Over at the famously astute Northwest Progressive Institute, stilwell has announced the demise of the immigration bill in the Senate foretells the doom of the conservative movement. Let's dissect that a bit.
stillwell describes it as a "victory for the talk radio haters and the fringe elements in the GOP," built on the "worst xenophobic impulses." Interesting. One has to wonder if the 15 Senate Democrats voting against cloture on the bill would agree. They include:
Sen. Baucus (Montana)
Sen. Bayh (Indiania)
Sen. Bingaman (New Mexico)
Sen. Brown (Ohio)
Sen. Byrd (West Virginia)
Sen. Dorgan (North Dakota)
Sen. Harkin (Iowa)
Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana)
Sen. McCaskill (Missouri)
Sen. Nelson (Nebraska)
Sen. Pryor (Arkansas)
Sen. Rockefeller (West Virginia)
Sen. Stabenow (Michigan)
Sen. Tester (Montana)
Sen. Webb (Virginia)
That list doesn't include Senator Sanders (I) Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats as well. It's tough to believe over 30% of that caucus voted in such a manner merely because some supposedly crazed, xenophobic talk radio listeners were raising a stink
Even a cursory reading of opposition to the bill - of which there was much to digest - showed a wide range of opposition to aspects of the legislation from a goodly number of people that don't fit stilwell's description of bill opponents in the least. Likewise, the spectrum of non-Republican Senators alone who voted against cloture represents a variety of states and political thinking.
stillwell writes, "I'm just speculating, but I'd imagine that there might be some rather serious discussions going on in corporate boardrooms over the failure of reform." No, actually. Somewhat lost in the more attention-grabbing components of the debate was the fact the business community as a whole wasn't wildly enthusiastic about the bill, as could be seen in the media if one looked:
For the high-tech business community, the linchpin is an amendment pushed by Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Kyl of Arizona. It would give employers more flexibility in whom they hire and would increase the number of visas for skilled workers by 40,000. The business community was opposed to the bill in its earlier incarnation, and if this amendment fails, look for high-tech corporations to back away.
The bill and its debate was fundamentally more complex than stilwell seems to understand. John Podhoretz may have said it best. Stalwart Bush backer though he may be and stated supporter of immigration reform, even he soured on the bill:
Those concerns were entirely justified. I write as someone out of step with my fellow conservatives on the issue, as someone with a very liberal view of immigration, including illegal immigration. And yet the more I read about the bill, the more it was clear to me it was an unholy mess and that the nation would be far better off without it.
stilwell would of course be happy if all the above were wrong, his stereotypes of conservatives were true, and the dawn of the new progressive era was at hand. Too bad for him he's wrong on all counts.
UPDATE: List of Senators corrected.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 30, 2007 10:17 AM | Email ThisBaucus needs Eastern Montana votes to stay elected and West Virginia, while solidly in the D's fold, is quite conservative socially and union membership remains high.
But the real question Eric is is getting at here is whether the death of the Amnesty Bill will hurt the Republican Party.
I seriously doubt it. If you look at the polls immigration is not that big an issue when compared to Iraq and the on-going war against Islamo-Fascism.
Even though President Bush has repeatedly warned the American people about the expected duration of this conflict, the media has done a very good job of convincing many of us that he has told us the opposite. I guess the old adage is true - people have short memories when it comes to politics.
To get back to Eric's post though - I think history has shown us that a leader that can truly communicate the truth of what we currently face as a nation can bring the American people back to the Republican Party in time for November 2008. But to do that, he must first convince us that he really means to fix the two biggest challenges facing the nation - Islamo-fascism and unrestrained immigration.
The bottom line in all this is that the Republican Party alienated a lot of Middle Americans in the early 2000's and regaining that trust will not be easy - but it CAN be done!
Posted by: deadwood on June 30, 2007 11:41 AMHis astute observations got his butt kicked of the local dem web site, and then he helped run that local icon of leftist fringe-ism out of business, also known as the Vanguard
He is still stinging from getting kicked to the curb along with the rest of the rabid, foaming at the mouth, moveon.org types; oh, about 60 seconds after his keepers took over congress.
Now, he's just a Kos wannabe. And the most astounding thing is that Eric, or Postman, or anyone else reads his toilet paper, given his genetic, defy-reality bias on any issue; where, as always, the left can do no wrong, and the right can do no, well, right.
This effort of his is just another example of where he cements the fact that reality and stilwell rarely occupy the same space simultaneously, as, once again, he's brilliantly managed to add 1 plus 1 to get 3... again, giving the democrats smart enough to vote to kill this thing a pass.
Posted by: Hinton on June 30, 2007 01:47 PMThe other day I sent an e-mail to Senators Murray and Cantwell asking them if they were now supporters of big business given their support of the bill and the two YouTube videos below.
"Within minutes of yesterday's defeat in the Senate, Democrats were discussing how to salvage pieces of the immigration bill, including farm-labor provisions that could be attached to this summer's farm bill. High-tech firms have allies in Congress who could press for legislation to increase the number of high-skilled workers allowed visas each year. The portion of the bill that expands college-education and military-service opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants has broad appeal. But overhaul supporters admit being torn between rushing in to save provisions or letting problems worsen until public support builds for a comprehensive approach." (Wall Street Journal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGG2O2jaCU
The other day I sent an e-mail to Senators Murray and Cantwell asking them if they were now supporters of big business given their support of the bill and the two YouTube videos below.
"Within minutes of yesterday's defeat in the Senate, Democrats were discussing how to salvage pieces of the immigration bill, including farm-labor provisions that could be attached to this summer's farm bill. High-tech firms have allies in Congress who could press for legislation to increase the number of high-skilled workers allowed visas each year. The portion of the bill that expands college-education and military-service opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants has broad appeal. But overhaul supporters admit being torn between rushing in to save provisions or letting problems worsen until public support builds for a comprehensive approach." (Wall Street Journal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhGG2O2jaCU
When even "comprehensive reform" backers are against the bill, you know it's got serious problems. This bill had no chance of passage if it couldn't attract Kristol and Podhoretz.
Posted by: pudge on June 30, 2007 01:55 PM...A "new CBS News poll shows only 13% of Americans thought the Senate should pass the bill. 35% said no."...
13% for, 35% against, and I'm assuming then 52% don't know/undecided... how again is going against the wishes of 13% of the country doom for you?
Stilwel writes: "...It also bodes ill for Republican presidential candidates, who will be forced out of any tendency toward mainstream positions in order to curry favor with the extremists in Republican primaries..."
Excuse me, but how is something only 13% of the population for "mainstream"? How is a position 35% are for and 52% undecided about "extremist"? What an idiot... he needs to get out of that echo chamber he's in.
Posted by: Mike H on June 30, 2007 02:04 PMSarcasm aside, the reason I personally believes that Eric links to them so frequently is that they're easy to poke fun at, a caricature of themselves. We want everyone to think that every leftist is exactly like Andrew Villeneuve. Nerdy. Simple-minded. All rabid passion with no substance.
It's like a left-winger linking to phil spackman and implying we're all that kooky.
Posted by: AD on July 1, 2007 05:52 PM