politicalpartypoop.com

 Another appropriate recycle since Nancy is now running the country…

By Human Events - Link

No sooner had congressional Republicans lost the midterm elections, making them the opposition party in Congress, than President Bush called a press conference and made several statements that raised the question of whether these Republicans would also need to become the opposition party to his administration.

It will come as no surprise to readers of HUMAN EVENTS that President Bush’s position on immigration is closer to the position of congressional Democrats than to congressional Republicans. But it was a little unsettling when Bush happily made this point himself last week when prodded by a reporter.

Making Deals

“On immigration, many Democrats had more positive things to say about your comprehensive proposal than many Republicans did,” said the reporter. “Do you think a Democratic Congress gives you a better shot at comprehensive immigration reform?”

“Comprehensive immigration reform,” remember, is the code-phrase Bush uses to describe his plan for granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

“You know. I should have brought this up,” said Bush. “I do. I think we have a good chance. Thank you.”

“What are the odds for a guest-worker provision?” asked a reporter, using another code-phrase for not only amnestying illegals, but also allowing a continuing flow of unskilled foreign workers to enter the U.S.

“Well, that’s got to be an integral part of a comprehensive plan,” said Bush.

Ironically, in the same press conference, Bush also said he wanted to work with Democrats to increase the federal minimum wage. “[O]ne of these three characters [reporters] asked me about the minimum wage,” said Bush. “I said, there’s an area where I believe we can make some—find common ground.”

One wonders if Bush sees any contradiction between his amnesty/guest-worker plan and his new desire to increase the minimum wage. On the one hand, he wants to flood the U.S. with unskilled foreign workers, driving down wages for unskilled American workers. On the other hand, he wants the federal government to mandate higher wages for unskilled workers. In sum, his policy seems aimed at bringing in foreign workers so employers can pay them less than American workers, then passing a law mandating that employers pay the foreign workers more.

Why not just enforce the immigration laws, and let American employers and American workers negotiate wages in a free market?

Obviously, Bush knows increasing the minimum wage would hurt small businesses that no longer could afford to pay it. So, he has a plan for that, too. “And as we do [increase the minimum wage],” said Bush, “I’ll be, of course, making sure that our small businesses are—there’s compensation for the small businesses in the bill.”

What does that mean? Apparently the President wants to hand out tax dollars to subsidize businesses forced by an increase in the minimum wage to pay more to unskilled workers. With his guest-worker plan in place, does that mean taxpayers would subsidize the wages of imported foreign laborers?

Maybe this was a botched joke.

But then Bush moved on to education. “We had some pretty good success early on in this administration,” Bush said. “We got the No Child Left Behind Act passed, which was an important part of bipartisan legislation.” Noting that No Child Left Behind now needs to be reauthorized, Bush said, “There’s an area where we must work together for the sake of our children and for the sake of a competitive America. And I believe we can get a lot done.”

Yes, a lot more unnecessary federal spending will be done. The original No Child Left Behind Act, sponsored by Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.), caused federal education spending to more than double.

Yet, the biggest potential conflict between Bush and congressional conservatives may come from any deal he strikes with the Democrats on Social Security reform. “One of the big hot-button issues for the Democratic Party is Social Security and the idea of partial privatization, which you have talked about,” a reporter asked Bush. “I wonder if there’s anything in your agenda that you’re willing to adjust in the spirit of bipartisanship or back off from, given how important that is to the core of the Democratic Party.”

“I told [Treasury Secretary] Ken Paulson to tell the members that we’d sit down and listen to everybody’s ideas,” said Bush.

As Yogi Berra might say, this could be déjà vu all over again. Shortly after the 2004 election, discussing Social Security reform, Bush said, “We will not raise payroll taxes to solve this problem.” Then on Feb.15, 2005, in a discussion with the New Haven Register, he narrowed this promise to cover only the payroll tax “rate.” When asked whether he would oppose lifting the cap on the amount of income subject to the payroll tax, Bush equivocated. “I’m interested in good ideas,” he said. “People need to come forth with good ideas.”

When pressed by HUMAN EVENTS on whether the President would rule out lifting the cap on the amount of income subject to the payroll tax, then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not give a straight answer.

On November 5, Larry Kudlow of CNBC asked White House Spokesman Tony Snow whether Secretary Paulson was already talking with members of Congress about raising taxes as part of a deal on entitlement reform. Snow would not rule this out.

Kudlow said, “There are rumors now that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was in consultation, I guess, with House and Senate members on both sides of the aisle … might be willing to accept an increase in the top personal tax rate and maybe an increase in the taxable wage base in order to get an entitlement compromise. Can you squash those rumors?”

“No, I can’t,” said Snow. “I don’t even know about what’s going on. I know that Secretary Paulson is, in fact, trying to take on the entitlement problem because the overhang on entitlements is something that’s unsustainable. And the President is absolutely committed to dealing with Social Security and Medicare, and he doesn’t care if he has to be the heavy between now and the time he leaves office.”

The President should be commended for trying to reform Social Security, but you didn’t need to read his lips or Tony Snow’s to realize the White House is not ruling out making a deal with the Democrats to increase taxes.

Congressional Republicans need to rule out such hikes for them, even if it means going into pitched opposition against a President of their own party.

From Ankle Biting Pundits 

I can imagine that Newt Gingrich might be a little upset at watching the Republican majority he helped engineer to power in 1994 come crashing down the other night.  And today in Atlanta he let his anger towards his party be known: 

 Speaker Newt Gingrich laid into President Bush and congressional Republicans in an Atlanta appearance Thursday.

Taking questions after a medical forum, the former GOP congressman from Cobb County said four c’s — an absence of competence in Republican performance, an absence of candor, corruption and the bad advice of consultants — led to Tuesday’s defeat.

But Gingrich saved his strongest words for President Bush’s performance at the Wednesday press conference announcing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. Bush told reporters that he had planned to replace Rumsfeld since before the election, despite praising the unpopular defense secretary a week ago and saying he would remain for the duration of his presidency.

“If the president had decided to replace Secretary Rumsfeld he should have told us two weeks ago,” Gingrich said. “I think that we would today control the Senate and probably have 10 to15 more House seats. And I found it very disturbing yesterday in the press conference, the explanation that the President gave.

“We need candor, we need directness,” said Gingrich, a potential 2008 presidential candidate.”We need to understand the threats we faced with are so frightening and so real, the danger that we’ll lose two to three American cities so great, that we cannot play games with each other, cannot manipulate each other, we have to have an open and honest dialogue, and I found yesterday’s staments at the press conference frankly very disturbing.”

He condemned Bush’s admission that in making last week’s statement about Rumsfeld, he had known he was being misleading.

“It’s inappropriate to cleverly come out the day after an election to do something we were told before the election would not be done,” Gingrich said. “I think the timing was exactly backwards and I hope the President will rethink how he engages the American people and how he communicates with candor.”

He contrasted the euphoria of 1994, when his Contract with America agenda helped ended decades of Democratic rule in the House, with the bitterness of Tuesday night’s Democratic sweep.

“I remember what it felt like the night we were at the Cobb Galleria and for the first time in 40 years we won control of the House and (there was) the Contract with America and people were very exicted about welfare reform and cutting taxes and balancing the budget and all those things, and I have to say 12 years later that I’m very disappointed, but if you look at what I’ve said all year, I’m not surprised.”

As for what Republicans should do now, he said, “I believe the House and Senate Republicans and the White House need to take a deep breath and think very seriously about this election result, because I think we’re at a very important turning point this is either a temporary interruption of what has been a gradually consolidating center-right majority, or this is a breakdown of that center-right majority leading to a significant effort to establish a center-left government majority.”

The democrats are not about to repeat Republican mistakes now (although I still think impeachment is on the table for them), so I dare say the GOP (*coughJOHNMCCAINcough*) would do well to heed Newt’s advice this time around, or face not seeing a majority again for a very, very long time.

By Howard Hewitt - Townhall.com 

The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body’s leadership the Democrats.

The first two paragraphs of my book Painting the Map Red –published in March of this year, read:

If you are a conservative Republican, as I am, you have a right to be worried. An overconfident and complacent Republican Party could be facing electoral disaster. Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and a host of others could be looming in our future and undoing all the good we’ve tried to do.

It is break the glass and pull the alarm time for the Republican Party. The elections looming in November 2006 are shaping up to be disastrous for the GOP as the elections of 1994 were for the Democrats. Most GOP insiders seem unaware of the party’s political peril. Some are resigned to a major defeat as the price we have to pay for a decade of consistent gains, which, they think, couldn’t have gone on forever.

As cooler heads sort through the returns, they will see not a Democratic wave but a long series of bitter fights most of which were lost by very thin margins, the sort of margin that could have been overcome had there been greater purpose and energy arrayed on the GOP’s side. The country did not fundamentally change from 2004, but the Republicans had to defend very difficult terrain in very adverse circumstances. Step by step over the past two years the GOP painted themselves into a corner from which there was no escape. Congressional leadership time and time again took the easy way out and declared truces with Democrats over issues, which ought not to have been compromised. The easy way led to Tuesday’s result.

The criminal activities of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and Mark Foley were anchors around every Republican neck, and the damaged leadership could not figure out that the only way to slip that weight was by staying in town and working around the clock on issue after issue. The long recesses and the unwillingness to confront the issues head on –remember the House’s inexplicable refusal to condemn the New York Times by name in a resolution over the SWIFT program leak?– conveyed a smugness about the majority which was rooted in redistricting’s false assurance of invulnerability. Only on rare occasions would the Republicans set up the sort of debate that sharpened the contrast between the parties. In wartime, the public expects much more from its leaders than they received from the GOP.

READ THE REST

 Mac Johnson - Human Events - Link
Although the basic philosophy of conservatism is optimistic (a belief in the individual’s ability to succeed if left alone by government is at the core of the movement, after all), conservatives tend to be chronically depressed when it comes to politics and elections.

Not only does government seem to grow ad nauseum with each passing year (especially under Democrats or George Bush), but a healthy touch of pessimism is a natural consequence of responsibility. Imagining what can go wrong is how responsible adults plan for the future. And conservatives are, disproportionately, among the responsible part of the population—responsible for paying the taxes, fighting the wars, raising the children, and running the businesses.  

So it is not surprising that conservatives have a tendency to see the worst in every political event. This means that oftentimes conservatives completely overlook when they have actually won a major victory—concentrating instead on spotting the next potential defeat. This is what has occurred regarding the battle over illegal immigration and amnesty this past year.

At the beginning of 2006, the constellations were in perfect alignment for the forces of open borders and amnesty. Ready to push for amnesty—and the next flood of illegal alien interlopers it would bring- was the mainstream media, nearly all Congressional Democrats, President Bush and Karl Rove, John McCain and much of the Senate leadership of the GOP, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page and its disciples, sellout union “leaders,” corrupt corporations, every ethnic grievance group in the country, a number of imbecile bishops, academia, the rabid moonbat left, 20 million street-storming illegal aliens, and every weenie in America afraid of being called a racist.

All amnesty opponents had going for them was the wishes of a majority of the American people and the rank-and-file Republicans in Congress. And yet amnesty was defeated in a spectacular fashion. Many conservatives, who were angry that the victory had to be achieved over the political carcasses of our own President and Senate leaders, did not appreciate the scale and significance of this victory at the time. An army that has to mutiny just to be able to fight the enemy is inherently demoralized by that fact.

Given such circumstances, it’s easy to resort to jaded and safe clichés such as “there’s no difference between the two parties.”  But the simple fact is there’s a huge difference between the parties on the amnesty issue: Republicans are divided over it, with most opposing amnesty. For Democrats there is no such division—they wholeheartedly support amnesty.

H.R. 4437, the bill establishing increased border security efforts and rejecting amnesty, was supported by 203 of 231 (88%) Republicans in the House—only 17 voted against it. By contrast, only 36 Democrats (18%) voted for the bill, 164 voted against it, hoping to pass an amnesty instead. In the Senate, the only opposition to amnesty came from Republicans—60% of them opposed it. 93% of Senate Democrats supported amnesty.

That’s the choice this election presents for opponents of open borders: support the Republicans that rose up against their leadership to oppose amnesty, or support the Democrats who will gleefully pass an amnesty just as soon as they are sworn in and able.

And here’s the real kicker: booting Republicans from control of the House to punish George Bush and John McCain for their ludicrous border policies will have the ironic effect of ensuring they finally get the amnesty they want. If Democrats win big next week, the Senate will resurrect their amnesty bill, a Democrat controlled House will pass it, and there can be no doubt that President George W. Bush will sign it with far more fanfare and enthusiasm than he displayed when he signed the bill initiating construction of 700 miles of border fence—a bill that Republican Congressman forced on him in response to voter pressure.

In short, voting Democrat, or not voting at all, merely amounts to cutting off our Tancredo to spite our Bush. It would be throwing away the tremendous victory we have won this year and, worse, set in motion a tsunami of increased illegal immigration.

Today’s illegal immigration problem is a direct result of the 1986 amnesty. Far from “solving” the relatively small illegal alien problem America had then (3 million), it made the problem far, far worse by sending the message out to all the world that the secret to a better life in America was to just get here: sneak in, lie your way in, buy your way in, but just get here and we will let you stay, forgive you, and eventually make you a citizen.

And the world heard the message. Today the population of immigration criminals hiding in America waiting for the next amnesty is 12 million to 20 million. We cannot afford another such amnesty solution. The only way to undo the damage of the 1986 amnesty is to put aside talk of new amnesties or guest worker scams and begin to vigorously enforce the laws on immigration.

In the long term, illegal immigration may be the biggest threat facing the United States. Americans are only 5% of the world’s population. If the borders are thrown completely open by another amnesty, we face the very real prospect of being made a minority in what used to be our country.

If, as a voter, you are concerned about illegal immigration and border security, then a Republican Congress is currently the best insurance policy you can buy—not just against Democrats in Congress, but against the Republican in the White House as well.

The next battle for our borders occurs Tuesday, November 7, at a polling place near you. Vote. Or you can spend the day in Spanish class.

 These is great debate going on between Republicans, right leaning bloggers, conservative political pundits and Rush over just what will happen if the Democrats take over.
IF!? Hell Rangel thinks it’s a lock.
I’m just a little ole F list blogger dude, but any right leaning individual who thinks that there is no harm in the Democrats taking over is frankly not firing on all cylinders.
Have Republicans been making big mistakes and engulfed themselves in isolated instances of political corruption and sexual deviancy, of course.
But this is about ideas and ideology. I don’t want lunatics like Rangel, Pelosi and Reid in charge and the idea that letting Democrats take over this will “teach republicans a lesson” is fucken ridiculous.
Political pundits and bloggers who want to continue the “let the Democrats win drumbeat”, better go back and read up on the agendas of these Democrat lunatics.
Frankly right leaning people who would allow this Democrat advantage frankly do not sound like true Republicans or conservatives.
This is another reason why I almost exclusively read left leaning sites. If more right leaning types did this we would not even be having this discussion.  

                                                                                

 Hi-yo, Charlie! If House Finally Goes Democratic, Bumptious Congressman Becomes Ways and Means Czar: ‘Listen, I Can’t Have a Secret Agenda—I’m 76’

By Jason Horowitz - New York Observer 

It’s three weeks until Election Day and Charlie Rangel is already acting like he’s in charge.

With the Democrats poised to take over the House in November—putting the 76-year-old dean of the New York Congressional delegation on the verge of landing the most potent and coveted job of his career—Mr. Rangel’s recent public appearances have taken on the look and feel of a victory tour.

“When I become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,” he said Thursday night in front of the Hudson River School paintings at the New-York Historical Society, “we will have power over the entire tax system, Social Security system, pension system, Medicare and all international trade.”

For some Republicans—most notably President George W. Bush—the thought of that broad mandate falling into the bejeweled hands of Mr. Rangel is a nightmare. The Republicans have been sharing their dark vision with anyone who will listen, using the prospect of a Rangel chairmanship to scare up support for their own candidates. (“It is a bad thing,” said Republican National Committee spokesman Aaron McLear. “Taxes across the board will be raised.”)

In his gravelly, undulating voice, Mr. Rangel dismisses it all as so much partisan nonsense.

“Republicans have to say these things,” he said. “If I was down in the polls like they are, I’d knock Charlie Rangel too.”

Mr. Rangel, clad in a gold tie clip, opal rings and a colorful handkerchief, intends to bring more than a change in style to the chairmanship. Experts in tax policy predict that if the Democrats win, Mr. Rangel will radically change the way the federal government levies America’s wealth.

READ THE REST

Miranda rights for terrorists?!
The trap; Geneva Contention
Applying Geneva will destroy it

 

WATCH HOT AIR HERE

 

 

You Have the Right to Remain Silent…

McCain, Miranda, and Common Article 3.By Andrew McCarthy - National Review 

A number of friends and colleagues (both conservative and liberal) have either quarreled with or expressed alarm about my contention that the 2005 McCain Amendment conferred Miranda rights on alien enemy combatants. This contention has been the subject of a 2005 article (here) and a Corner Post (on Tuesday). They say I am making the McCain Amendment out to be much more consequential than it was — which is funny because, at the time, they all seemed to think it was pretty consequential. Why else did we need to pass it?

For my part, the argument is welcome, and I’d be delighted to be wrong — although you may not want to bet the ranch that I am (as Congress and the president have already done).

To oversimplify for explanation’s sake, the McCain amendment extends the Fifth Amendment privilege to alien enemy combatants held overseas. It did this for the express purpose of clarifying the meaning of the terms “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” (CID) in the United Nations Convention Against Torture. (That itself is ironic because Senator McCain, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and others who supported the McCain Amendment are now faulting the Bush administration for trying to clarify impossibly vague terms in the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3.)

Now, the Fifth Amendment encompasses many things that plainly have nothing to do with CID. For example, it specifies a right to a grand-jury indictment, to double-jeopardy protection, and to just compensation for any government taking of property. It also has one protection that undoubtedly does relate to CID, namely, the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (Due process has been held by the Supreme Court, in Rochin v. California (1952), for example, to prohibit government conduct in the collection of evidence that would “shock the conscience” of the court — a highly subjective test.)

Finally, the Fifth has a protection that may or may not relate to CID, namely, the Self-Incrimination Clause. That is the right of a defendant not “to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It is this provision that causes me to say the McCain Amendment requires Miranda warnings.  READ THE REST HERE

By Demetri Sevastopulo, Caroline Daniel and Holly Yeager in Washington

John McCain, the Republican frontrunner for the 2008 presidential election, has dramatically raised the stakes in a fight with the White House over interrogation techniques permitted for use at secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons by saying he is unwilling to back down on the issue even if it ruins his chance of becoming president.

READ THE REST

If you liberals are going to post entries on your blog, get your facts straight.
Now I don’t care about the primary content, apparently McCain is pimping himself on Playboy:

 “Did McCain just commit the ultimately morality flip-flop? Did he destroy his chance at the 2008 Republican presidential nomination?”

The post:

Morality Flip-Flop? In May, McCain Appeased The Relgious Right. Now He Risks Their Scorn By Speaking To Playboy

Nobody cares….my focus is:

“McCain is seen as a likely front-runner to be his party’s 2008 presidential nominee.”

Likely front runner, who the fuck thinks that!? Hello people, McCain is not a front runner.
I would not trust McCain as president, not by a long shot. He is the Republican version of Hillary Clinton. Bit time political opportunist and more than that the liberal media likes him, serious red flag!

Trinity’s comment is a good example:

“McCain is seen as a likely front-runner to be his party’s 2008 presidential nominee.”

Not by anyone who really counts. He’s not so much a fake moderate, as he is a fake conservative, at least in some areas. I do appreciate his support of the war on the Islamo-facists though. I just don’t want him to be our candidate for the presidency.

I love this article by crazy lady Helen Thomas Want more Bush? Elect McCain 

The next two posts (From Right Wing News) explain so many of the issues most conservatives have with dude.

Why Do So Many Conservatives Dislike John McCain?
Question: “As a rightwinger in Australia, I just don’t understand why U.S. conservatives hate “RINO” McCain. Anti-abortion, pro-Iraq, anti-pork, war hero … sure, McCain-Feingold is stupid and the Gang of 14 was annoying, but why is he so unpopular? I wish we had more like him here.” — Nick Palgan

Answer: There are plenty of policies and things McCain has supported that grate on many conservatives.

He’s incredibly soft on illegal immigration. McCain-Feingold campaign finance not only failed in “getting the money out of politics” & should have been ruled unconstitutional, it actually helped the Democrats gain a big 527 fund raising advantage last year. The Gang of 14 compromise was more than just “annoying.” It allowed the Democrats to have extra leverage which they then used to cow Bush into selecting a spectacularly awful candidate like Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. I could go on, but let’s just say that McCain seems to take an almost perverse delight in becoming prominently involved in legislation that conservatives detest.

Then there’s the fact McCain isn’t necessarily considered to be a loyal Republican. Back in 2002, there were some people who seriously thought McCain might switch parties. In the 2004 election, even though he turned him down in the end, McCain actually talked with Kerry multiple times about being his veep in the 2004 campaign. Can you even begin to imagine someone like George Allen or Sam Brownback switching parties? What about John Cornyn talking with John Kerry about being his vice-president?

On top of all that, McCain is an egomaniac who seems to crave approval from the press and he has no qualms whatsoever about attacking other Republicans to get it. What McCain loves to do is trash other Republicans on issues that conservatives hold dear and then sit back and wait for the liberal press to rave about what a “straight talking maverick” he is. If this happened here and there, it might be forgivable, but it’s a semi-regular thing for McCain.

Put it all together and you can see why there are so many conservatives who genuinely don’t like McCain.

THERE IS MORE………. 

The Conservative Case Against John McCain In 2008

There is no Republican up on Capitol Hill more disliked by his own GOP brethren than John McCain. That’s why, despite the size of his fan club in the mainstream media, McCain seems rather unlikely to capture the party’s nomination for President in 2008.

Here’s a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why so many conservatives believe John McCain would be a very poor choice as the Republican nominee in 2008.

Oh you liberals would love McCain as the nominee………not no, BUT HELL NO!
My biggest axe to grind with dude is his immigration stance. I see him continuing this country without borders bullshit Bush is trying to pimp.
McCain is the perfect definition of RINO.

Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it.    

 ”We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote. “The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there.”

 Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber’s lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats — Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware — supported funding the fence. 
All told, 34 senators — including most of the Republican leadership — voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it.

Mr. Session’s amendment would have required across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Mr. Gregg said, which would mean cutting 750 new border-patrol agents and 1,200 new detention beds for illegal aliens that he included in the bill. 
   Mr. Sessions said that if his colleagues were serious about building the fence that they promised, they would find the funding.

    “We will rightly be accused of not being serious about the commitments we’ve made to the American people with regard to actually enforcing the laws of immigration in America, which many Americans already believe we’re not serious about,” he said. “They don’t respect what we’ve done in the past, and they should not. We have failed, and it’s time for us to try to fix it and do better.”

    To prove his point, Mr. Sessions offered another amendment, which appropriated another $85.7 million to enable Homeland Security to hire 800 more full-time investigators to probe immigration-law violations. The vote against that amendment was 66-34.
    Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision — slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote — that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.

    “I know of no other provision in U.S. law where the federal government requires state and local governments — every state and local government on the border — to consult with state and local governments of a foreign power before the federal government can act,” he said.

    “Now, from my experience as a Justice Department official, when we had consultation requirements with the State Department, just getting two agencies in the executive branch to consult took months or years,” said Mr. Kobach, now a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

 ”If you add this, three levels of government and a foreign power, your delay” will never end.

Link to story