Suprise, Suprise Many "undocumented" Mexican immigrants like Bush's guest-worker plan:

A survey of mostly undocumented Mexican immigrants found that a majority want to stay in the country permanently, but many more would be interested in signing up for temporary work permits even if it requires them to eventually return to Mexico.

Suro said those interviewed were not asked specifically about their legal residency status, but that more than half acknowledged they did not have U.S.-government issued identification documents.

The typical Mexican interviewed was young, male and had arrived in the United States within the last five years. Most, 54%, said they spoke little or no English and most, 62%, said they earned less than $400 a week.

Despite the desire to make the United States their home, most Mexicans — 71% — said they would participate in a temporary visa program that would force them to return home but allow them to legally work here and travel to and from Mexico. The Pew Hispanic Center survey, which was released Wednesday, found that 59% want to remain in the United States "as long as I can" or "for the rest of my life." Only 27% said they expected to return to Mexico within the next five years.

Blog Jealousy?

It's one thing to stand on a street corner and shout opinions at the top of your lungs. It's quite another to do it on the Internet.

The practice is "blogging" - using a Web page as a journal for views, statements and information - and its ability to rapidly steer public opinion has some people asking, what responsibility do these online announcers have to get it right?

"The danger in blogging is that there isn't that level of checking," said John Russial, an associate professor in the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. "Information can get out there and it can be spread like wildfire, when in fact it might not be true."

Must Read Column Of The Day

Minutes after the President finished his speech, Ron Reagan—a de facto Dem since he spoke at the party's convention—was opining on MSNBC that the al-Souhail- Norwood hug was exploitative and staged. Others soon expressed similarly mingy thoughts. This was a symptom of a larger disease: most Democrats seemed as reluctant as Kerry to express the slightest hint of optimism about the elections. Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi diminished themselves by staging an unnecessary pre-buttal and a misleading rebuttal to the President's speech.

Reid's claim that George W. Bush would reduce Social Security benefits 40% was hogwash. The President has merely stated the obvious, that reductions will be necessary. Reid also made the absurd comparison between Bush's very conservative investment-account proposal and Las Vegas gaming tables. Finally, there was the boorish and possibly unprecedented hooting of the President by Democrats during the speech.

"No! No! No!" they shouted, inaccurately, when Bush asserted that the Social Security trust fund would, in a decade or so, start paying out more money than it takes in. If nothing is done, it surely will.

Bush's private investment accounts, combined with a reduction in benefits or higher taxes, is one way for baby boomers to lighten the burden of our retirement upon our children. There are other ways, but none without pain. A far more profitable—and absolutely necessary—reform would be a market-oriented overhaul of Medicare, but Dems just say no to that too.

The day after the President's speech, the party's congressional leaders gathered at the Franklin D. Roosevelt memorial to carp. How 70 years ago! "Progressive" Dems—and I use the term advisedly, since liberals seem more interested in preserving the past than in discovering the future—are right to admire Roosevelt. But the Roosevelt they worship is a bronze sculpture, frozen in time. The real F.D.R. was a gutsy innovator. The current Democrats resemble nothing so much as the Republicans during the 25 years after Roosevelt's death—negative, defensive, intellectually feeble, a permanent minority. There are reasons to oppose this President —arrogance abroad, crony capitalism at home—but undifferentiated opposition is obtuse and most likely counterproductive. The Democrats' current crudeness is a function of their desperation, and the imminent ratification of Howard Dean, the least charming presidential candidate in recent memory, as their party chairman only serves to punctuate the problem.

Damn Straight

Hell, if given the chance to shoot and kill Osama Bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi or any of the other insurgents, you're damned right it would be a lot of fun. Might even be worth stuffing the head and mounting it on the wall.

A Soldier Speaks

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.