Election 2016: Rand Paul Says Wife is Against a 2016 Run
The difference between KO’s “dissent is patriotic” and “accusations must be proven” pre-Obama admin motto versus his “anything goes except what I deem to be inappropriate” post-election motto (via Broliath):
And while we’re on the topic of hilarious MSDNC follies, check out Kyle Drennan’s screencap of a headline that flashed on the bottom of the TV screen today during a “debate” of sorts on the controversial Arizona immigration bill that signed into law by Jan Governor Brewer on Friday. It reads:
“Law Makes It A Crime To Be Illegal Immigrant”
Oh, and speaking of immigration, CBS News (surprisingly) pretty much nails it on how Democrats are trying to play politics in an election year by bumping up “immigration reform” as a top issue:
This was supposed to be the day that three senators – Republican Lindsey Graham, Democrat John Kerry, and Independent Joe Lieberman – unveiled their bipartisan climate and energy legislation plan.
But over the weekend Graham put the brakes on the bill. The reason was not that he no longer liked the legislation. Rather, it was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (pictured) had decided to prioritize immigration reform instead.
“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,” Graham wrote in a letter to his two co-sponsors.
He has a point.
The climate bill, after all, had a legitimate chance to pass this year. In a difficult but successful vote for many members, the House passed a climate bill last June; with Graham on board and Democrats holding 59 votes in the Senate, a bill had a clear chance to pass through that chamber as well.
There are, of course, major differences between the bills in the two chambers, chief among them on the issue of cap-and-trade (the House bill includes it, and the Senate proposal does not.) Neither a Senate vote to pass the bill nor a subsequent process to reconcile the two bills would be easy. But there was a reasonable chance that the Senate could pass its version and a compromise could be hammered out, getting the legislation to the president’s desk this year.
Immigration is a different story: Nobody really expects a comprehensive bill to pass in 2010. For one, the energized Republican base is worked up enough about the prospect of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants that supporting the bill would be toxic for most GOP politicians; immigration reform is the sort of issue that could well result in an explosion of anger that makes the health care debate pale by comparison.
Supporting the bill would also be an extremely tough sell for many vulnerable House Democrats, who will not want to cast an unpopular vote in favor of “amnesty” in the run-up to the midterm elections. But the politics make more sense: Those vulnerable Democrats get an opportunity to take a strong position against a reform bill, which could help them hold on to their seats.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Reid, who is facing a tough reelection battle, gets a chance to stand with his state’s sizable Latino population, which he hopes will help him squeak through to another term. To top it off, Republicans in general end up looking bad in the eyes of Latinos, a crucial voting bloc that only gets more important with each passing year.
The calculation facing Reid was this: He could force his fellow senators to make a difficult vote on a climate bill and then deal with a tough fight to get a compromise bill to the president, a battle that would not be unlike the painful process to get a health care bill passed. Or he could push an immigration proposal that will likely not pass but which will help his party politically and may keep him from losing his seat.
The fact that Reid chose the latter is what has Graham arguing convincingly that the majority leader put politics first. Indeed, Reid’s decision may have effectively killed the push to pass a climate bill in 2010, widely seen as the best opportunity to pass legislation in light of expected Republican gains in the midterm elections. The decision “has destroyed my confidence that there will be a serious commitment and focus to move energy legislation this year,” Graham wrote.
The White House, for its part, wants a climate bill. But it is not going to stand in the way of Reid, who risked his political life by taking on the health care fight. President Obama has already signaled that he is willing to get involved in the immigration fight, and he may take action soon to discourage other states from following Arizona’s lead to pass their own tough immigration laws.
The upshot? Lawmakers appear to be embarking on a push for an immigration bill no one expects to pass while leaving a carefully-crafted climate bill out in the cold.
Whatever you think of Lindsey Graham – especially on the issue of illegal immigration, he may have very well just helped greatly hinder whatever possibility Democrats had this year of passing both “comprehensive immigration reform” (Democrat style) and cap and tax. Would much rather take up these issues under a more Republican Congress – even if we don’t get back the majority – than a Democrat Congress, and I especially would rather it be done during an “off” election year (although we have to keep in mind that next year is when all the GOP and Dem (?) hopefuls for President will be making their voices heard in advance of the 2012 Presidential election). That said, assuming we do make a lot of gains this fall, immigration reform could still be rough sailing, as it was when the Bush admin tried to tackle it in 2007, but cap and tax might effectively be DOA and a more reasonable and responsible energy plan could be under consideration by early next year.
Re: the Arizona immigration bill, please let me know your thoughts on it. On Twitter the last couple of days I’ve read a fair amount about conservatives voicing concerns about it – including prominent illegal immigration opponent Tom Tancredo, essentially saying that it may “go too far” in enabling law enforcement to stop people suspected of being illegal immigrants and “demand to see their papers.” What do you think?