 24 fans as well as some great speculation, all building up to the fantastic 2 hour finale next Monday night.

UPDATE

Make sure you check out Blogs4Bauer today and the “Ask the Maharishi” quiz about how everything is going to turn out.

Sorry for the delay in posting the summary this morning. Late night meant getting a late start on my routine.

My 24 summary should be up by 10:00 AM Central.

Thanks for your patience!

Trying to have any kind of a conversation with a liberal over the revelation today that a government insider informed ABC News reporters that the government was “tracking” their phone numbers is an absolute impossibility. They are in hysterics. They are bursting blood vessels, trying to outdo each other in coming up with adjectives to describe their outrage. Or, taking an opposite tack, they are assuring us that they knew it all along – Bush=Hitler.

They may be right.

Then again, they may be full of crap. The fact is, WE DON’T KNOW. And I know how hard it is for the lefties to admit to those three little words but if they were actually serious about discussing the limits of federal power (as I will attempt to do in this post), they would admit the following:

1. WE DON”T KNOW many of the technical details of any of the NSA programs revealed to date.

2. WE DON’T KNOW if any of those programs are illegal or violate the Constitution. We can guess. We can extrapolate from known facts. But until the actual details of HOW the programs work are released, only fools, little children, and liberals proclaim them to be beyond the pale.

3. WE DON’T KNOW if these latest revelations are true.

4. WE DON’T KNOW if legal warrants were obtained in furtherance of an investigation into the leaking of classified information. Not “politically embarrassing or “anti-Bush” information but classified information. You can spin it all you want to my lefty friends, but there are statutes on the books about giving that information to anyone – including reporters – with stiff penalties involved including jail time.

ABC’s outing of the names of the east European countries where the CIA’s prisons were located did so little damage to Bush politically but hugely damaged our foreign policy in ways that are shocking to contemplate. So much for the idiocy that going after the leakers in this case was due to the embarrassment caused the Administration. The reason for the leak is because some unelected, self-important lickspittle of a bureaucrat disagreed with the policy . It’s not about embarrassment or revenge; it’s about catching a criminal.

And anyone who can’t tell the difference between leaking parts of an NIE (that were in the process of being declassified anyway) and leaking information that causes enormous problems to allies who went way out on a limb to help us in fighting the War on Terror, is an ignoramus.

All this being said, what they hell is the government doing “tracking” the calls of newspeople?

Spook86:

The MSM will scream long and loud about this one, but let’s keep things in perspective. Under existing federal statutes, intelligence officials who divulge sensitive information to the press are likely in violation of the law. The unauthorized leak of such data results in a referral from the intelligence agency to the Justice Department, which launches a criminal probe. Federal prosecutors then have the right to gather and subpoena evidence in support of that effort, including phone records. If authorities discover a series of calls between the office phone or cell phone of an intelligence officer and Brian Ross of ABC News, well, that could certainly be relevant in identifying and prosecuting leakers.

But the phone records of reporters are protected:

In New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 382 F.Supp.2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the New York Times sought a declaratory judgment to protect the telephone records of two of its reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. Miller and Shenon had written articles in the aftermath of September 11th detailing how the government planned to block assets and search the offices of two Islamic charities.

Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to know who leaked this information. He argued that Miller and Shenon’s reporting tipped off the charities to the searches and increased the likelihood that evidence and assets were destroyed or concealed. As part of his investigation into the leak, he requested that Miller and Shenon voluntarily produce their phone records. They refused and eventually filed the lawsuit to determine whether their phone records were protected.

Judge Sweet ruled that indeed the phone records in that case were “protected by the qualified reporters’ privilege for confidential sources, which exists pursuant to the First Amendment and federal common law.” The government in that case was unable to overcome that privilege, so it could not have access to the phone records.

Does this mean that their phone conversations are protected? Their “phone records” (which should include telephone numbers of the type stored in the NSA telephone surveillance database)? Or is it monitoring of a sort of which we are currently unaware?

WE DON’T KNOW.

And neither does ABC News:

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

In short, the tens of thousands of words already written by lefty bloggers (and righties who have felt compelled to respond) may be a big waste of time.

ALL OF THIS MAY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NSA!

If it is a legal, authorized monitoring by the Department of Justice that is part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the illegal leaking of classified data, then no one has anything much to complain about.

However…

If it is an attempt by the Bush Administration to use the tools of data mining and the extraordinarily powerful technical collection apparatus of the NSA to spy on reporters (and political opponents), I daresay that the President would be in danger from many Republicans of having them fulfill the wildest dreams of the netnuts and agitate for his impeachment and removal from office.

Myself included.

There are limits to the power of the Federal government. There must be. “We are at war” may cover many, many situations that the civil liberty absolutists and Bush deranged leftists may find problematic but can be justified under the general rubric of “national security.” But using that excuse to harass journalists or intimidate political opponents is so far beyond the pale, so UNAMERICAN that I feel a little embarrassed even having to mention it. It should be as “self evident” as the truths found in the Declaration of Independence – that we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; none of these is possible without some guarantee that opposition to government policies will not lead to retaliation by the government itself.

This is not to say that I as an individual American citizen can’t call you a traitor or a treasonous lout if I disagree with you (something I rarely do). But it does mean that simply opposing government policies or trying to report what a journalist sees as the “truth” (subjective though that may be) should not bring the heavy hand of government down on the critic or the newsperson.

And if this is what the Bush Administration has been up to with the various NSA programs then the President will be able to look fondly back on the day when his support was in the low 30’s. And he will have presided over a political debacle as horrendous as the elections of 1974-76 when the Democratic congressional “Watergate babies” – all 72 of them – rolled into Congress and nearly destroyed the country.

There is no reason to call for an investigation – yet. But I am a little more amendable to Arlen Specter’s ideas about finding out some additional details on these programs including the Senator trying to get a better idea of exactly who they are targeting.

In the meantime, some words of wisdom from Josh Marshall:

I think part of the issue for many people on the administration’s various forms of surveillance is not just that some of activities seem to be illegal or unconstitutional on their face. I think many people are probably willing to be open-minded, for better or worse, on pushing the constitutional envelope. But given the people in charge of the executive branch today, you just can’t have any confidence that these tools will be restricted to targeting terrorists. Start grabbing up phone records to data-mine for terrorists and then the tools are just too tempting for your leak investigations. Once you do that, why not just keep an eye on your critics too? After all, they’re the ones most likely to get the leaks, right? So, same difference. The folks around the president don’t recognize any real distinctions among those they consider enemies. So we’d be foolish to think they wouldn’t bring these tools to bear on all of them. Once you set aside the law as your guide for action and view the president’s will as a source of legitimacy in itself, then everything becomes possible and justifiable.

I would take issue with Mr. Marshall’s blanket characterization of “the folks around the President” not recognizing any distinctions “among those they consider enemies.” But otherwise, his analysis should be taken to heart.

Just what are they up to?

UPDATE

Glad to see I’m not the only one on the right troubled by this.

Mark Coffey:

This doesn’t change my stand on the surveillance program or the phone database. It may (MAY, I stress) be an abuse of an otherwise useful tool. It’s important to note that we don’t have any proof for Ross’s allegations.

I’m troubled by the allegation, and I’m troubled by the leaks, and I’m troubled by just about everything associated with this entire subject. More than ever, I stand by my call for a new regulatory surveillance framework…

UPDATE II

Here is a rather cryptic update from ABC News:

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters’ phone records in leak investigations.

“It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration,” said a senior federal official.

The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being “tracked.”

“Think of it more as backtracking,” said a senior federal official.

“Backtracking” would seem to indicate something much less intrusive and less alarming; they would already have a suspect’s phone records that showed the ABC News phone number.

The FBI released a statement that sort of confirms that:

In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.

“The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information,” the statement said.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

In short, the government is not specifically targeting news organizations unless they have probable cause gleaned through a legal search of a suspect’s phone records. That would seem to be pretty standard law enforcement practice and no cause for alarm.

Then again, still, WE DON’T KNOW.

CONSIDER THIS AN OPEN THREAD TO SPECULATE ON TONIGHT’S EPISODE (BEGINNING APPROX. 9:20 EST DUE TO THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH) AS WELL AS NEXT WEEK’S BLOCKBUSTER FINALE.

HAVE AT IT!

“Speak the speech, I pray you,
as I pronounced it to you—trippingly on the tongue;
but if you mouth it, as many of your players do,
I had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines.”
(Hamlet Act III, Scene 2)

Indeed, Hamlet’s advice to the actor regarding the importance of giving a good effort when delivering the lines he wrote that would implicate his uncle in the murder of his father should be taken to heart by the President as he goes before the people this evening to talk about immigration.

He must show a little passion and not a little eloquence. He must be forceful without being overbearing. And he absolutely must make a conservative case for immigration reform. Otherwise, we will be asking why the President bothered in the first place – perhaps not the “town crier” but a White House usher could have just as well delivered it.

If that sounds like a tall order for someone whose major speeches have sometimes fallen flat in the past, we should perhaps remember the President’s magnificent performance at the Republican convention. He seemed energized, emotionally connecting with both the audience in the hall and on TV. And the words themselves seemed to come alive with an eloquence all too often lacking in the President’s defense of the war.

Conservatives are already disappointed or worse, dismissing the address as little more than window dressing. To say that this makes the President’s task all the more difficult is an understatement. And despite what many conservatives are saying, this is one speech where “window dressing” or atmospherics may be as important as the words he actually speaks.

First and foremost, the President must sound like he’s defending the border, not treating it as a theoretical construct. A little nationalism please, Mr. President – not bellicose posturing but a good faith recognition that we are a sovereign nation and we have the absolute right to determine our own border policies without interference from Vincente Fox or anyone else.

It may be too much to ask, but perhaps we can show as much respect for the rule of law as we show “compassion” for the people who break it. No mass deportations but at the same time, a ringing endorsement of the idea that our immigration laws are going to be enforced. If that means sending some businessmen to jail for flouting the law then so be it. And if it means making it harder for illegals to make a living then perhaps it will put a tiny dent in the flood of humanity who currently cross our borders with impunity.

I will part ways with many conservative here but by all means, go ahead and double legal immigration. Legal immigration is controlled immigration and that is what we seek – not a denial of entry to people who are truly interested in living and working and contributing to America with the hopes of one day becoming citizens.

You must make it absolutely clear that if you are going to use troops on “an emergency basis” to fill the support roles envisioned for private contractors as well as border security agents, that whatever compromise bill coming out of Congress has those provisions already in place so that DHS can get started training and hiring immediately. No one likes the idea of troops guarding our border. It smacks of something a banana republic needs to do, not a great nation.

And while extolling the virtues of immigrants and counting the contributions they make to the richness and diversity of our country, perhaps you could point out how important it was for immigrants in the past to learn English and assimilate into American society while still keeping their traditions and cultural heritage intact. There is nothing “racist” or “xenophobic” about asking people who want to live here to speak the language of our ancestors. You might want to point out that in a country of immigrants, about the only thing that unites us – outside of a love of liberty and a passion for justice – is the English language.

I may be dreaming about the President making a speech such as I’ve outlined above. But he could have much of his immigration package if he started to talk like, well, an American President and not like an English speaking echo of Vincente Fox. Making it clear that America controls its own borders is what conservatives want to hear most. And we want to hear it said forcefully and without apology.

A tall order, that. But he’s done it before. Perhaps he’ll surprise us tonight as he did that magical last night of the 2004 convention. At the very least, I hope we hear him out with an open mind.

UPDATE

This doesn’t sound promising:

The president’s plan could increase the strain with Fox, who has grown disenchanted with Bush’s failure to ease immigration rules as promised. Fox for years has pressured Bush to help the 11 million illegal immigrants now in the United States, many of them from Mexico, with little to show for it. In their 15-minute call yesterday, “the president reiterated to President Fox his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform,” Tamburri said.

That means the “guest worker” program is probably still alive as any “comprehensive” proposal would certainly include it.

And check out Allah’s roundup at Hot Air. The President’s pronuncimentos on immigration are becoming so hackneyed, that one could invent a drinking game to go with the speech tonight.

Beating Allah to the punch is this Hoft screamer of a post. Here are some ideas of Allah’s:

“Guests”/”guest workers” — one shot.
“Comprehensive immigration reform” — chug.
“My friend, Vicente Fox” — two shots.
“Mi amigo, Vicente Fox” — three shots.
If he overenunciates a Latino name — four shots.
If at any point he starts speaking Spanish — finish the six-pack.

Looks like I picked a helluva week to quit sniffing glue…

I was hugely amused at the celebrating being done by lefty blogs the last two or three days over what they perceive as signs that some righty bloggers are throwing in the towel and virtually conceding Republican defeat at the polls in November.

Being used to propagating fantasy, we shouldn’t be surprised at this latest bit of wishful thinking on the part of liberals. After all, these are the same folks who were so sure a military draft would be instituted, some of them had plane reservations for Canada. And who can forget “Merry Fitzmas” where a dozen or more White House aides were to be frog marched out of the west wing and into the courthouse after being indicted over the Plame affair.

The list of liberal idiocies is endless. Remember the 10,000 dead American soldiers who were to be lying in the streets of Baghdad following our attack? The million dead Iraqis from starvation and disease? The 500,000 refugees? The “quagmire” in Afghanistan? The civil war that has been predicted in Iraq seven times since May, 2003? Jeff Gannon/Guckert bringing down the President? Ditto Fahrenheit 911, Cindy Sheehan, and a host of minor political scrapes that the left confidently predicted would end up en either Bush’s impeachment or defeat?

So now a few righty bloggers are suffering from battle fatigue and we are supposed to believe that the entire conservative movement is suffering from a crisis of confidence?

Phooey!

I feel for people like The Anchoress, one of my favorite writers, who finds the sniping by the left and carping on the right irksome enough to take a break from writing about politics. And while there has been some discussion at some righty sites about conservatives “staying home” on election day, I can guarantee you that every time Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth, thousands of potential couch potatoes on election day are re-energized and recommitted not to let these morons get control of anything more important than the menu for the Congressional cafeteria.

This is the Republican’s secret weapon; the Democratic party.

With Pelosi frantically trying to backtrack this weekend from her smirking pronouncements about investigations of the President leading to impeachment, it’s clear that the Democrats realize they are their own worst enemy. Try as they might, however, they will be unable to muzzle their base of netnuts who will make Ken Mehlman’s job of getting conservatives to the polls ridiculously easy. Calling for the President’s head on a pike for transgressions big and small (real and imagined) on a daily basis is the only thing that will energize just enough Republicans to march to the polls on election day and hold their noses to vote for the big spending, arrogant SOB’s who have temporarily hijacked the conservative movement for their own selfish purposes. And by just enough, I mean that a loss of half a dozen House seats and 2 or 3 Senators is probably about the best that the GOP can hope for at this point.

While that may sound like a backhanded endorsement of the congressional wing of the GOP (actually more like a closed fist uppercut to the chin), it is not in personalities nor in electoral success where the fire in the bellies of the right burns. Much more than the left, conservatives continue to be energized by issues. Discussions and debates about the serious issues of the day still largely take place only among conservatives because the left has abandoned debate, ceding the battleground in favor of name calling, conspiracy theorizing, and a childish petulance about not getting their way that extends from the outcome of elections to the confirmation of judges.

Foot stomping and tantrum throwing may be personally gratifying for the three year olds who run liberal websites but as far as engaging in meaningful political debate on issues such as taxes (“helping the rich get richer!”), the War (“No blood for Haliburton!”), immigration (Republicans are racist xenophobes!”) or civil liberties (“Bushhitler!”), they leave much to be desired.

This is reflected in the curious, almost cute way in which Duncan Black actually posted something longer than “Bush Sucks! Open Thread,” and tried in that earnest, simple minded way in which liberals tend to approach everything to define what issues today’s liberal Democrat should be supporting.

Basically, it takes the United States back to January 19, 2001. And that’s all you need to know about it. September 11? Never happened. Iraq? Out now! And the rest of the usual lefty ideas about spreading the nice, warm blanket of government control over your lives.

The problem for Black is that national Democrats don’t stand for those things. Their simple strategy to take back Congress is to call Bush and the Republicans names and hope against hope that the economy goes south and something bad happens in Iraq. This strategy proved a real winner in 2004 and while some of the dynamics have changed in their favor, the fact is it is still a long way to November. And of course, no matter how low Bush’s numbers go, he’s still the President and can pull all sorts of rabbits out of his hat to undermine the Democratic cause.

Yes, there are some conservative’s who may have abandoned the GOP congressional party. Some, perhaps permanently. But there’s plenty of time for conservatives to take a deep breath, revitalize their intellects, sharpen their arguments (and their vitriol), and storm the battlements once again. As John Podheretz pointed out here, the consequences of staying on the sideline are too terrible to contemplate:

If a more sober reckoning of political reality does not intrude here, the Right will hurtle headlong toward schism, division, a third party and all sorts of other “pox on all your houses” actions. The cost of this is what I detail in the direst parts of my book Can She Be Stopped? — the easy transfer of power on Capitol Hill and the White House to the Democrats, and particularly to Hillary Clinton.

The potential for self-destruction is terrifying. The potential for grave national harm is worse. Please, you guys, pull back from the edge.

And Ed Morrissey (in a follow up to a post here) puts the choice matter-of-factly:

Declaring all choices as “evil” provides false justification for abdication of that responsibility. In this case, once the primaries have determined the candidates for office, voters are presented with two candidates (in most cases) with realistic chances for victory. They rarely turn out to be philosophical or policy twins and/or uninspired candidates, but if that happens, the parties they represent have real differences, and the choice made in this one race will impact the ability of both to push their national agenda. When voters of either party refuse to vote, the absence of the vote has a negative impact on that national agenda.

By all means, if faced with a choice between Hitler and Mussolini on the November ballot, I would choose to write in Winston Churchill. However, the notion that we face that kind of choice is really nothing more than an expression of anger resulting in futility. It’s eminently understandable, but it results in disaster. The only evil that we likely face is that the American electorate has grown so dismissive of the political process that it may squander its birthright. People across the political spectrum need to stay engaged in the process through the vote in order to get a government that most truly represents us—and if we don’t like the final choices presented us, then we must work harder in the next cycle to ensure that the final choices improve.

It doesn’t get any simpler than that. And this is why all that celebrating done by the left over the imminent demise and crack up of the right is just a tad premature. In the end, conservatives will come home.