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.

Apparently, in the case of this bill, “setting one’s sights too high” meant requiring the actual enforcement of the law.

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.

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.

Hey! Lets all pick on Big D!
I saw his bum once!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?