The Washington Times reported yesterday that the "Immigration effort lacks 2nd backer from GOP". In other words, between the "poisoning of the well" caused by the government health care takeover and the political suicide involved in proposing amnesty for illegal aliens (especially during a recession), the only Republican creature stupid enough to stick his neck on the chopping block is the always-reliable-in-his-wide-eyed-idiocy Lindsey Graham.
Graham is the guy who wants to work with the Democrats to pass a carbon tax, amnesty, and to close Guantanamo Bay, each of which does damage to America, to its economy, its rule of law, and its national security, respectively.
Really, what about Lindsey Graham doesn't seem like something between a far-left Democrat and an enemy agent (the two of which are unfortunately hard to distinguish lately)? If I told you that someone was working to make the US economy non-competitive or to move terrorists to within our borders, wouldn't you wonder whether that person worked for the People's Republic of China or some mortal enemy of our nation?
To be clear, I'm not an immigration hawk. I have a lot of sympathy for those illegal aliens who do not commit crimes (other than getting here illegally) and who really just want to work and make a better life for their families. But as Milton Friedman pointed out, you can't have open borders and a Welfare State. I'm not interested in rewarding illegals by making them legal when millions of others have gone through the legal process. I am, however, interested in massively increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US and creating a migrant worker program for temporary workers. (After all, many of the illegals don't want to be here permanently, a position that works for everyone.) I'm also not interested in legalizing millions of people who will continue to bankrupt our hospitals by using emergency rooms without paying for care. In any case, there could hardly be a worse time, in a political sense, to talk about amnesty for millions of would-be workers than during the deepest recession in generations with unemployment rates near 10% and underemployment rates near 17%. Who are you going to sell that to, Lindsey?
Remember, the left wants amnesty for the illegals because the left assumes that poor immigrants will vote for Democrats who will promise them your money. And their calculation is probably right. So, a Republican voting for amnesty is really a Republican voting to increase the welfare state and the number of voters supporting the welfare state and the number of voters supporting the Democratic Party. What sort of Republican would want to do any of those things? Until the welfare state is massively reformed, there must be no amnesty of any sort...and even then any sort of amnesty program should be very restrictive. Instead, increase the number of visas for all levels of skilled and unskilled workers and make illegals go through the process.
Unfortunately, Graham was just re-elected in 2008, so we're stuck with him for a while. We just need to keep the rest of the Republicans from selling out the nation during the next several months. Next year, there will be enough Republicans in the Senate that we could lose Graham and one or two more on any given issue and still be OK.
The other key takeaway from the Washington Times article is how much is riding on getting a second Republican on board. Graham claims he has business and labor groups ready to endorse the measure he's devising with Chuck Schumer (D-NY) if only they could get just one more Republican.
Remember, there were sixteen Democrats and the majority of Republicans who voted against the last attempt at amnesty. And the key Republican co-conspirators of that attempt, Jon Kyl and John McCain, both of Arizona, are staying away from it this time.
So, are Graham and Schumer really saying that they'll claim this to be a "bipartisan" effort if they can get a total of two Republicans?
Of course, the Dems are the party of Barack "the post-partisan" Obama, the man who jammed his takeover of health care down our throats without the vote of a single Republican. They couldn't even get Susan Collins (RINO-ME) or a single GOP member of the House. The only thing bipartisan about ObamaCare is the opposition to it.
I don't think that Harry Reid would keep the Senate Democrats together for amnesty the way he did for ObamaCare. They've walked the plank enough for Reid (who won't be in office next year anyway) and for The One, who is obviously willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone for the sake of his legacy. So even if they eventually find the second sell-out Republican, or even a third, it probably won't be enough to block a filibuster which would be supported by more than a handful of Democrats.
I've long argued that bipartisanship is not a useful goal of its own and that it has, during my political lifetime, meant almost without exception conservatives moving toward liberal positions. I'm no psychiatrist and I don't know what motivates Lindsey Graham to sell out not just his party (I don't care much about or for the GOP, at least until they become consistent champions of liberty) but I suspect a large part of it is a desire to be seen as someone who can "bridge the gap" or "get things done". He doesn't seem to realize that a bridge to a non-competitive economy or getting disatrous legistion done is not something to be proud of.
In the meantime, we seem to have a new definition of "bipartisan" which is when one party can get two members of the other party to defect. Actually, even that is oo generous: After the first House of Representatives vote on ObamaCare, the liberals were calling it a bipartisan victory because one single Republican (Joseph Cao of Louisiana) voted for the measure. Even that bipartisanship mercifully disappeared when Cao voted "No" the second time.
No amnesty while we have a welfare state
No "bipartisanship" for its own sake
And will someone in South Carolina (who has a chance of winning) PLEASE challenge Lindsey Graham in the Republican primary in 2014???
|<< <||> >>|