For the next two months I live only five blocks from the White House. It gives one an odd perception of government when one is geographically close to the deals, bargains, compromises, votes and filibusters (especially the filibusters). I have only lived in DC for seven days, but I can already tell that news travels faster in this town. Without turning on the TV, picking up a newspaper or reading an online source I can know what happened in the world last night before I get to class at 9am. Granted the program to which I am involved is compromised of 17 political nerds who talk of nothing less (hyperbole, of course), but the point still rings true: news travels faster.
Last night I was browsing through the channels before the Daily Show came on and I stumbled upon CSPAN (or was it CSPAN 2?). Senator Dick Durbin (Majority Whip) was giving a speech. My channel surfing came to a halt when the ticker under Sen. Durbin told me that the Senate had failed (45-50) to invoke cloture on the immigration bill and bring it to a final vote. This caused me to be rather frustrated, although, I did not dwell on it until the next day. For those who are not familiar with Senate rules: a successful cloture vote ends debate and brings a bill to a final vote on the whole package (in this case the comprehensive immigration bill). Those who do not want the bill passed will often unite and not even allow a vote to occur. Especially on a sensitive subject as immigration some Senators would be just fine in not having a vote on the record to be scrutinized later.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that this does not mean the bill is done, but I am skeptical. Sen. Reid does not agree with most of the bill, so I cannot see him pushing too hard to bring the immigration debate up again. We opened a can of worms and what do we have to show for it? The status quo. Of course, the Republicans will not be done with their debate. Most Republicans, namely Mitt Romney, argue that we should simply enforce the 1986 Immigration Act (which we didn't fully implement) and not worry about a new bill. Others contend that there should not be a legalization process at all for illegal immigrants. As you could see from the recent Republican debate, it is considered by some that any attempt to legalize those who committed a crime is amnesty (it should be noted that our prison system was founded on the idea of reintroducing criminals into society). I must agree with President Bush when he contends that this bill does not offer amnesty. Amnesty is the forgiveness of charges without penalty. In this bill, immigrants must pay $5,000, the head of the household must go back to their home country before being granted citizenship, and with a new emphasis on skill over family connections means that newly legalized immigrants may not see their family for decades on end. Oh, and the process takes anywhere between eight and thirteen years. If you call that "without penalty" then you have lived a very hard life. But, if there is something that Republicans are good at it is negative image building (see: flip-flopper and now "Amnesty Bill")
So, what does the future hold? The first attempt at a bipartisan "Grand Bargain", as it has been called, has inevitably failed. The more time passes by the more likely it is that immigration reform won't happen. Why? Primary season is in full-swing. Primaries bring out the fringes of each party to vote for their candidate. (Something like 15% of the electorate votes in the primaries, which means that the most-die hard ideologues decide the candidate of each party). The Republican, as seen by the recent debate, will drive hard right on immigration and refuse Bush's moderate stance. That means no guest worker program, and no "amnesty" or anything that stinks of it. Democrats will be more measured on immigration reform because their base is compromised of minorities. Therefore, they will not be as loud about the subject and likely speak in grand terms like "we are a country of immigrants and will continue to be one. We must do what we can to help everyone achieve the American Dream." Primary season is in full-swing, which means it is the worst time for bipartisan anything let alone a marriage between John McCain and Ted Kennedy.
And finally, here are the highlights of the immigration debate in Congress:
Lame-Duck anyone? - President Bush has always been moderate on immigration dating back to his gubernatorial stint in Texas. His chief policy, the guest worker program, was one of the most opposed points of the bill by the Republicans. Bush did not weigh in very deeply into the Congressional battle, and why? Mostly because Bush is no longer the spokesman of the party. There are ten Republican candidates (eleven with Thompson and twelve with Gingrich), which proves that the Republicans are without a singular voice right now. Bush is becoming less influential by the day (approval rating hit a new low: 29%). He thought that immigration could be another one of his grand legacies along with No Child Left Behind and the War in Iraq (so far so good), but it appears that the bill is on life-support. Harry Reid has tactfully begun calling the immigration package, the "president's bill" which serves a dual purpose: 1) to encourage Bush to take some initiative with his ideas and 2) to leave Bush with the check if the bill fails. Bush needs this bill to salvage his reputation. He should get off his horse and get in the game.
Rove might fail at something? - Karl Rove, Bush's chief election strategist, had a dream. Rove wanted to see a permanent Republican majority. How was he going to accomplish this? Rove believed that if Republicans took the Hispanic vote from the Democrats then they would never lose. It appeared to work. In 2000, Gore won the Hispanic vote 65-35 percent and Bush lost the popular vote. In 2004, Kerry won the Hispanic vote 55-45 percent. Hispanics accounted for 12% of the national vote, so Bush's increase of 10% translated to an increase of 1.2% of the national vote (and a 1.2% negative for Democrats). Bush won the popular vote by 3.1%, so that 2.4% difference in Hispanic vote from 2000 to 2004 becomes huge (Dick Morris gave me the numbers). Rove correctly realized the potential of the Hispanic vote and effectively exploited it in '04. But, now what? Rove has been discredited due to Valerie Plame, the 2006 election and now a possible involvement in Alberto Gonzalez's dealings and it is duck season for Bush (a looney toons reference in a political piece?). The Republicans are appealing to their base and beginning to sound like what Fareed Zakaria had called the "New Know-Nothings." The Republicans are rejecting the Rovian permanent majority strategy. This is very disappointing for Red fans because 2004 was merely the beginning of the possible Hispanic conversion.
The Democrats lack the will - I think that pretty much says it all. This bill would have helped dispel the idea that the Democrats were becoming a "do-nothing" Congress. Harry Truman won re-election in 1948 by labeling the Republican Congress as a "do-nothing" Congress. The growing public perception of the Democrats leaves the Republicans room to accuse Pelosi and Reid of the same.
This last highlight is the reason for my disappointment. I am a mere mile or so from the Capitol, yet I cannot help but fathom what goes on there. There are two debates that are coming up: the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind and global warming. I hope that we get the public riled up for action, not for anger. I am a Cubs fan, so I am accustomed to disappointment, but this is becoming too much.
-Wyatt Earp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment