Hey, how do you feel about two open-borders cross-dressers on the GOP ticket?

Shudder.

Juan Hernandez approves!

***

Flashback: Meet the GOP immigration drag queens.

Flashback: The McRudy alliance.

How will Madame Speaker be transported to these energy-expending events in which she’ll be preaching about saving the planet…through energy vote-avoidance?

Reader Raymond wants to know:

Dear Michelle,

I would love to know what kind of aircraft and how much fuel Ms. Pelosi is going to use on her book tour. I guess the rest of us should “conserve” so she can uses as much as she wants.

Raymond Dougher
Collierville, TN

Good question.

Calculate Nancy’s carbon footprint!

I estimate she’s at 105 metric tons of CO2, with a likely 10 percent increase this month over the course of the book tour–25 percent if she hitches a ride on some Hollywood liberal’s Gulfstream.

Better stock up on those bogus carbon offsets, sweetie. America’s daughters are watching, you know.

Rudy: “I had made it clear that if I had not decided to run, the one person I would clearly support would be John McCain…He’s a man of honor and integrity…He’s shown character throughout his life…Several times when I would see him at debates, I would shake his hands several times and tell him that…came from way behind…displayed his tenacity…I can’t imagine a campaign that has better demonstrated who the nominee should be.” Pats himself on the back for not running negative ads against each other…

“Part of the consolation…we will remain friends. But most importantly, my country will have a candidate for president of the United States…prepared to be president at a time of great peril. We share a similar vision for the country…”

“We both believe in fiscal discipline…finally, we both believe in building a strong and broader Republican party. One that is growing and reaching out…”

“John McCain gives us, as Republicans, the best chance of doing that…I’ll campaign for him in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, anywhere he wants me…I am fully on board, 100 percent…Hope we can nominate him so we can unite the party…Proud to endorse my friend…God bless you, John.”

McCain: “Deeply honored by your friendship of many years…I saw Rudy Giuliani unite this nation in a way that made us feel proud, recommitted us to defeating the terrible evil that caused 9/11…This man is a national hero. I’m honored by his friendship…Thank him for his leadership of America…I believe my life has prepared me, a life of service and dedication, to lead this nation in the transcendent challenge of the 21st century…the threat of radical Islamic evil…deeply honored. Thank you very much.”

***

Next up, as I noted yesterday, Arnold:

Two Republican sources familiar with the conversations tell CNN California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in discussions about endorsing John McCain’s presidential bid.

Two Georgia Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Issacson, also have committed to endorse McCain. That announcement will come in the next 48 hours, according to two GOP sources involved in the planning.

As for the California governor, one of the sources said, “you can safely describe the conversations as progressing and productive.”

The second source described the endorsement as “more than expected” and said the conversations were aimed at arranging a Thursday announcement. “Yes, that is the plan,” this source said.

6:46pm Eastern Arnold Schwarzenegger declines to endorse McCain today.

Probably tomorrow.

He’s getting ready to attend the GOP debate at the Reagan Library.

The agenda he’s pushing on CNN: Fighting global warming, passing universal health care, and renewing shamnesty.

All the CNN talking heads are anticipating a Rudy endorsement of McCain.

Update: And the rumors begin to fly.

Update 11:25pm Eastern. In response to my Huckabee-McCain PDA Alerts, commenter BlameAmericaLast renames the Huckster: Suckupabee.

It fits.

Update 10:37pm Eastern. This debate is over. It never began. I give it a D for dull. Dud. Dumb. Droning. Devoid.

No, wait. A D is too generous.

I give it a Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Romney scored in his answers on Iraq and defense of his campaign spending. And his quip on Billary: “I frankly can’t wait because the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I can’t imagine.”

Rudy lost because he failed to demonstrate the magnetic, head-turning charisma of a front-runner. He had the hang-dog, laid-back presence of a guy on his way out.

McCain managed not to snarl or curse at anyone. He won because he got away without having to answer a single question about immigration.

Huck left a puddle of drool at McCain’s feet.

Paul squeezed in his Down With Empire talking points.

Conservative voters in Florida are the big losers. This debate gave them nothing.

Video highlights, what little there were, are up at Hot Air.

Michael Graham wants his 90 minutes back. Seriously. I could have been crocheting.

Update 10:36pm Eastern. Ron Paul: “The Republican Party has a problem because we don’t act like Republicans.” I agree with what he’s saying…until he starts foaming at the mouth about empire.

Update 10:29pm Eastern. Williams quotes NYTimes attacks on Giuliani. Rudy attacks NYT credibility.

Rudy, 1. Williams, 0.

Audience applause.

I still don’t think he’s got enough mojo.

Williams brings up the NYT (again!) and its hit piece on Romney. Romney smiles: “I’m not going to Washington to make friends with politicians. I’m going to Wasington to change things.”

Romney defends himself against flip-flopping.

Williams cites LATimes saying McCain’s temper is an issue. “Do you see that as a problem?”

“I don’t.”

Laughter.

McCain stops answering the question to say nice things about Rudy.

It’s like a Swan Song for Rudy.

ALERT: MCCAIN/RUDY PUBLIC DISPLAY OF AFFECTION.

Huck gets question on religion: “It doesn’t give me a queasy feeling, it gives me a solid core.”
Update 10:27pm Eastern. Question for Huck about Chuck Norris attacking McCain’s age. I didn’t disagree with him because I was standing next to him (laughter).

RED ALERT: SECOND HUCK/MCCAIN PUBLIC DISPLAY OF AFFECTION.

Ick. Needs a PG-13 rating.

McCain: Now that Sylvester Stallone and Norman Schwarzkopf have endorsed me, I’ll send them to Chuck Norris.

Ho-ho-ho. Ha-ha-ha.

Blech.

Update 10:23pm Eastern. FINALLY. A St. Pete reader asks why Rudy is airing Spanish language ads when he says he supports English as an official language? Laughter. Yeah. Ditto that.

He says it’s “outreach” and changes subject to his immigration plan.

Grade for that answer: F.

Russert follows up with wet-foot/dry-foot Cuba policy. Why a special policy for Cuba? Rudy reviews history. Weird. He just made a grimace-y, weird face.

Update 10:19pm Eastern. We’re an hour and nineteen minutes into this debate and not a single immigration question.

Russert asks an entitlement question. Huck squeezes in an inheritance tax reform pitch directed at Romney’s sons. Whatever.

Update 10:11pm Eastern. Romney asked about how he would run against Billary. “I can’t wait. I think the idea of Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do” is something people won’t want. (Audience laughter.) “She is exactly what’s wrong with Washington. She’s been there too long. The last thing people need is sending the Clintons back to Washington.”

Easy question. Red meat.

Russert asks Romney how much of his own money he’s spent. We’ll report on Jan. 31 and not a minute earlier. Why not tell people how much own wealth? It’s competitive information. I’ve raised more than any other Republican in this race…not as much as Corzine, Forbes, Bloomberg. But I’ve made a substantial contribution. Couldn’t ask friends to contribute without contributing myself. Not beholden to special interests. Doesn’t owe anyone.

Effectively bats down accusation of “buying Florida.” He cares about the country, wants strong and vibrant nation.

Getting a lot of time to defend himself. “I’m giving it my all.”

Williams gets in a Mormon question. “I don’t think for a minute that people will say they won’t vote for a secular position based on candidate’s church.”

Romney’s being treated like the front-runner and he’s acting like it. Regained his confidence after that shaky Second Amendment answer. Extols individual freedom in America.

Update 10:09pm Eastern. Williams goes to McCain. Refers to statements his mom made on C-SPAN that the base will have to “hold its nose” and vote for McCain. I got the transcript on this earlier today and alerted Hot Air. Allah blogs the exchange with Roberta McCain here. Her exact quote: “Yes, I think holding their nose they’re going to have to take him.”

McCain refers to supporting conservative judges, says he’s proud to be conservative.

No mention of border security.

Update 10:07pm Eastern. Back from another commercial break. Brian Williams goes to Rudy on his abysmal campaign crack-up. Ouch. “This has always been a competitive race. I have the faith the Giants had last week. We’re going to come from behind, win from Florida, lull people into a false sense of security…” Notes Romney asking him a nice question.

Boy, what a dud. He doesn’t believe his own spin. How will anyone else?

Update 10:01pm Eastern. New topic – environment. Rudy is talking biofuels. McCain is talking cap and trade. See my prior comments about the enviro-nitwit-ization of the GOP.

You know what I said a few minutes ago about grabbing the popcorn? Never mind. That segment was a d-u-d. How could Romney not question McCain about immigration?

Update 9:53pm Eastern. Huck asks Romney about the Second Amendment and ban on assault weapons/Brady. The first frontal attack question. Was wondering if there would be one. Huck: “That’s not consistent…Do you support Brady? Do you support the assault weapons ban and restrictions you support?”

Romney: Says he would have signed it like the president said he would. Says he supports individual right to bear arms. Says he doesn’t support any new legislation.

Romney seemed tentative and nervous.

Rudy directs his question to Romney, too. But it’s really an attack on McCain. Romney mentions that McCain doesn’t support national catastrophic insurance fund as a backstop. Big parochial issue in Florida. McCain cracks: “Who’s answering this question?” Romney supports it. Looks like a Rudy-Romney pander tag team. States in high-risk areas should organize on national basis actuarially. So, I guess he does and he doesn’t support national catastrophic government fund. He’s talking about a “free-market solution.” Rudy wants to know if he supports a mandate. I’m not sure what he’s saying.

McCain gets to answer. “We have to address the issue. Regionally. Increase the risk pool. Reform insurance. The bill in the House was $200 billion, no way to pay for it.”

Update 9:40pm Eastern. Commercial break. Next portion will feature candidates asking each other questions. Get out the popcorn.

Here we go. Romney goes first. He raises the specter of China. “How will we have trade with China that protects America, on a level playing field?” Question goes to Rudy, though it’s really more of a question and answer session with himself. Sorry, I didn’t really pay attention to Rudy’s answer.

I was thinking about how Romney’s question/statement may have been a way to defend himself from a Huck attack on his ties to Bain Capital.(which Duncan Hunter alluded to and is the primary reason he opposes Romney)

Anyway…

McCain asks Huck about Fair Tax. How do you answer criticism that flat tax would cause more pain to low-income Americans…how do you account for resonance? Softball for sweethearts. “And when you’re done, Governor, could you also comment on how many Republicans would like to see you as my vice president…”

Kissy-kissy.

Huck: “We’re penalized for productivity in this country. Republicans ought to embrace the fair tax…”

Russert follows up: 93 percent sales tax. How does this help those paying 15 percent?

Update 9:34pm Eastern. Excellent Romney answer on Iraq. Strong, tough, focused on the surrendercrats. He takes on Dems for their withdrawalmania…cites debate in SC when Hillary refused to say she wanted to win and recycled Code Pink line.

Romney excoriates Dems and says “how dare they” take credit for surge.

Applause.

Romney just out-McCained McCain on the war.

Russert: Was the war a good idea and worth the blood and treasure?

McCain: It was worth it. Our men will return and return with honor, having fought al Qaeda over there.

Rudy: I’m for it when 6 out of 10 were for it and when 6 out of 10 were against it. Also very strong objecting to conducting war by polls.

Paul: It was a very bad idea and it wasn’t worth it. Falsely claims that al Qaeda wasn’t there and is now. Blames America for starting the war.

Huck: I supported the president when he went into this. He deserves our thanks, not scorn.

Update 9:27pm Eastern. We’re not breaking any new ground here. Romney’s repeating his “Washington is broken” line for the thousandth time. “Change has to begin with us. We are the party of change.”

Really? The Republicans are the Party of Change? When did that happen?

St Pete Times editor reads some question. First for McCain: How can we sustain Iraq with bad economy? McCain: If we do what Hillary wants, the expenses of surrender will be paid in blood and treasure. McCain repeats his pride for advocating surge first. Proud of our troops for not waving the White Flag of Surrender.

Update 9:20pm Eastern. Hey, did ya know that Rudy rejected Saudi prince’s money? If you missed it the last 1,000 times he mentioned in past debates and TV appearance, he just told the whole story again.

Russert talks deficits. “Why should Republicans be re-elected?” McCain says Democrats would spend more, make entitlement crisis worse, increase taxes. McCain lambastes Bush-aspproved earmarks/pork/Bridge to Nowhere projects. “I’ll veto them…we will clean up our act, fix this problem of having to borrow money from China, balance our budget.”

Huck gets a question. I forgot he was there. “I wasn’t in Washington messing things up. That’s why I should get a chance.” Refuses to blame Bush. Huck pats himself on the back for saying the economy was bad before any of his GOP challengers recognized it.

Update 9:14pm Eastern. Romney defends his Mass. tax record. Criticizes McCain for not supporting Bush tax cuts the first time around.

Russert invites McCain to attack Romney’s fee hikes. He defends his opposition to Bush tax cuts and asserts his fiscal conservative bona fides.

Ron Paul objects to appropriating more money for stimulus…immediately segues to war spending on Empire. Natch.

Update 9:04pm Eastern. Ok, here we go. Stimulus-palooza is the first topic. Romney supports the Bush plan, but wish it went further…more tax cuts, “grow jobs.”
“We have a housing crisis…that has spilled out into the economy…helping to reverse the crisis…is crucial.”

No words at all about fiscal responsibility, thrift, prudence, or the need for borrowers who made bad decisions to suck it up, let the market correct, and let housing prices fall.

No beef.

McCain worries about pork barrel projects. Likes expense write-offs. “The rate cuts by Bernanke are a good beginning, but we need to continue to cut tax rates.” We need to encourage saving (YES!) and cut spending.

Giuliani: The package is ok, but doesn’t go far enough. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Good.) We need a permanent package. Regulatory reform. Comprehensive tax reform. (All good.)

Russert to McCain: You said you weren’t well-versed on economy. Is it a problem for your campaign? Maverick says he doesn’t know where the quote came from. Drops names of economic advisers – Martin Feldstein, Jack Kemp, etc., etc. “I have been a consistent fighter to restrain spending and cut taxes.” (See: “I’ve always been for tax cuts, except for the ones I vote against.”)

Huckabee attacks stimulus for putting money into people’s pockets so consumers can buy Chinese products. Ok. Wants infrastructure spending for highways from Bangor to Florida. Sounds like he’s on board with the Schumer plan.

6:42 PM. The GOP presidential candidates meet again for a Florida debate on MSNBC. The show begins at 9pm Eastern. I’ll be here. No bull–red or otherwise–tonight. Just me, you, and a batch of White House contenders who will be appealing for the first time to Republican primary voters first and foremost. Not independents. Not Democrats.

So: Show us the beef.

Sanctuary Rudy’s slipping. Big Nanny Huck’s fading. McCain’s still channeling Geraldo. And Romney’s running Spanish language ads.

Yes, this is the Republican field.

***

AP:

The Florida primary offers 57 Republican National Convention delegates to the winner. It is the first big state to vote in the nominating campaign, the first winner-take-all contest in terms of delegates, and the final election before a virtual national primary on Feb. 5.

The five contenders shared a stage as polls suggested Romney and McCain were co-frontrunners in the state. Both the former Massachusetts governor and the Arizona senator are campaigning aggressively and have sparred periodically over the economy and tax cuts.

Giuliani and Huckabee were well behind in the same surveys, and struggling.

***
Rudy Giuliani gets religion in Florida. It’s about all he has left:

With his plan for winning the GOP presidential nomination riding largely on a Florida victory at the end of the month, Rudy Giuliani asked an evangelical congregation for prayers instead of votes Sunday and quoted scripture to evoke a message of hope and perseverance.

“I’m not coming here to ask for your vote,” he said. “That’s up to you and it’s not the right place. But I am coming here to ask you for something very special and more important: I’m asking for your prayers.”

While other Republican candidates are focused on Tuesday’s Michigan primary, Giuliani is following a strategy of pushing for a Jan. 29 victory in Florida he hopes will propel him toward a dominant showing on Feb. 5, when more than 20 states hold primaries and caucuses, and then on to the nomination.

Once a strong front-runner in national polls, the former New York City mayor has fallen well behind the three candidates jockeying for a victory in Michigan, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

“I’ve faced odds that were at times seemingly impossible, situations where people had given up hope, but we didn’t listen to the doubters, we didn’t listen to the naysayers,” Giuliani told several thousand worshippers at El Rey Jesus church in Miami.

“Fear not, be strong, and of good courage,” he added, quoting the Bible. The church, with has a congregation of 10,000 people, was his first stop on a three-day bus tour through Florida.

Latest ABC poll shows more cratering:

On the Republican side, McCain’s support peaks among moderates, at 40 percent, vs. 22 percent for Giuliani; McCain’s gained 26 points among moderates since December while Giuliani’s lost 15 points. Conservatives — who predominate in most GOP primaries — split more narrowly, 25 percent for McCain, 23 percent for Huckabee and 17 percent for Romney, with 16 percent for Giuliani. Similarly, McCain has 36 percent support among independents — up 19 points since December — with Huckabee at 27 percent. McCain’s gains among independents have come at the expense of Romney and Giuliani, both down 10 points in this group, to 8 and 11 percent, respectively.

McCain has also gained ground among mainline Republicans, with 25 percent support, up 12 points since December, now running slightly ahead of Giuliani at 19 percent. Giuliani has lost 10 points among Republicans since December. Perhaps surprisingly, McCain is running competitively among evangelical white Protestants, a core Republican group, with 25 percent support to Huckabee’s 31 percent; that’s a 13-point gain for McCain since December, while Huckabee’s been essentially flat. Romney gets just 8 percent support from evangelicals, Giuliani, 15 percent.

In another of Giuliani’s weaker groups, he’s supported by just 12 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners who oppose legal abortion — and they account for 53 percent of the party.

First up: Video of Mayor Rudy Giuliani boasting that NYC is “quite tolerant of undocumented immigration and this shouldn’t surprise you because I’ve been mayor of this city a long time and outspoken on this issue even nationally, and I happen to agree with that. I think NYC should not deal with undocumented immigrants in a harsh way. I think we’re much better off being ‘sensible’ and ‘practical’ about it…”

He made his remarks on September 7, 2001–eight years after “undocumented immigrants,” who enjoyed “sensible” sanctuary policies, helped carry out the first World Trade Center bombing and four days before several hijacker jihadists, whose immigration documents had expired and who also benefited from “practical” immigration non-enforcement, participated in the worst terrorist attack on American soil. “Better off” with sanctuary? I think not:

Next: Audio of Mike Huckabee on the Laura Ingraham show trying to dodge a direct question about whether he supports the use of the security-underming matricula consular card for illegal aliens. It’s a simple yes or no question. Huckabee does a typical shuck-and-jive.

Call him Shuckabee:

Partial transcript:

LG: You didn’t come out against [the Mexican] consulate issuing consular ID cards though, did you?

MH: I actually signed a bill in 2005 that prohibited people from getting a driver’s license who were illegal–

LG: –that’s not answering the question, governor. I understand that. But that’s not answering the question. Because I’m staying on this consulate issue. On the issue of the Mexican consulate, did you or did you not oppose the Mexican consulates issuing ID cards that are then used by illegal aliens to open bank accounts and get a number of other social services beyond health care and beyond education in the United States.

MG: Well, what I want to do is fix this entire problem by having sealed borders.

Not much of a “fix” if he’s inviting foreign consulates to rent out space for $1 a year to hand out bogus illegal alien ID cards so more immigration laws can be broken.

Here’s more analysis by Laura and me of Huckabee’s not-so-straight talk:

Caveat emptor, people. Caveat emptor.

***

Tim Sumner of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Secure America has a special card for Mike Shuckabee.

The Washington Post still doesn’t get it.

More audio: Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters interviewed Huckabee last night. You can listen here. At about the 21-minute mark, Huckabee comments on the Gilchrist endorsement and again plugs his nine-point immigration plan as proof of his border security bona fides. You’ll hear him characterize the plan as realistic and compassionate because it doesn’t just “grind our heels in the faces” of illegal aliens. Even as he’s trying to persuade border security advocates that he’s one of them, it’s too hard for him to camouflage his open-borders contempt for strict immigration enforcement.

Every Democrat running for president thinks anti-illegal immigration activists are all racists and xenophobes. Do we really need a Republican nominee for president who thinks the same way?

Breakout GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, the soft-on-border control former governor of Arkansas, scored a jaw-dropping endorsement Tuesday from Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project. Despite a long gubernatorial record opposing employer sanctions and pushing tax-subsidized illegal alien education benefits, Huckabee won Gilchrist’s support by unveiling a last-minute, tough-sounding homeland security plan.

Trouble is, Huckabee has downright and longstanding contempt for his new bedfellows of convenience.

Just two years ago, Huckabee appeared before the open-borders Hispanic group, The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), preaching an open-door policy. According to the Arkansas News Bureau, Huckabee also criticized state legislation requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and enhanced reporting of illegal aliens as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life — not to mention “inflammatory,” “race-baiting” and “demagoguery.”

Just last year, Huckabee lambasted opponents of the bipartisan shamnesty bill providing a mass pardon to illegal aliens as “driven by racism or nativism.” He called strict immigration enforcement — the kind he now supports — “sheer folly” in his campaign-timed book released earlier this year. He actively invited the Mexican government to establish a consulate in Arkansas — giving its office a $1 per year special office space rate — so that its foreign officials could start dispensing security-undermining matricula consular ID cards to illegal aliens for banking and employment purposes. And he’s not only for government in-state illegal alien discounts, he’s for expanding them far beyond what the federal DREAM Act proposed.

But now that he needs to establish his border control bona fides, Huckabee is all honey. “Frankly, Jim,” he said to the Minuteman Project founder at a press conference in Iowa on Tuesday, “I’ve got to tell you there were times in the early days of the Minutemen I thought, ‘What are these guys doing, what are they about?’ I confess I owe you an apology.”

It’s Gilchrist and those who allow themselves to be snowed by Huckabee’s cynical conversion who’ll be sorry and deep in apology debt, I guarantee you. Huckabee showed his true colors at the Univision Spanish-language debate over the weekend when he pandered to the crowd by lamenting “racial profiling” of immigrants — while remaining silent about catch-and-release policies that fail to detain criminal aliens who go on to commit more heinous crimes because politically correct politicians and police chiefs are more concerned with being accused of “racial profiling” than protecting the public.

Huckabee isn’t the only shameless border control cross-dresser in the GOP field, of course. Rudy “I supported sanctuary policies before I was against them, but my sanctuary policy wasn’t really a sanctuary policy, anyway” Giuliani now quotes “the advice of a great man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’” In an interview with Washington Examiner reporter and author Bill Sammon, Giuliani now says he really, truly would have deported 400,000 illegal aliens in New York if he could have. Never mind that small matter of the lawsuit he brought against the feds to block them from enforcing immigration laws. Never mind that he was openly inviting illegal aliens into his open-borders safe harbors.

Reports Sammon: “Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens,” the mayor said at a 1994 press conference. “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”

Bringing up the false convert rear is Sen. John McCain. Earlier this year, he was the most vocal critic of grass-roots conservatives who mobilized against the amnesty bill. He now says he has learned his lesson and supports securing the border. He has learned nothing. During the shamnesty debacle, he called Rush Limbaugh a “nativist;” over the weekend, he repeated such contemptuous “straight talk” at the Univision debate by assailing what he called anti-Hispanic rhetoric. In an interview with the New Yorker, he irritatedly dismissed immigration concerns in Iowa as marginal and irrational — just a bunch of “senior citizens” in Iowa caught up in the “emotion” of a cultural assault.

Bad enough that the Democrat candidates are still stuck in a 9/10 mentality on the nexus between immigration and national security. The question for conservatives is: Would a Republican immigration drag queen be any better — or worse?

***

Polipundit has an immigration news round-up.

Lonewacko has a warning about George P. Bush joining the Thompson campaign.

Read it all.

***

Meantime, Mike Huckabee gets nailed on his illegal alien in-state tuition discount support.

Update 1:30pm Eastern Kerik pleads not guilty.

Here’s the PDF of the indictment.

Update 12:04pm Eastern. Kerik facing a cumulative 142 years in jail.

Rudy Giuliani in the wake of the indictment news: “I am not running as the perfect candidate.”

“Sad day,” prosecutors say.

Update 11:30am Eastern. McCain piles on: “McCain Says Kerik Reflects on Giuliani.” The problem is that this criticism of Giuliani’s bad judgement on vital homeland security and war on terror matters comes from Mr. “F*** You!” Shamnesty himself. Pot and kettle.

Update 9:14am Eastern. Kerik surrenders to authorities: “The U.S. attorney’s office said it would hold an 11:30 a.m. EST news conference with FBI and Internal Revenue Service officials in White Plains “to announce an indictment of a former public official.”

NYDN: Rudy Giuliani won’t say if he’d pardon Kerik as President.

***

We are all fallen, imperfect beings. The news of the federal indictment of Bernie Kerik is a sad moment, a cautionary tale, and an object lesson.

Sad, because Kerik rose from the child of a prostitute to “America’s cop”–and this nation loves such tales of success.

Cautionary, because it speaks to the fallibility of anointed heroes and the temptations of power.

An object lesson, because it highlights the flaws and vulnerabilities of GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani’s on the issues of corruption and immigration enforcement.

Here’s what I wrote back in December 2004 when Kerik was forced to withdraw from consideration as DHS chief because of his illegal alien nanny problem and his lack of candor about the debacle:

I find it annoying that Bernard Kerik is getting praised in some quarters for “coming clean” and “accepting responsibility” for his “mistake.” From all accounts, including Kerik’s own, President Bush’s aides asked him upfront about the nanny question several times during the vetting process and he did not come clean.

Kerik didn’t just make some minor clerical error. He misled the White House. So, stop making him a martyr.

It’s also interesting that some political observers on both the left and right are pooh-poohing the illegal alien nanny issue. I heard Geraldo Rivera ask Rudy Giuliani during a press conference yesterday why Kerik was in trouble over a “de minimis” issue. A number of other commentators on the Sunday shows echoed that sentiment. And John Podhoretz says Rudy Giuliani, who pushed the Kerik nomination, won’t suffer any blowback.

I disagree. I think the fiasco substantially damages Rudy Giuliani’s reputation as a homeland security leader (and 2008 presidential nominee)–not only because of his sloppy vetting of Kerik, but also because Giuliani’s own laxity on immigration (more here on his open-borders record ) will be difficult to ignore as a result of the Kerik taint.

A few other thoughts on Bernard Kerik’s withdrawal :

First, it puts an end to feminist complaints that only women nominees are penalized for having “nanny problems.”

Second, it keeps a white-hot spotlight on many of the issues raised by maverick House Republicans during the “intel reform”/border security debate, including the push for secure documentation, improved employer verification of Social Security numbers, and strengthening of penalties for immigration-related fraud.

Third, it puts a much-needed focus on the need to enforce federal employer sanctions. Why is it that the only employers who ever seem to suffer consequences for hiring illegal immigrants are Cabinet nominees?! In 2002, the federal government fined only 13 employers nationwide for hiring illegal immigrants. Enforcement of employer sanctions has been a nationwide joke for the last two decades.

And fourth, unfortunately, it virtually kills the prospects of getting someone with real homeland security enforcement experience to head DHS.

Since that post nearly three years ago, there has been little change on the homeland security and immigration enforcement front. Giuliani still refuses to acknowledge his aggressive, proactive protection of New York’s sanctuary policies.

Hillary Clinton’s botched illegal alien license answer gave the GOP some breathing room. But when the Dem-on-Dem “pile-on” dies down, we are still left with a leading GOP presidential candidate who positions himself as War on Terror strong horse–but who exercised extraordinarily weak judgement in recommending his corrupted ally for the nation’s top homeland security post, continued to rationalize it, and fails to see his own culpability in perpetuating open-borders chaos in NYC.

Three years ago, the conventional wisdom from many parts of the NYC-DC punditocracy was that Giuliani’s Kerik problem wouldn’t matter in the ’08 presidential election.

It does.

The grass-roots conservative base is sick and tired of cronyism and open-borders arrogance–two traits that dominate the Bush White House, two traits on naked display in the intertwined fates of Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerik, two traits that dangerously undermine public confidence and public safety.

If Republicans are going to decide that Giuliani is the best standard-bearer for the party, they better do so with eyes wide open and absolute candor. He is–at best–only marginally better than Hillary Clinton on immigration and border security. He was a bad judge of character at a key moment in the Department of Homeland Security’s history. And despite his lip service and cable TV-friendly talking points, he remains obstinately committed to non-enforcement of immigration laws when push comes to shove.

Caveat emptor.

***

Pat Robertson will endorse Rudy Giuliani for president. Well, so much for religious conservatives abandoning the GOP.

The question is whether Robertson’s followers will, well, follow.

According to the AP, the men have a long-standing relationship:

A Giuliani campaign aide said the Giuliani has known Robertson for a long time, and their relationship was cemented on a flight back from Israel shortly after Saddam Hussein was captured, where they discussed views on Israel and domestic policies.

The Giuliani aide said that the two have shared goals despite some minor differences.

Hmm. I wouldn’t call them “minor.”

Meantime, the McCain campaign is countering the Giuliani coup by touting an endorsement from Sen Sam. Switchback, who recently dropped out of the GOP race.

Weak.

***

Flashback – Giuliani’s speech at Regent University in July…

Pant, pant, pant! Slaver, slaver, slaver!

The author of this non-news: “Lucy Morrow Caldwell,” a “student at Harvard College and a columnist for the Harvard Crimson.”

And a future Washington bureau chief at the NYTimes or fashion writer for the WaPo’s Style section, I’m sure.

***

More MSM gossiping about GOP children here.

I’ve expressed my disapproval before when public figures use profanity in public. But making a big deal out of Rudy’s remark at an NYC rally and trying to score some kind of gotcha to embarrass social conservatives who might support Rudy makes the Left-o-sphere look even more ridiculous than they already are. Ace has a profanity-laced satire of this dumb tempest in a B-pot. Ann Althouse adds:

Some people don’t like the harsh word “bullsh*t” — and I’m modifying it here with an asterisk out of my bullsh*t fear of filters — but it’s a normal and useful word. I’m sure cops appreciate it. Using it doesn’t make you crazy, and I’m positive TPM doesn’t think it does. TPM is simply trying to hurt Rudy’s chances with conservatives so he won’t get the nomination and get his chance to win over liberals.

Besides, there are far better examples of Rudy’s B.S. that should set grass-roots conservatives’ teeth on edge. Like his denial that he supported illegal alien sanctuary policies as mayor of NY. From the Observer blog:

At a town hall-style meeting with about 100 voters at a technical college in Concord on Tuesday, Giuliani encountered a voter who asked why the former mayor made “New York City a sanctuary for illegal aliens.”

“You must be talking about another candidate,” said Giuliani, who went on to argue that his administration urged the federal government to deport as many illegal immigrants as possible.

“Here are the three areas that you have distorted into this view that I gave sanctuary to illegal immigrants,” said Giuliani, turning his back on the voter and addressing the other voters, seated on couches and loveseats around him.

He said that, as mayor he had to make sure that all kids went to school, that everyone needed access to hospitals and that illegal immigrants needed to be able to inform the police about crimes without fear of deportation.

“That’s why you are wrong,” said Giuliani.

“As mayor of New York City,” he said. “If I was nothing else, I was rational and sensible.”

As I reported in my book Invasion and noted many times since, Rudy wasn’t just a passive supporter of illegal alien sanctuary laws. He fought the federal government in court to keep New York’s policy in place:

New York City’s sanctuary policy was created in 1989 by Mayor Ed Koch and upheld by every mayor succeeding him.

When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law.

The Twin Towers are gone and Giuliani is out of office, but the city’s policy of safe harbors for illegal immigrants stands.

When Rudy denies he crusaded for illegal alien sanctuary policies, that’s B.S.

According to the majority opinion, “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”

“If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment’s scope.”

Howard Bashman and Glenn Reynolds have the ruling covered, with analysis, document links, and blog reactions.

Ace wonders whether Rudy Giuliani’s position on gun control is moot. Allah answers:

…if the Supreme Court grants cert. If they don’t, it makes Rudy’s position even more important because other circuits are going to see gun-control challenges now that point to this decision. There’ll be probably be a split, but the split may not materialize until 2009. In which case it matters a whole lot what the next president thinks about the SA.

The Second Amendment Foundation reacts to the ruling, calling it a “landmark for liberty:”

A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges
… a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.” “Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new
government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees
that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation …was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless
individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.”

Some background on the pioneering plaintiffs in the case, via Cato:

Roughly three dozen challenges to the D.C. law have already been filed — but mostly by criminals who are serving longer sentences because their crimes included gun possession. This case is different. The lead plaintiff, Shelly Parker, resides in a high-crime neighborhood and is active in community affairs. As a result of trying to make her neighborhood a better place to live, Ms. Parker has been threatened by drug dealers. She would like to possess a functional handgun within her home for self-defense, but fears arrest, prosecution, incarceration and fine because of D.C.’s unconstitutional gun ban.

A second plaintiff is a Special Police Officer who carries a handgun to provide security for the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center. But when he applied for permission to possess a handgun within his home, the D.C. government turned him down. Other plaintiffs include a gay man who was assaulted in another city on account of his sexual orientation, but was able to ward off the attacker with a handgun.

Jeff Soyer at Alphecca cautions:

Don’t look for any sudden changes in DC until all the appeals dust settles and even if it is determined that it is an individual right to bear arms, no doubt DC will adopt NYC style permit requirements — that is that you must be a rock star or hypocritical politician to get one.

It would be interesting to see if a similar suit is filed on behalf of Chicago residents.

Bryan Preston, Ian Schwartz, Erick Stakelbeck, and I will be covering the 34th annual Conservative Political Action Conference for Hot Air. I’ll also liveblog events and photoblog here at mm.com throughout the 3-day conference. If you’re planning to attend, we’ll have a booth in the exhibitor hall that opens at 10am later today. In addition to covering speeches, debates, and other action from the floor, I’ll have a book signing on Friday at 11am and Bryan will be participating in a blogging panel on Saturday at 11am. (Onsite registration is still available. More info here.) The list of credentialed CPAC bloggers is here.

I was disappointed to learn from Patrick Ruffini tonight that Rudy Giuliani will not be doing blog interviews when he comes to CPAC on Friday–and apparently won’t be doing MSM ones, either (why am I not buying that last part?).

If I were a smarter politician trying to convince grass-roots conservatives that I really do want their votes, I might, I dunno, make some time to talk with them–and not just at them.

Alas, Giuliani has chosen not to get his hands dirty. By contrast, Newt Gingrich’s communications director e-mailed tonight that Gingrich is making himself available to bloggers on Friday morning (he doesn’t speak until Saturday).

In other CPAC news this morning, Mitt Romney is going all out to win the conference straw poll. The NYTimes reports:

The straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference beginning here Thursday has never played a pivotal role in a Republican presidential primary. But the Mitt Romney campaign nonetheless is paying for three vans, scores of registration fees and at least a half-dozen hotel rooms to pack collegiate supporters into the event.

The turnout drive — 10 months before the first primary — is the latest sign of both the early start and bulging budgets of the 2008 presidential campaign. But the conference may be especially important to Mr. Romney, who is trying to reassure social conservatives that his views have shifted to the right from some of the liberal positions he took as the governor of Massachusetts.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, said the conference volunteers were part of a long-term effort to build grass-roots support.

“These volunteers are the folks who are going to be on the front lines of our campaign across the country,” Mr. Madden said. “The investment that we are making here is going to offer a greater result as this campaign continues to grow.”

Mr. Madden said the Romney campaign planned to have at least 225 student volunteers at the event, with 90 percent of them living close enough to eliminate the need for housing or transportation. Last year the event drew more than 4,000 activists. But only about 600 people, mostly students, participated in the poll. Every Republican presidential candidate so far except Senator John McCain will speak at the event.

Unfortunately, the Romney strategy has been used before–and didn’t turn out so well:

Organizers of the annual conservative conference said that another concerted effort to get student supporters to the event was organized in early 2000 by Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative candidate for the Republican nomination. Mr. Bauer said in an interview that he had organized the effort to help prove he was a viable candidate and considered his strong showing a success. But he dropped out early in the primaries nonetheless.

Oops.

Vice President Cheney is scheduled to speak tonight.

President Bush has never attended CPAC.

President Reagan spoke at the event 12 times.

The American Conservative Union has an archive of Reagan’s CPAC speeches here.
A taste of what we all miss so dearly–from Reagan’s March 20, 1981 speech titled, “Our Time Is Now. Our Moment Has Arrived:”

There are so many people and institutions who come to mind for their role in the success we celebrate tonight. Intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises—they shaped so much of our thoughts.

It’s especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, Frank Meyer, was buried. He’d made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of “The God That Failed,” and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought—a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.

It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.

Our goals complement each other. We’re not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the States and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to people not only by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly.

Because ours is a consistent philosophy of government, we can be very clear: We do not have a social agenda, separate, separate economic agenda, and a separate foreign agenda. We have one agenda. Just as surely as we seek to put our financial house in order and rebuild our nation’s defenses, so too we seek to protect the unborn, to end the manipulation of schoolchildren by utopian planners, and permit the acknowledgement of a Supreme Being in our classrooms just as we allow such acknowledgements in other public institutions.

Now, obviously we’re not going to be able to accomplish all this at once. The American people are patient. I think they realize that the wrongs done over several decades cannot be corrected instantly. You know, I had the pleasure in appearing before a Senate committee once while I was still Governor, and I was challenged because there was a Republican President in the White House who’d been there for several months—why we hadn’t then corrected everything that had been done. And the only way I could think to answer him is I told him about a ranch many years ago that Nancy and I acquired. It had a barn with eight stalls in it in which they had kept cattle, and we wanted to keep horses. And I was in there day after day with a pick and a shovel, lowering the level of those stalls, which had accumulated over the years. [Laughter] And I told this Senator who’d asked that question that I discovered that you did not undo in weeks or months what it had taken some 15 years to accumulate.

I also believe that we conservatives, if we mean to continue governing, must realize that it will not always be so easy to place the blame on the past for our national difficulties. You know, one day the great baseball manager Frankie Frisch sent a rookie out to play center field. The rookie promptly dropped the first fly ball that was hit to him. On the next play he let a grounder go between his feet and then threw the ball to the wrong base. Frankie stormed out of the dugout, took his glove away from him and said, “I’ll show you how to play this position.” And the next batter slammed a line drive right over second base. Frankie came in on it, missed it completely, fell down when he tried to chase it, threw down his glove, and yelled at the rookie, “You’ve got center field so screwed up nobody can play it.” [Laughter]

The point is we must lead a nation, and that means more than criticizing the past. Indeed, as T. S. Eliot once said, “Only by acceptance of the past will you alter its meaning.”

Now, during our political efforts, we were the subject of much indifference and often times intolerance, and that’s why I hope our political victory will be remembered as a generous one and our time in power will be recalled for the tolerance we showed for those with whom we disagree.

But beyond this, beyond this we have to offer America and the world a larger vision. We must remove government’s smothering hand from where it does harm; we must seek to revitalize the proper functions of government. But we do these things to set loose again the energy and the ingenuity of the American people. We do these things to reinvigorate those social and economic institutions which serve as a buffer and a bridge between the individual and the state—and which remain the real source of our progress as a people.

And we must hold out this exciting prospect of an orderly, compassionate, pluralistic society—an archipelago of prospering communities and divergent institutions—a place where a free and energetic people can work out their own destiny under God.

I know that some will think about the perilous world we live in and the dangerous decade before us and ask what practical effect this conservative vision can have today. When Prime Minister Thatcher was here recently, we both remarked on the sudden, overwhelming changes that had come recently to politics in both our countries.

At our last official function, I told the Prime Minister that everywhere we look in the world the cult of the state is dying. And I held out hope that it wouldn’t be long before those of our adversaries who preach the supremacy of the state were remembered only for their role in a sad, rather bizarre chapter in human history. The largest planned economy in the world has to buy food elsewhere or its people would starve.

We’ve heard in our century far too much of the sounds of anguish from those who live under totalitarian rule. We’ve seen too many monuments made not out of marble or stone but out of barbed wire and terror. But from these terrible places have come survivors, witnesses to the triumph of the human spirit over the mystique of state power, prisoners whose spiritual values made them the rulers of their guards.

With their survival, they brought us “the secret of the camps,” a lesson for our time and for any age:

Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.