So who could be on the fence about the DREAM Act? A pro-DREAM group is urging its members to call the following senators:

Cornyn, John- (R - TX) (202) 224-2934
Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922
Thad Cochran (202) 224- 5054
Norm Coleman(202) 224-5641
John Sununu (202) 224-2841
Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644
Richard Burr (202) 224-3154
John Warner (202) 224-2023
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
Max Baucus (202) 224-2651
Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Benjamin Nelson (202) 224-6551
John Barrasso (202) - 224-6441
Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Crapo (202) 224-6142
Bennet (202) 224-5444
Martinez (202) 224-3041
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - (202) 224-6521
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - (202) 224-5824
Sen Ensign (202) 224-6244

It excludes both (very) likely opponents (e.g. Sessions) and supporters (e.g. Durbin) of the DREAM Act, so this may give some hint of where the undecided senators are. Is this list reliable?

UPDATE 10/23: Could this vote on the filibuster be pretty close? According to one news source, Durbin's trying to sound confident:

Durbin said that the vote tally was “somewhere in the mid 50’s” and that Republican support was growing “by the minute.”

There are a lot of minutes until Wednesday. 60 votes are needed to override a filibuster. Durbin is probably playing the expectations game, but that game doesn't always work out: a lot of folks were confident the "grand bargain" would pass the Senate in June, and it didn't. So this probably isn't decided one way or another yet--but I could be wrong.

(Via Malkin) Cornyn's office has released a statement saying that he'll vote against the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act tomorrow.

NumbersUSA lists the following 21 senators as being confirmed against the DREAM:

Alabama: Sessions; Shelby
Arizona: Kyl [[UPDATE 10/24]]
Colorado: Allard
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning; McConnell
Louisiana: Vitter
Mississippi: Lott
Missouri: Bond
North Carolina: Burr; Dole
Oklahoma: Coburn; Inhofe
South Carolina: DeMint
South Dakota: Thune
Tennessee: Alexander; Corker
Texas: Cornyn [[UPDATE 10/24]]
Wyoming: Barrasso; Enzi

It has this breakdown of other senators ("red" means declared supporters of DREAM and "green" means that these senators' offices "are consistently telling their constituents that they will vote NO on the amnesty [i.e. DREAM] . But they have declined to pledge a NO vote to NumbersUSA staff"):

California: Boxer 224-3553; Feinstein 224-3841
Colorado: Salazar 224-5852
Connecticut: Dodd 224-2823; Lieberman 224-4041
Florida: Martinez 224-3041; Nelson (Bill) 224-5274
Illinois: Durbin 224-2152; Obama 224-2854
Louisiana: Landrieu 224-5824
Maryland: Cardin 224-4524; Mikulski 224-4654
Montana: Baucus 224-2651; Tester 224-2644
Nebraska: Hagel 224-4224; Nelson (Ben) 224-6551
New Hampshire: Gregg 224-3324; Sununu 224-2841
New Jersey: Lautenberg 224-3224; Menendez 224-4744
South Carolina: Graham 224-5972
Utah: Bennett 224-5444; Hatch 224-5251

If all those in "green" vote as their offices are telling their constituents, and everything else stays the same, it looks like opponents of DREAM may have at least 26 [[UPDATE: 27]] votes (21 confirmed + Cornyn + 4 greens). A lot of senators who ultimately did not support the "grand bargain" sound officially undecided, so there could be a lot of play. Who could be some crucial swings? I might guess: McCaskill (D-MO), Coleman (R-MN), Byrd (D-WV), Murkowski (R-AL), Hutchison (R-TX), Collins (R-ME), Grassley (R-IA), Bingaman (D-NM), Dorgan (D-ND), Baucus (D-MT) (if Tester's really going to oppose cloture), Pryor (D-AR). Maybe?

UPDATE: A source tells John Hawkins that McConnell and R leadership in the Senate really want to keep the vote margin under 60. His sources also don't quite know how the vote count stands at the moment....

UPDATE 10/24: NumbersUSA now has Kyl (R-AZ) as declared against the DREAM, so opponents now may have at least 27 votes.
Malkin draws attention to this detail in a USA Today story:

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the legislation's chief sponsor, said Tuesday that his biggest challenge was ensuring that supporters, including five senators — four Democrats and one Republican — running for president, make it to the Capitol for the roll call.

Another question mark: Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who are trying to return to California to review wildfire damage.

UPDATE: I'm keeping a running tally here.

Fred Thompson is planning on announcing some details of an immigration policy.
UPDATE: Thompson announces.

NumbersUSA reports that the DREAM Act may be coming back (emphasis added):

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed to invoke cloture on a motion to use Senate Rule XIV to bring S. 2205, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty bill, to the Senate floor without ever having been debated in committee. The cloture vote, for which 60 YES votes are necessary to prevent a filibuster on the measure, is set for Wednesday, October 24.

It sounds like some NY Democrats are unhappy with some of Gov. Spitzer (D)'s plans (especially for providing the "undocumented" with driver's licenses):

Top Democrats fear that Gov. Spitzer's controversial plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens has endangered their party's candidates across the state -- and even threatens the presidential prospects of Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Post has learned.

A half-dozen senior Democrats told The Post that Spitzer's licensing plan is producing what one called "a mass exodus" away from the party's candidates that may lead to unexpected losses in November's local elections.

They are also warning that growing voter unhappiness with Spitzer on the licensing and other issues - illustrated in several recent polls - could carry into next year and end the Democrats' hope of winning control of the GOP-dominated state Senate.

So is this just some behind-the-scenes fighting between various factions of the NY Democratic party, or/and is there some merit to what these "senior Democrats" are warning about? (Certainly, Spitzer's approval rating has dropped from 60% to 47% over the last few months, and many New Yorkers--over 70%--don't sound happy with his plan.) Some say Sen. Clinton will be forced to reject Spitzer's plan for electoral reasons. Will she?

Does "unplanted cucumbers"=crop rot epidemic? Kaus wonders...

Get manly. (Even if Derb thinks it's immature...)

CQ reports on how Congress is very likely to pass a measure that would place limits on presidential power to take control of the National Guard--rescinding a 2006 law and returning to 200 years of precedent for limitations on executive use of the military to enforce local laws:

The original law, in place for nearly 200 years, was called the Insurrection Act. It allowed the president to deploy regular or Guard troops for police duties whenever laws were not being enforced or the rights of a class of people are being denied because of “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy.”

The 2006 revision describes basically the same state of chaos that might trigger the presidential power. But the circumstances that lead to the unrest are more numerous. They include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition.”

Critics — including the co-chairmen of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo. — said the new law shifted the burden of legal proof onto anyone who would stand in the way of a president grabbing control of the military for domestic police activities.

However, there's some debate about another passage in the new bill about "new procedures for the control of National Guard and active-duty troops during domestic emergencies."

The Politico comments on the election of Bobby Jindal (R) as governor of Louisiana.

GM seems to have edged out Toyota's sales numbers for the third quarter (and for the year so far).

In NY state, there's some pushback against Gov. Spitzer (D)'s plan to offer driver's licenses to the "undocumented":

John F. Lehman, a former Navy secretary who served on the September 11 commission, called the governor's decree "absurd."

"It's a perfect formula for al Qaeda. They won't be able to resist it. They will be able to come to New York," he said. "It's going to become a magnet to lawbreakers because the surrounding states will adhere to the federal standards."

Critics say the credibility of a New York driver's license could be called into question in other states, because applicants would not be required to prove that they have a Social Security number.

The issue began in July 2006, when an appeals court ruled that the state could have wider latitude in issuing driver's licenses. Republican Gov. George E. Pataki decreed that immigrants would need to prove they were in the United States legally before getting licenses. During the gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Spitzer vowed to change that. With the Republican-led Senate adamantly opposed to any change, the governor bypassed the Legislature by issuing an executive order.

The plan is supposed to go into effect in December, but the Senate's Republican majority has pledged to override Mr. Spitzer's order in an emergency session Oct. 22.

The public is opposed to Mr. Spitzer's plan as well, a recent poll shows.

A Zogby survey of 718 likely voters in New York found that 65 percent of the state's voters are against the proposal. The poll, taken Oct. 11-15, showed that nearly half — 47 percent — of Democrats oppose the plan, compared with 92 percent of Republicans.

The Washington Times reports on some of the changes and challenges facing the IMF and World Back with the growth of the financial holdings of the PRC, Russia, and South Korea.

This morning and yesterday, the folks over at the Corner had a fierce debate about immigration. Highlights include Mark Krikorian saying that immigration is incompatible with modern society and John Podhoretz declaring that restrictions on immigration are really "tariffs." As Instapundit says, just keep scrolling.

Made in China: the steel of the US/Mexico border fence. (or at least some of the steel...)

Members of Congress are demanding an investigation of the contagious TB border-crosser and Homeland Security's/Center for Disease Control's response to the matter. Some reporters at the Washington Times are already hinting at that dreaded Washington specter: cover up.

CNN has a new poll up about racial attitudes toward immigration. Yglesias, Marshall, and others claim that this poll demonstrates that "blacks" are friendlier to ("illegal") immigration than "whites." However, there are a number of polls that would seem to put that claim in doubt. This Pew poll from 2006 shows some of the complexity--and limits--of attempting to assign "racial" approaches to immigration.

Rep. Pence (R-IN) has filed a "discharge petition" for his anti-"Fairness Doctrine" proposal. If this discharge petition is signed by a majority of House members, this measure may be brought to the House floor. Some reports indicate that Pence's office is hoping to get at least "20 or so" Democratic votes and all Republicans; if he can get those numbers, the petition will be successful.

WaPo has the details on a--sometimes contentious--meeting in Prince William County (VA) on local immigration measures. The governing board of PWC votes to move ahead to consider these measures.

The New York Times reports on some of the administration's attempt to increase the number of "guest workers."

David Crosby and the politicization of religion: An interesting moment in the (much-blogged) discussion between Crosby and Chris Matthews on the Iraq war. Crosby says about one of the aims of his "peace" concert:

Crosby: ...it's a call to America's churches to be a leader to their flock and to stick up for their flock. If the--if the--people in America are against the war, then the churches of America need to get in line and stand up for what we believe in.

So isn't Crosby saying that the opinion of various religious leaders should be driven only by public opinion? Even as Matthews and Nash seem to find it "odd" to pray for soldiers going into battle, Crosby seems to have no problem with religious officials engaging into political debates--and having their own approaches directed by popular political opinion.

The Washington Post reports on the diversity of new immigration laws being passed by various states. The story outlines three approaches to this diversity: alarm, support, or a (federalism-flavored) sense that this variety in state responses to immigration can allow the nation to test which laws might actually be the most effective:

Some observers are alarmed by the trend, calling the widely divergent laws further evidence of America's cultural divide and saying they could pose new hurdles in reaching a national consensus on immigration. Piecemeal policymaking is opening the door to a flurry of legal battles -- the Department of Homeland Security, for instance, is suing Illinois for banning businesses there from confirming an employee's legal status through the federal E-Verify database, which state officials have called flawed and unreliable.

Others argue that the inability to reach a national solution has left states no choice. Governors are grappling with cities and towns that, in the absence of a national or state policy, have taken it upon themselves to pass local immigration laws either protecting or cracking down on illegal immigrants. This has occasionally lead to radically different regulations within individual states.

Still others assert that the rush of state activism has created an unforeseen opportunity. By viewing states as laboratories and studying the successes and failures of their various policies, Americans may find useful information, even a road map, for developing a national strategy.

It also claims that Oklahoma's new immigration laws have begun to drive away the "undocumented":

Hispanic business groups, citing school enrollment losses and church parish figures, say the laws, which start going into effect later this year, have caused as many as 25,000 undocumented workers to flee the state in recent months. The loss is being decried by the Oklahoma State Home Builders Association.

"In major metro areas we are seeing people leave based on the perception that things are going to get bad for them and that this state doesn't want them here," said Mike Means, executive vice president of the association. "Now we're looking at a labor shortage. I've got builders who are being forced to slow down jobs because they don't have the crews. And it's not like these people are going back to Mexico. They're going to Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, anywhere where the laws aren't against them."