June 29, 2007
Epilogue
Or is it denouement? Post Mortem.
My brother in law called me last night for a quick gloat on the death of comprehensive immigration reform. While I had purported to give up last week, I cannot lie. This loss stung. I got a little grouchy and told him "that's okay, a lot more people will die but they are poor and brown, so who cares?"
Regaining my composure, I saluted President Bush for standing up to do what was morally and economically right against vocal opposition. It's the kind of Profile in Courage behavior we are always clamoring for at ThreeSources. The WSJ Ed Page joins me: (paid link)
As for the politics, the press will call this a defeat for President Bush, but he deserves credit for trying. This late in his term and with his low approval rating, he simply lacked the political capital to persuade Republicans spooked by talk radio and cable TV hosts. Mr. Bush was also trying to do his fellow Republicans a favor by forging a new relationship with Hispanic-Americans, even though he'll never be on another ballot. We look forward to seeing how GOP candidates win elections as Democrats grab a larger share of America's fastest growing voter bloc. Perhaps Lou Dobbs has some campaign tips.As for Democrats, their cynicism has rarely been so obvious. Senate Majority Harry Reid pulled the bill earlier this month when GOP leaders wanted only another day or two for amendments. Then when he brought the bill back to the floor, he doomed it with faint support and by letting his party add amendments he knew would drive Republicans away. Now he and his fellow Democrats will tell Hispanic voters that they could have passed reform if not for those bigoted Republicans.
Mark it down: Chuck Schumer will use this against GOP Senators next year. And should they win more Senators and the White House, Democrats in 2009 will be in position to pass their own immigration reform that will be far less restrictive than this one. The conservatives who "won" this week will deserve much of the credit.
I'll lick my wounds and move on but this is a disappointment.
Immigration Posted by jk at June 29, 2007 11:03 AM
Brother-in-law? Do you have a conservative relative, is he one of the 50% of democrats who opposed the bill, or is he just a sadistic SOB?
As for the WSJ ed page, what a bunch of crap, er cr*p.
President Bush gets "credit for trying" but the "fellow Republicans" who stood in the way of this bad legislation didn't bring it up, so why do they get the blame for protecting Americans from it? I don't know about the rest of y'all, but "dems might do worse IF they win more senators and IF they win the White House" isn't a very persuasive argument with me.
And it would have been more difficult for talk radio and cable TV hosts to "spook" Republicans if the bill had gone through a normal legislative process with plenty of debate and transparency. John McCain's continuing penchant for secrecy and back-room deals is precisely what Republicans do NOT want - in a landmark bill, in a senator, or in a presidential candidate.
Where's the WSJ's lament that our congress behaves more and more like the soviet politburo?
Posted by: johngalt at July 1, 2007 10:23 AMSaid Brother in law is extremely conservative. I can't quite go as far as SOB but there was a little sadism involved. Even Sugarchuck’s email was subjected “Salt in the wounds…”
Nobody in the planet has done a better job at attacking back room machinations from both parties than the WSJ Ed Page. There are some things you can accuse them of, suggesting they are silent against politburo tactics is unfair.
They WSJ and I and the President and Larry Kudlow and Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes and Jack Kemp and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell thought that comprehensive immigration reform was a good idea and are disappointed that it is dead. You've heard all my arguments for it.
I find it surprising that you, whom I've heard eloquently rail against "the tyranny of the majority," now want a talk-radio plebiscite to determine policy in this country.
It was always about a committee/conference bill. The Senate needed to pass a bill, the House would draw and pass a different bill and the legislation would come out of conference: with lots of yummy enforcement for you and enough wholesome and nutritious legal labor for me and my beloved growing economy.
I think last year's bill was better and that last year's process was more open. But the talk radio populists and O'Reilly-Dobbs axis spiked it then. They tried a "streamlined" (I really should work for a campaign) a streamlined process to circumvent a noisy minority.
I salute the President for trying and salute the WSJ Ed Page for their intelligent commentary. Sorry I folded on you in the last week, guys.
Posted by: jk at July 1, 2007 12:32 PMPreventing a new set of laws and programs is a far different accomplishment than imposing them. One generally protects individual rights, while the other is virtually guaranteed to assault them.
Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2007 3:09 PM | What do you think? [3]