Just moments ago, the United States Senate voted down the cloture vote which has effectively killed the Kennedy-McCain-Bush-Graham amnesty legislation.
Be proud America, you have rallied in the face of the obstinate political elites in Washington who have forgotten us.
A defeat for President Bush? Yup, who cares. Biggest loser: John McCain. Pack it up, bro… you are done.
Thanks to everyone who got involved and called their Senators in the past few weeks.
Real people can make a difference!
PS – On the bright side, Senate “Leader” Harry Reid finally kept one of the Democrats’ promises… he moved on after the cloture vote failed the second time.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I agree, this is great news! An ignominious defeat for Bush/McCain and the Repub corporatists and nativists at each other’s throats. Plus it was a terrible bill – amnesty for felons? I say no.
YES!!!
amnesty for felons? I say no.
But Harry Reid and the rest of the socialists you shill for said “Yes! Yes! Yes!” and killed the Coburn and Cornyn amendments to exclude felons from the amnesty. Chuck Schumer was especially adamant that felons be given amnesty. How proud you must be.
I won’t believe this bill is really dead until it’s buried at a crossroads with a counterfeit social security card staked through its heart.
#3: Me, a shill? Hardly. If I were a shill, I wouldn’t have said anything. The bill was crap and those Dems who supported it were wrong in my opinion.
WOW! How sad that it was that non other than corrupt Harry Reid that turns out to be the hero for conservatives.
What a truely strange and demented world we live in.
God Bless America, the people spoke loud and clear, and to my amazement, the Republican senators actually listened.
I heard Trent Lott earlier today, and boy did he sound like a wimp, I am grateful to all those Republican senators that listened to the people and voted this down.
Next time, close the borders first. I’ve been to the ‘new’ fence in San Diego, I’ve met with the border patrol and the National Guard that is helping them out. The numbers of illegals crossing into San Diego has dropped from thousands a week to maybe 100 a month, and even those are getting caught.
The double fence is a proven success, keep that up, and then we can talk about what to do with the illegals that are here already.
HOLY FLIRKING SCHNITT!!! Did Ian just speak ill of his liberal masters?
I’ll be praying for your life tonight, Ian.
Subject: Cluelessness
Sure there’s lots of support, Harry. From La Raza and the Hotel and Restaurant Industry lobbyists, but among real Americans, not so much.
So, you and your buddy Ted are pushing amnesty for felons, gang members, and terrorists, but it’s the people trying to stop you who have no credibility. Right.
Wasn’t creating a better bill what Republicans were trying to do through the amendment process while you, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid were scheming to cut off amendments to the backroom deal you cooked up and tried to ram through the senate?
Ok, you’ll got cha’ wish….now what? Mass departations? Hundreds of thousands of US-born children in protective child-services custody? Several million potential taxpayers driven even farther underground and off the Income Tax/Social Security-grid? A return to allowing the first legal immigrant to bring 70 of his unskilled. non-literate relatives to the US?
I suppose we could enlarge Gitmo for the hundreds of thousands or millions that their home-governments will not voluntarily take-back….Ihr ausweis bitte.
Additional Reading: The inside story on how the Amnesty bill died. Short version, my former congressman, Jim DeMint, is the unsung hero for slaying this monster.
[Comment deleted for violating terms of community conduct.]
“Bigots Build Better Fences”
Hmmmm. The BBBF. I like it. Since it likes to create new government entities to “TRY” and tackle old government problems, maybe the Bush administration will create the Department of the BBBF.
PS. Ironically, my Mexican neighbor I mentioned in the previous blogpost, the one who may or may not be here illegaly (don’t know, don’t care), builds fences for a living. Maybe he could lend a hand.
VdaK, the link is to a blog called “RightWingNews” and I can see why you like making wild-assed speculations… if you’re reading that kind of spin and speculation, it must give you a real run for the money on your cynicism bank.
Wild-assed generally means unsupportable, not verified, and beyond reasonable discourse.
In this case, the blog quotes “unnamed sources” and spins a yarn that Sen DeMint (R-SC) was the lynchpin of conscience in defeating the bill. Sen gReid pushed and lobbied him to “save the ship” but good ol DeMint’s values got in the way of greedy elites.
Right? Ummm, yeah. Never mind that anyone of the 11 Democrats who voted with DeMint could have changed their mind for gReid when asked… safe districts, safe seats… no political threat from social conservatives… like Senators Bingaman (D-NM) or Boxer (D-CA) or Byrd (D-WV) or Dorgan (D-ND) or Landrieu (D-LA) or McCaskill (D-MO) or… oh, well, there were other “deciding votes” much easier to sway for Sen gReid.
On second thought, for KKK member Sen Robt Byrd might not have been one of those votes because, as many social conservative commenters here have pointed out in the past, Grand Whiz Byrd is a white hooded bigot.
The simple truth is that there were still important amendments that the Chamber wanted to take up but Sen Harry gReid was disinclined to let them. One thing Senators don’t like is somebody trying to heavy-handedly control the prerogative to debate an issue to death in the Senate.
I give those 11 Democrat Sen who could have pushed cloture and then left it up to Mitch McConnell or McCain to dig out the other 4 GOPers needed for cloture to pass a little credit for standing up to Harry gReid’s power play.
No spin here, but I think the big loser is Harry gReid in all of this… not the WH, not Bush, not McCain, not the Sen moderates, not the mislabeled “pro-amnesty” people… it’s a testament to Harry gReid’s inefficient handling of the legislation.
But I know social conservatives will want to join the FarLeft and do a little Bash Bush sport… it’s so hard an impulse for them to resist.
Matt, Dorothy is in reconquista Mexico, apparently.
Congratulations, conservatives. I’m anxious to read the bill you’ve authored and am particularly anxious to see how well it does in front of both houses of Congress, without compromise, without riders, without amendments, and with no pork.
You didn’t really want reform, did you?
I’m not even a conservative, HardHobbit, yet even I know the answer to your snark:
The reform that conservatives want, is:
(1) Secure the borders. For real.
(2) Then work out a good guest worker program, with paths to citizenship for people who play by the rules.
Matt – Great job with all the insults. Keep it up, man! 🙂
HH, funny one that.
The conservatives here will respond:
1) secure the borders first,
2) complete the Wall with electrification at the top and guard towers with snipers every 1000 yds,
3) begin building concentration camps for the soon to be captured illegal aliens (maybe house them in Roswell’s Area 51??),
4) have all documented aliens wear a big yellow star on the outside of their clothes… for easy identification when they run from crash scenes,
5) prohibit their use of public hospitals, public schools, public transport,
6) prohibit their employment in any job a conservative kid might want to do at some point in the future,
7) make them pay 2x… no 3x… no 10x the payroll taxes of an average worker…
8) make it a requirement that they arrive here with proficient English skills and at least an engineering degree.
Yeah, that and make ’em lose some of that brown coloring in their skin… they stick out on the streets when we drive by and it provokes our conservative racist blood to boil. We can’t number the last item because it would make social conservatives look like they’re bigots.
Taking a page from those here who LOVE to reduce their opponents arguments to insane reductions… I submit this is what social conservatives really want.
I’d link to a FarLeftElitesAlive website to prove all of this but I don’t know one; I get my talking points from my Christian conscience, not from the FarRightFringe blogosphere.
I’m thinking that if one is going to accuse one’s opponents of “wild-assed rantings,” one ought not start out one’s comments by accusing one’s hosts of being Nazis.
Rudy Giuliani’s plan of securing the borders first, requiring that systems for verifying and tracking illegal aliens be up and running first and then solving the problems of illegal residents and guest workers sounds pretty good to me.
EchoCalarato, seriously… kudos to you for posting a thought that wasn’t preceded by VdaK’s. You’re growing more independent each thread… congrats.
Do you have documentation for “conservatives” advocating this? Or is this one of those Amercablog Northwest Death Camps for Homosexuals things?
Matt, great job with the insults. Keep it up, man! 🙂
[Comment deleted for violating terms of community conduct. This commenter is now on automatic moderation and may be banned if the continued personal attacks continue.]
V, read beyond the headlines on Rudy’s plan –which was announced here in Michigan and learn what that GreatPlan is before you hitch your wagon to it… and, by the way, I thought you were spurring Rudy for not being pure enuff, true enuff just a few threads away? Now he’s got it right? LOL.
Oh wait, internal consistency in your logic is not required… forgot. My bad.
No. There will be no effigy burning tonight. It’s Nazi nativist book club night. This month, we’re reading ‘The Turner Diaries.’ Our version was illustrated by Gary Larson and is hilarious. Pat Buchanan is bringing pie.
Next month we’re reading “Bridget Jones Diary.”
Matt – Great job with all of the insults. Keep it up, man! 😉
Oh and by the way – At #13, you accused Bruce of being a “blue blood” with a “white hood”, who celebrates with the neo-Nazis. And, as usual, implied strongly that anyone who doesn’t think just like you, has to be a bigot.
Let me be clear: I agree with you 100% Matt, that lexically or by any other form of analysis, all that *IS NOT* accusing Bruce of being a Nazi. LOL
And VdaK at #22, asks if I have proof? NewsFlash, V… it was a spoof of what conservatives will demand. A spoof.
But if you really want to see scary stuff from the RightWingFringe on immigration… check this out when modest immigration reform failed last year…
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/04/the_conscience_1.html
Or maybe, more accurately, how the Left characterizes the FarRightFringe on immigration.
[GP Ed. Note – This comment was edited as it contained personal attacks on members of this community.]
It’s the Rosie O’Donnell style of rhetoric.
1. Make an insinuation… , e.g. “655,000 Iraqis are dead. Who are the real terrorists?” Or, “My opponents wear white hoods, hold the same opinions as Nazis, and want to build concentration camps.”
2. … that has only one logical interpretation… e.g. “American troops are terrorists.” Or, “My opponents are Nazi bigots.”
3. … then, deny the logical interpretation. … e.g. “I never said that.” or “I never said that.”
Congratulations, conservatives. I’m anxious to read the bill you’ve authored and am particularly anxious to see how well it does in front of both houses of Congress, without compromise, without riders, without amendments, and with no pork.
I’m all for reviving H.R. 4437.
Or actually, an even better place to start would be to pass yesterday’s Coburn amendment as a standalone bill, requiring no additional changes to immigration law until its conditions were met.
Which basically amounted to fully and completely enforcing existing law.
Both of those gave you and Matt what you allegedly want, HH; harsher penalties on those who knowingly hire illegal aliens and elimination of “sanctuary” cities and locations.
They also gave us what WE want, which is for the focus to be on closing loopholes, increasing our capabilities to track who comes in and out of the country, and pushing illegal immigrants into our justice system, which is set up to make an excellent differentiation between who may stay in a probationary status and who may go.
An even better place to start would be to pass yesterday’s Coburn amendment as a standalone bill, requiring no additional changes to immigration law until its conditions were met.
I agree, the Coburn Amendment as a stand-alone would be a great bill. Do any naysayers care to identify their specific objections to what’s in the Coburn Amendment?
Also, Matt, I think you and I need to get onto the same page here.
Last year, my cousin got into a bar fight in which he thought he killed someone. He panicked and thought his best option was to go underground, change his name, do whatever, and he disappeared for four days. Fortunately, we were able to talk him into turning himself in before he did anything stupid — and, as it turned out at the hearing, he didn’t kill the guy, just knocked him unconscious, and the bouncers at the bar testified that he was clearly acting in self-defense (the guy had come at him with a knife). The judge sentenced him to community service and required him to attend sessions with a therapist (which he needed).
I understand completely that you don’t want members of your family or your friends arrested and deported; I didn’t want my cousin to be arrested, jailed, or sent to prison either. But the way to deal with that is not to break, avoid, or try to water down the consequences; it’s to have faith in our judicial system and its ability to differentiate between people who can stay and those who shouldn’t.
I understand fully why people immigrate; Mexico, for one, was ruled by their equivalent of the Democrat Party for a century, and it shows in their collapsed economy, rampant corruption, and a wealthy oligarchy of inhereited wealth that manipulates the peasants with populist rhetoric. If you are born in that country, chances are it’s into abject poverty, with very little chance to get an education or to advance, made even more difficult by the cultural sense that you are responsible for your entire extended family. In the United States, they can earn ten times what they could in Mexico, and they can afford to remit enough money to let their elderly parents and relatives stop working.
But we are a nation of laws, and we have to respect that.
First and foremost, we have to enforce these laws, no ifs, ands, or buts. If you immigrate to this country illegally, you need to be identified, caught, and brought before a judge.
Second, we need to ramp up and accelerate our legal process for permanent immigration. For various reasons, there has been a great deal of foot-dragging on this issue; however, in order to stop people from doing it illegally, we have to make doing it legally a viable choice.
Third, we need to crack down. If you immigrate to the United States illegally and are convicted of a felony crime or greater, you’re gone — and you’re not coming back. If you try, you’re going straight to our prisons.
Fourth, we need to develop some sort of probation to which a judge can assign immigrants who have come to the country illegally, but who have kept their noses clean, contributed to society, and who genuinely want to stay; while their illegal action puts them back of the line, they are not excluded from it.
Fifth, we need to recognize that there is a sizeable subpopulation of illegal immigrants that don’t want to live permanently in the United States; they want to make money here, send it back to Mexico or elsewhere, and then return. THAT is why we need a guest-worker program — tightly controlled.
None of us here are against immigration or immigrants, Matt. What we are against is lawlessness — and the exploitation of that fact by racist Democrats like Ted Kennedy who look south and see nothing but nations of new people waiting to be enslaved, just as the Democrat Party south of the border has done.
An even better place to start would be to pass yesterday’s Coburn amendment as a standalone bill, requiring no additional changes to immigration law until its conditions were met.
Yeah, like that would ever happen with this crowd.
NDT. EXACTLY!
Nice plan NDT, but you left out the part about about genocide against the mud people.
Just kidding. I’ve said so many times I’ve lost count, if you can demonstrate you’re going to secure the border and end illegal immigration, I’ll extend you some slack on amnesty and guest workers. How this gets twisted into “Ein Volk, Ein Reich” I don’t know.
NDT, I agree with just about everything you said. My one disagreement is the racist label on Ted Kennedy and other Democrats who, for some reason, political, or whatever, are against actual reform of illegal immigration. I don’t think it’s fair that either side of the debate is using the racist label.
“Yeah, like that would ever happen with this crowd.”
Zactly. Although I tend to err on the side of devolved government, immigration (legal and no) on this scale must be a federal issue. The database provision in the Coburn Amendment is especially needed. But as I’ve been trying to point out amid the din of hypersensitivity, a single bill authored by a single congressman simply isn’t attractive when the issue is this contentious and seemingly tailor-made for vote-buying. Everyone wants to put their stamp on it and in an up/down vote, it’s going to fail every time. (That is, unless we have a solid Republican majority. And since the very conservatives who are whining about a ‘messy bill’ and now crowing about ‘sticking it to the compromisers’ stayed home in 2006, we have Ted Kennedy to deal with. Yes, Kennedy, whose only experience with wetbacks is Mary Jo Kopechne — and she proved a tough ho to row, no?) Hence, a bill that is anything to anyone and (allegedly) nothing to everyone. It fully pleases no one, with amendments out the yin-yang.
But I’m an ‘evil Rockefeller country club moderate’ not because of the actual reforms I want (which just so happens are quite in line with yours) but because I recognize political reality. And those of you who are delighted with Giuliani’s recent conversion are as gullible as your celebratory mood suggests.
Prove me wrong and I’ll save the next dance for you.
Two weeks ago, the “political reality” was that McCain-Kennedy was unstoppable and would get 70 votes in the Senate. So, color me skeptical when our betters lecture us about “political reality.”
One take-away from this experience is that we commoners have the power to change “political reality” to make it respond to “real reality.”
But I’m an ‘evil Rockefeller country club moderate’ not because of the actual reforms I want (which just so happens are quite in line with yours) but because I recognize political reality.
HH, perhaps I need to share my perspective with you here.
During the 2006 campaign, the Democrats basically won by running Republican positions — which, for those of us who have watched them for years, meant that they were either genuinely changing their tune, or they were taking the risky step of extending their practice of congenital two-facedness on issues beyond their usual base of insane leftists and learned-helpless minorities to normal voters.
Take for example, Jim Webb — Harry Reid and Teddy Kennedy’s Soldier Boy Ken doll.
Webb blasted George Allen for supposedly being soft on illegal immigrants and refusing to enforce existing immigration law.
But, when offered the opportunity to support the Coburn amendment, which specifically states that the US government WILL enforce existing immigration laws, Webb, as expected from someone who is a puppet of Ted Kennedy, voted against the amendment.
Now, if you were to make that fact obvious to Webb’s voters, how do you think they would respond?
Whoops, sorry Bruce, group. Mea culpa for the oversteps on my part.
Off-Topic, but too right to pass up: Hilldog names corrupt, bribery scandal, impeached perjuror as campaign co-chair.
Culture of Corruption? She’s soaking in it.
Dallas,
Allow me to make my perspective clear to you:
The Democrats won because Republicans stayed home. Further, the following is by John (AverageGayJoe) from the Noonan thread:
(John, I luv ya, but this is too prescient to ignore.)
“Not me. I voted Independent for the first time ever. Being in a Red State my Republican Congresswoman won re-election easily but our GOP Senator (George Allen) was able to be picked off. Not that his Dem opponent, James Webb, is any better but it was sweet to see Allen sent packing.”
I understand that you, Dallas, don’t speak/write for John, but you both represent yourselves as conservatives. The above is standard m.o.: Stay home or vote a third party to ‘send a message’ to the compromiser. What, except the irresponsibility and immaturity of an unattainable purity, can I ascribe to this?
Of course, Allen might have voted for the now-dead bill conservatives so hated, that is had enough Republicans including Allen been elected/re-elected. And had it passed, you’d be unhappy. But now, the Democrats are in control of Congress and I assume you’re unhappy about that, too. Or perhaps you’re not, because you seem to be excited at the prospect that Webb’s true colors will convince enough voters to be upset with his predictability (that is, ignoring his purported congenital two-faced-ness), which of course is only what you think will happen in an up/down Senate vote. And then, the Republicans will surge back to victory at some future date, a big bill whose unavoidable amendments will be thrown to the back of the omnibus, there’ll be the reality of compromise, and you’ll be upset yet again.
You see how convoluted and ridiculous this is? I mean this kindly, Dallas, because you’ve only been rude to me a couple of times, but this is textbook neurosis.
Addendum to above: I believe John is a conservative. I don’t pretend to write/speak for him nor should I.
Is the goal to advance policy, or just keep one team in power regardless of bad policy?
Half of the Democrat Senators elected in 2006 voted right on cloture (Webb, Tester, McCaskill), as did revered moderates like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The seven Republicans who voted to shut down debate were primarily McCain or his cronies (Voinovich, Hagel, Graham), plus the uber-RINO Arlen Specter, plus Martinez and Lugar . The opposition to McCain-Kennedy was actually more bi-partisan, and more moderate overall, than the support.
With the exception of John McCain, all the GOP presidential candidates have moved right on illegal immigration. This is a good thing. And it is not the kind of result you get out of unconditional party loyalty.
It would appear that most of the party got the message on illegal immigration. This is a good thing.
HH, as much as I would prefer to never be found in agreement with NDXXX’s Senator, Diane Feinstein, the very points you raise about the inherent problems in finding compromise on an issue that will sell to all –ends up selling to none.
In a conference this morning over in the Sen Press Room, she pointed out –to the nodding agreement of Sens Specter, Graham and Kyl– that yesterday was an exercise in patience… and the coalition broke not on principled argument over the merits of one amendment or another, but over the question of whether or not the Senate could deliberate more.
She noted that those conservative Senators who were opposing the bill were asked to pull together the 10 items they’d want to address to make the bill “perfect” (which means sellable) and bring them back to the floor for debate.
The group proceeded to caucus and it devolved into chaos as one subgroup accused another of selling out on “A” or “B” or “C”. In the end, Harry gReid couldn’t get a core group of GOP moderates to end debate and squeeze out their partisan peers.
Some might say it was a chance for moderates to teach conservatives about the merits of partisan loyalty, but I think it was more about honoring the tradition of allowing Senate debate to the “N”th degree. Afterall, nothing appeals to a Senator more than a live microphone.
I think there’ll be a short delay on the bill, the conservatives will have to put up or shut up on the Perfect List items and those moderate Senators who voted against cloture will consider the honor extended rightly, properly observed and expired. Then vote for cloture and passage.
And all of that suggests it may prove to be a tad too early for the forces opposed to progress to be gleefully declaring victory. Hey, TeddieK (aka the fat lady at the opera) still hasn’t sung.
The funniest moment in the press conference came when TeddieK opined the Prez had to get involved –use his political capital– or the bill wouldn’t pass. And, 10 minutes later, LindseyGraham was opining that the Prez’s leadership on the bill had been remarkable and welcome and instrumental.
Truth never played to so many masters.
HH, it is a characteristic of ancient Goldwater conservatives to want to be more about bitching than compromising. Compromise, for them, equates to surrender.
If I were to pick a moment in history to demonstrate same, it would be uber-conservative Gen Patton’s famous retort about compromising with the Russians, after the Fall of Berlin. He wanted to repeat the errors of the Germans and push the Commies home… only he said it more colorfully than I.
It’s a classic “compromise is surrender” moment.
NDTXXX writes: “Also, Matt, I think you and I need to get onto the same page here.”
and then
“I understand completely that you don’t want members of your family or your friends arrested and deported; I didn’t want my cousin to be arrested, jailed, or sent to prison either.”
Before we talk about the other points, can you help me understand what page you’re on with the 2d statement? It’s got me scratching my head so much, all that is on the page is my dandruff.
Tx.
That’s a pretty strange misrepresentation, considering it was the Goldwater-ites (not the Rockefeller-ites) who formed the core of the Reagan movement, and ultimately won with Reagan… to the benefit of us all.
“Mea culpa” literally means “my fault”… so you literally said, “My fault for the oversteps on my part.” That’s good news. I mean, I’m glad it wasn’t Satan’s fault, or someone else’s, 😉 OK, jokes and kidding aside… Matt, it is good to see some acknowledgement from you that your (past, I hope) name-calling and attacks are an affront to the GP community. As I’ve been trying to tell you all along.
You see how convoluted and ridiculous this is? I mean this kindly, Dallas, because you’ve only been rude to me a couple of times, but this is textbook neurosis.
A bit of advice; most diagnoses of neurosis are based on demonstrated behavior, not on what you think will happen, “if”.
My take is that you are trying to say that I am opposed to compromise. Hardly. I am opposed to compromising on matters I find important.
Such as the necessity of actually enforcing current immigration law.
And relative to the Webb and Allen thing, I could care less which one of them is in power, as long as they do as I want them to do. If that comes from party affiliation with Allen or from forcing Webb to buck his puppetmasters or admit that he lied to the people who voted for him, I don’t much care either way; the end result is what matters.
Furthermore, in terms of compromising, there’s no need to compromise; the vast majority of Americans support enforcement of our immigration laws. The problem is that Republicans like LindaChavez are vulnerable in that respect because they don’t WANT immigration laws enforced; it would mean that their friends, family members, and business associates could be rounded up, deported, or punished; therefore, they’re willing to “compromise” with Fat Teddy and his amnesty-for-all plan to protect themselves.
Matt, it’s my understanding that you have relatives who are illegal immigrants.
Matt you wrote:
So I have to ask again…. how can you trust Teddy and Ms. Graham with your nation’s security when their track record on stupid things like this and big things (like every other amnesty law passed on their watch) is soooooo poor?
Matt, it’s a crying shame, I tell you. The idea of letting the country go to hell in a handbasket while insisting on one’s pet agenda is so divorced from reality, so utterly selfish and vainglorious that I suppose we deserve to be overrun. Like you, I wonder if reform was really the intent — reform would mean one less issue to bitch about. I would almost say that on this issue (and some others), no constituency votes in greater numbers for he who expresses paranoia than conservatives, except we’re both Northerners — a minor but important point. And I’m completely in your corner re. Feinstein; would that your description were a mere word-picture. I’m sure that those who opposed the bill by insisting on their respective provision either did so cynically, or simply so that they could tell their constituents how they proudly drew the proverbial line in the sandbox, with a big hooray for gridlock.
The death of a bill that warts and all moves the issue in my direction is the death of the direction and that pisses me off, particularly when my direction is the same as for those who are just so darned pleased with themselves.
Partial-birth abortion, anyone? The ball’s in your court.
32 NDT – excellent post. I hope you don’t mind if I use some of it in my next letters to my Senators.
The death of a bill that warts and all moves the issue in my direction is the death of the direction and that pisses me off, particularly when my direction is the same as for those who are just so darned pleased with themselves.
HardHobbit, the best analogy I can think of for this bill is that it was like a contractor who, when called to fix the hole in your roof, wants to do so by putting a moveable catch pan with an electronic moisture sensor that only engages when it is truly raining (versus fogging or snowing) and a robot that dumps the pan into the garden when full.
Yes, you are technically moving in the direction of fixing the problem. But I would prefer that he just go get some plywood, tarpaper, and shingles.
“A bit of advice; most diagnoses of neurosis are based on demonstrated behavior, not on what you think will happen, “if”.”
The classic neurotic keeps doing the same thing again and again, continuing to expect a different result. “If…” is a critical element of this behavior because it ignores demonstrated results. He also believes in contradictions. Continuing to expect policy victory while refusing to accept and learn from political reality is neurotic.
“My take is that you are trying to say that I am opposed to compromise. Hardly. I am opposed to compromising on matters I find important.”
There’s your fatal problem. To compromise or not re. an unimportant issue is of no particular concern to anyone. But it is crucial to recognize that on important issues, you are obligated to compromise in order to move the issue in your direction. Gridlock is fine when there is no hope of furthering your agenda, but any victory however small is worth fighting for, worth campaigning for, worth advocating, worth writing about convincingly, and worth compromising. There is no victory in defeat, no matter how self-righteous. I recommend you read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.
“And relative to the Webb and Allen thing, I could care less which one of them is in power, as long as they do as I want them to do.”
Again, this is ignoring our political system. The party in control is in control of legislation, of committees, of what gets to the President’s desk, of how a piece of legislation is burdened with riders, of prosecution, etc. Only the extremely naive would look at their own elected representation and expect change. One must look at the overall strengths and weaknesses of the parties and vote accordingly. I’m for law and order and immigration reform. I might not be happy with my elected representatives on the immigration issue, but I know that Republicans are far more likely to push reform and enforcement of existing law than are Democrats, for obvious reasons. And no, this isn’t blind partisanship — it’s strategy based upon the reality of our two-party system. Not caring about which party represents you is engaging in the fantasy of disassociation, which those of us who care about the immigration issue can ill afford. Pretending you’re above the partisan fray is masturbatory.
At the risk of being subjected to even more histrionic name-calling, let me say that’s an Excellent Analogy, NDT.
I note with interest that in the aftermath of this bill, the moderates are whining and carrying on, while the conservatives are coming up with ideas about how to actually fix the problem.
I still await an explanation of HH or MM’s objections to the Coburn amendment you helpfully linked to earlier.
Many people honestly, seriously, and with good reason believed McCain-Kennedy would have created a worse situation than the present one. Therefore, compromise would have been illogical.
Dallas, here’s an analogy for you:
Let’s say you have a choice between three candidates: A Republican, a member of the American Heritage Party (very conservative), and a Democrat. Due to the very conservative agenda of the American Heritage Party candidate, abortion has become one of the campaign’s central issues. Let us also say that you are pro-life (this is only an analogy — indulge me). You must consider the following things when voting:
1. Who do I most agree with on this issue?
2. What, if anything, am I willing to compromise?
You say that on issues of importance to you, you’re not willing to compromise. So, I assume you’d vote for the American Heritage candidate.
Meanwhile, the Republican is in favor of banning partial-birth abortion, parental notification, etc. In other words, although not as pro-life as you, he believes in some of the same things and will do his best to move the issue in that direction, just not as far as you’d like. The Democrat is pro-choice all the way and sponsored legislation that made it more difficult for a teen to have their navel pierced than to get an abortion.
When the dust has settled, the Democrat wins the election.
Dallas, what have you accomplished? You’ve thrown your vote away in self-righteous protest. What would I have done were I in your political and geographic position? I would have voted for the Republican because the Republican had a chance of winning the election, would have gone to Washington and would have worked to ban partial-birth abortion. In other words, Dallas, I think it’s better to save a very few lives of the viable unborn than no lives at all. Which, incidentally, would mean I’m more pro-life than you are — not politically or philosophically, but in reality, in numbers of lives saved.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The above is what actually happened in Washington State’s 1st District. Republican Rick White was defeated because Bruce Craswell ran as an AH Party candidate in order to defeat him, due to the abortion issue. Now Jay Inslee (a liberal nutcase in every sense of the word) is the representative. Craswell was very proud of himself and held a big party to celebrate White’s defeat. He didn’t compromise. What a guy.
Based on your actions on the immigration bill, HardHobbit, I have three choices:
1. Vote for the lunatic Democrat
2. Vote for the Republican who claims to support one thing, but “compromises” with the lunatic Democrat to do the exact opposite
3. Vote for the candidate with principles
I choose 3.
Because there is zero difference between 1 and 2.
Bluntly put, I see no difference between Ted Kennedy’s desire to ignore and block enforcement of immigration law……and McCain’s support of exempting numerous crimes, including forging of official documents, from enforcement.
Strike that; Kennedy is at least being honest and truthful about what he wants.
The rejection of the Coburn amendment demonstrated that there was no intention of seriously enforcing the new law, which made compromise pointless.
That’s just it, Dallas. You’re viewing it only from the standpoint of your local (district or state) election. Washington is much, much larger and more complicated. Also, it should be noted that a compromise on a promise isn’t necessarily a lie; it is if deliberately dishonest (meaning never intending to follow through), but the promise of a candidate (and the subsequent understanding of a constituent) should be to do everything he/she can to deliver, not to deliver everything regardless of what may be. We all dislike pols who make promises we all know they can’t keep, but it may be they’re not, as you say, “doing the exact opposite”. Your example of the Republican promising one thing and compromising “…with the lunatic Democrat to do the exact opposite” isn’t compromise. It’s surrender or lying or hypocrisy or being a turncoat. I’m able to discern the difference, are you?
Not being a McCain constituent, I don’t know what he promised Arizonans, but specifically to your contention “…there is zero difference between candidates 1 and 2”: That’s just plain bad logic. McCain and Kennedy aren’t competing for the same office and are anything but identical. That’s a false comparison that does nothing.
Do I love this dead or near-death immigration bill? Of course not. But a bill can be fixed later. I’m willing to vote for any movement in my direction in order to eventually get most of what I want. You want the whole enchilada and 10 years ago. I think my strategy is more realistic and thus a bit better.
I think Allen lost because he ran a horrible campaign, not solely on the immigration issue. Christopher Hitchens had a great ramblingYouTube rant about Allen on election night. Then again, when does Hitch not ever rant.
Hey! Lets all pick on Big D!
I saw his bum once!!!! 🙂
By HH’s reasoning, Reagan never should have walked away from Reykjavik. He should have compromised with the Soviets, because a terrible treaty was still progress over no treaty at all.
Do I love this dead or near-death immigration bill? Of course not. But a bill can be fixed later.
Which is pretty much what they said about all the other immigration bills they now refuse to enforce.
I’m willing to vote for any movement in my direction in order to eventually get most of what I want. You want the whole enchilada and 10 years ago. I think my strategy is more realistic and thus a bit better.
As my gay mentor — who passed away this week — once put it, “Very rarely has anyone found Mr. Right by concentrating their efforts on finding Mr. Right Now.”
Or phrased differently, if you’ll settle for anything with two legs and a pulse, invariably that’s all you’ll ever get.
Some of us prefer to put out more selectively.
I would heartily agree if our pols [sic] were surrounded by hunky legislation, endowed with elegant provisions producing the hot seed of good law, and lubricated with righteous fervor.
What I do know is that opportunities for substantial reform are of finite number. No one is arguing this latest bill is/was perfect — far from it. But one can set one’s sights too high, usually and especially if one refuses to compromise. To use your analogy, I doubt your partner is perfect in every way, but he’s a great enough guy that for you, he’s Mr. Right. In fact, I suspect his imperfections (and your compromises) are endearments. In part, we call that love.
The purpose of Mr. Right Now is entirely different and should not be confused. This is perhaps where you misunderstand me. Unlike humans, legislation is altered externally and is in real time, rather than a single snapshot. Mr. Right Now is a double chain-link fence, whereas Mr. Right might be something more substantial. Mr. Right Now does his best to satisfy an immediate need until Mr. Right is found, in this case, until better legislation is written, more money is earmarked, etc.
Dallas, we likely agree that illegal immigration is a bad thing, cannot be tolerated much longer without negative long-term effects, and that existing law and improved law must be allowed to be enforced. If you’re right and an excellent piece of legislation is produced, I’ll be as happy as you. But experience tells me that your idealism is, ultimately, more of a hindrance than a help. Yes, it’s important to maintain in your mind what is good and right and ‘as it should be’, but there are many different versions — as many as there are minds — and each in competition. Thus, ideals ought to guide policy, but not be policy if the ideal must be sacrificed on its own altar. You must love the ideal enough to work towards it, not use it as a weapon of self-defeat.
I’m sorry to read about the death of your mentor. I never had one, so I am glad for your good fortune.
Sorry. The sentence “Unlike humans, legislation is altered externally and is in real time, rather than a single snapshot.” should have been “Unlike humans, legislation … but like humans, is in real time…” Just had my coffee.
But one can set one’s sights too high,
Apparently, in the case of this bill, “setting one’s sights too high” meant requiring the actual enforcement of the law.
#66 – NDT, I am sorry for your personal loss this week.
I’m sorry to read about the death of your mentor. I never had one, so I am glad for your good fortune.
Couldn’t have said it better. Most of us walk around blind, bumping into roadblock placed by others and ourselves. How wonderfull it must have been to have someone to help you though the muck.