A Bad Bill Goes Down

Yesterday, Senators voted against cloture for the "grand compromise" immigration bill supported by the Bush administration and a bipartisan coalition of Congresspersons. The cloture vote effectively filibustered the bill and tosses the legislation onto the ash heap of the 2007 session....where it belongs. Allow me to put it bluntly. Supporters of this bill had universally cynical intentions. When George Bush said that this legislation's opponents "didn't want to do what's right for America", he had the analogy exactly wrong. This bill was a strategic disaster that would have portended an even larger "amnesty" debate the next time Congress addressed the issue....and was a Molotov cocktail in the faces of the American working class to boot.

There was so much insincere spin, by both the politicians supporting it and the "open-minded" mainstream media, used to sell this legislation that public opinion was difficult to accurately gauge. All too often, the debate was framed within the false choice of either "supporting comprehensive immigration reform" or "deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants back to Mexico." When put into such artificially black and white terms, the public overwhelmingly supported the goals of the legislation. Unfortunately, this Grand Compromise was neither "comprehensive" nor "reform", failing to take seriously the most important aspect of solving our immigration problem....securing the damn borders. It's abundantly clear that the framers of this bill had no intention of making serious overtures towards border security, just as they didn't 20 years and 40 years ago, respectively, when immigration reform was last addressed, also with unfulfilled promises of border security and cracking down on employers who hire illegals.

And when it became clear to voters that border security was not a priority of "comprehensive immigration reform", public support for the bill fell apart, so much so that the phone lines of the bill's Congressional supporters were jammed by angry callers warning their elected officials to vote against this reform bill. And I concur with the majority here. The status quo on illegal immigration policy may be unacceptable, but this legislation all but ensured that a bad situation would be made worse.

Even without the lack of emphasis on border security and enforcement, I still couldn't support this bill. The idea of instituting an apartheid-esque "guest worker program" with a deliberate endgame of driving down wage levels for domestic low-skill and semi-skill workers, and of codifying a disenfranchised class of temporary workers whose humanity is reduced to a set of hands on the plantation or factory floor, made the "reform" a nonstarter for me. Hats off to North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan for being one of the few Senators who took a lead role in pointing out the devastating economic consequences that a "guest worker program" would have on an already-struggling working class. Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders also got on board in attacking this deliberate attempt to grow poverty in America later in the debate.

There are no easy solutions to the immigration debate, but a long time ago I outlined an approach that seems painfully obvious, but which no legislative leaders mimicked in their own proposals. A number of columnists skeptical of McCain-Kennedy also endorsed a close variation on my suggestion, which amounts to prioritizing border security first and building a fence, then granting a path to citizenship to the illegal immigrants already here, scrapping any plans for a dehumanizing guest worker program that would recycle Mexican workers in and out of America like cattle, and adjust legal immigration quotas accordingly, targetting skilled immigrants while avoiding an influx of unskilled workers so large that it allows entirely industries to be dominated by immigrant workers, which is a recipe for exploitation and permanent wage suppression. If Congress was to propose a plan like this, I suspect 75% of the public would support. The Sean Hannity types outraged at any proposal to legalize lawbreaking undocumented workers already here would almost assuredly be in the minority, as most people see little value in having a population larger than Ohio living in America illegally and undocumented.

Nonetheless, don't expect such a proposal to ever make it to the floor of Congress. Our elected leaders have only two priorities when it comes to "comprehensive immigration reform". Its supporters on the right, such as the Bush administration and Grover Norquist, supported the odious bill killed yesterday because of the limitless pipeline of cheap labor that it allows the GOP's business peeps to permanently exploit.....while its supporters on the left, such as Ted Kennedy, supported the bill based on a simplistic embrace of "diversity" and because they believe these future immigrants will become Democratic voters. These may be the highest priorities of our elected officials in the immigration debate, but I highly doubt they are the highest priority of voters.

Who Would Bloomberg Hurt?

The easy answer that to question is the American people....at least those that wish to cling to any semblance of personal freedom that remains in a nation run amok with paternalistic government, be it the self-proclaimed kings who wish to indefinitely detain terror suspects without charges or those clamoring for prohibitions against smoking, transfat, or whatever the "public health" bogeyman of the hour may be. If the Sanctimonious Scolds of America were to crown a Chief Mullah in the current public policy sphere, Mike Bloomberg would be the hands-down victor, and anyone who values freewill should be more frightened at the prospect of a Bloomberg Presidency than a Sam Brownback Presidency. And the Napoleon complex that Bloomberg brings to New York City would naturally be expected to grow if, God forbid, his domain were to expand beyond the Big Apple. Anybody as convinced of the need to micromanage the lives of the peasantry as Mike Bloomberg is should not be trusted with power.

Now that I've gotten my own personal feelings towards the man and the dangerous ideology of homegrown tyranny that he represents off my chest (well...almost anyway), the next question becomes: does Bloomberg hurt Democrats or Republicans in 2008?

That's a difficult question and would vary depending on the pairings of candidates. Bloomberg's political profile doesn't lend himself to a natural constituency. He's socially liberal (which would hurt him in the South and in Ohio). He's an avid environmentalist (which will hurt him in Michigan and the coal states). And he's at least nominally a supporter of the war in Iraq (which kills his credibility among moderates who want out of Iraq but could never bring themselves to vote for, say, Hillary Clinton). It's difficult to see, just based on the issues, how Bloomberg gets to the 35-38% he would need to win the Presidency, but it's not difficult to see how he could be a spoiler.

In my opinion, the big loser in the event of a Bloomberg candidacy would be Hillary. One of the most polarizing people in America who evokes cringes even among many dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, Hillary Clinton's nomination would put in motion exactly the kind of "need for a change to bring the country together" message that would convince many would-be Democratic voters to pull the lever for Bloomberg rather than vote for Hillary. Under that scenario, the Republican candidate (ANY Republican candidate) would almost assuredly win the White House.

On the other hand, if Giuliani is the GOP nominee (and Hillary isn't the Dem nominee), Bloomberg could be the de facto protest vote of conservatives expressing their outrage at the Republican Party for nominating a social liberal like Giuliani. Granted, this would be a hollow protest as Bloomberg is to the left of Giuliani, but could nonetheless generate some momentum as a middle finger in the face of a Republican Party that has taken them for granted.

Ultimately though, Bloomberg could catch on regardless of his lack of natural constituency and positions, simply by being the "voice of moderation" in a politically polarized era that voters at least think they are sick of. Very few Presidential elections are ever about issues, so the Democrats can't count on the hypermajority of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq dragging them across the finish line. If the Republicans nominate a back-to-the-fifties conservative like Fred Thompson and the Dems go with Hillary, the two parties could inadvertantly make Bloomberg's case for him....potentially paving the way for victory.

And with all the black markets that would arise in the face of Bloomberg's inevitable nanny-state prohibitions, expect his biggest campaign contributors to the insurance industry, organized crime, and Hezbollah.

Is the Reagan Revolution Over?

The widespread consensus in mainstream media circles is that the modern conservative era ushered in with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 has effectively come to an end. A combination of factors and issues has arisen since Bush's re-election in 2004, the logic goes, all discrediting long-standing conservative dogma. Much as I'd like to stick a fork in the "Reagan Revolution" once and for all, color me a skeptic.

I remember similar rhetoric ensuing regarding the swan song of the Religious Right back in 1996 and 1998, when evangelicals failed to generate the political bounty needed to take down Bill Clinton in '96 or even trigger voter backlash regarding Monicagate in '98. The Religious Right, we were told, was losing influence with each passing day. The next three elections, particularly the 2004 "moral values" election, debunked that thesis, and actually showed us that the evangelical conservative movement was growing stronger and numerically larger.

George Bush has soured independent voters (and many Republicans) on the GOP, but he won't be on the ballot ever again. Similarly, the increasing prevalence of traditionally conservative business groups coming out in favor of anti-global warming measures and universal health care initiatives also seems unlikely to have staying power. Favoring generic legislation to help curb global warming and to establish universal health care is fairly easy. Settling on a specific policy is another thing. Even with a President and the majority of Congress favoring a "comprehensive immigration reform" policy, the legislation still seems poised to flounder until its death this year (and in this case, thank goodness) due to a lack of consensus on the eventual compromise legislation. Certainly the same would be the case when business leaders, currently joining hands with SEIU Union President Andy Stern on the need for universal health care, see the eventual universal health care plan that comes up for a vote. Business basically wants to pass on its health care costs onto taxpayers without an appreciable increase in tax burden. That's their horse in this race....and it's almost certain that any actual universal health care plan that comes forward will "raise taxes on business more than what business leader expected when they first endorsed the plan".

Ditto for global warming. Business leaders asking the Bush administration to "do something about climate change" are merely making a pre-emptive strike so that any potential legislation that does emerge will hold them as harmless as possible. It does not mean that energy companies are suddenly cool with the prospect of a conservation-promoting carbon tax.

Ultimately, no action will be taken on either universal health care or climate change in the foreseeable future because, like immigration, there will never emerge a large enough consensus to deliver the legislation through both Houses and the President's desk.

That unravels the argument that "the Reagan Revolution is dead" based on the issues, but the conflicting messages coming from voters in public opinion polls adds to my doubt. Conventional wisdom suggests that Democrats have as close to a sure thing as possible in the 2008 Presidential contest, but every shred of circumstantial evidence I'm seeing suggests that the Republicans have the advantage in the 2008 Presidential contest. Aside from the fact that the Democratic frontrunner is the almost certainly unelectable Hillary Clinton, the remainder of the top-tier and second-tier Democratic candidates just don't seem capable of scoring that all-important "cultural connection" with independent voters the way that the Republican candidates do.

If I were to pick the five candidates in the 2008 field who I believe would be the strongest nominees for their respective parties, the list would read as follows in descending order of electability: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani. Not a single Democrat in the top-five. While most of these GOP nominees have problems with the party's base, it's the Democratic candidates who will have problems with the national electorate. There are so many problems with a Hillary candidacy that I won't even bother starting the list; but Obama's inexperience (and let's be honest, his race) will ultimately lose him would-be voters; Edwards' pretty-boy image and, more specifically, his $400 haircut, strike me as comparable to the "Dean scream" in terms of viable electability; Biden couldn't get himself any coverage unless he lit himself on fire; and Richardson is losing credibility after a litany of unimpressive debate and talk show performances.

And even though I usually don't put much stock in these early polls, head-to-head candidate faceoffs indicate that despite a 13-point "generic advantage" for Democrats going into the 2008 Presidential election, individual Republican challengers are besting all of the top tier of Democrats running. As specific evidence of how much a candidate's "personal connection" with voters plays (and how little actual issues play), independent voters most inclined to oppose the war in Iraq are also most inclined to favor John McCain, primary cheerleader for a war that virtually nobody else is publicly defending, for President.

Another overarching theme of these Republicans running for President (and dispatching Democratic rivals) is that they all dole out an unending stream of Messiah-like adulation for Ronald Reagan at every possible opportunity. And this is the man whose "era" in American politics is allegedly over?

The Gore Factor

Certain elements of the Democratic Party, and everybody in the mainstream media, have been wetting themselves for months now over the prospect of former Vice-President Al Gore jumping into the 2008 Presidential election contest. For his part, Gore has been as coy as possible about his future plans, indicating he has absolutely no plans to run....but hasn't ruled out the option should a certain set of circumstances arise. With Gore releasing a new book in the past week, his media exposure has skyrocketed and generated even more hype regarding Gore's hypothetical candidacy. One look at the left wing political blog Daily Kos gives proof positive just how receptive Democratic activists are towards a Gore candidacy, with more than half of poll participants suggesting Gore would be their preferred candidate if he were to get into the race.

Let's take a step back for a second folks. We're talking about Al Gore here... he of the worst Democratic Presidential campaign since 1988. However good of an ex-politician Gore may be, he's a terrible politician, actually living up to the "flip-flopper" title that John Kerry was erroneously tagged with. On top of Gore's notorious changes of heart on guns, abortion, and tobacco that directly paralleled his transition from Tennessee Senator to national Democratic Party insurgent, there's an even more egregious example of Gore's political hackdom that will always stick in my craw. Back in the spring of 2000, attempting to suck up to Cuban-Americans in the upcoming Florida primary, Gore actually broke with the Clinton administration policy to oppose the Justice Department's extraction of the kidnapped Elian Gonzalez from his familial Miami captors.

And aside from his shameless political pandering, Gore simply does not connect with voters at that all-important cultural level. And no matter how much the public may have moved into alignment with Gore over the issues of the day (opposition to the war in Iraq, global warming), that doesn't tell me that they've moved into alignment with Gore personally. After all, the majority of the public was with Gore on the vast majority of issues back in 2000 as well, for all the good it did him.

With all this said, if it came down to Al Gore or Hillary Clinton being the Democratic Presidential candidate of 2008, I'd take Gore in a heartbeat. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is as close to a sure loser as any candidate alive, as evidenced by the fact that she has unfavorable ratings above 50% BEFORE the national Presidential campaign has even begun. Nonetheless, I'd prefer to see just about any other of the current Democratic contenders (maybe even the hapless Joe Biden) than a rehash of the disaster that was the 2000 Al Gore Presidential campaign.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Renominating Al Gore would thus seem to qualify as an act of unbridled insanity.

May's GOP Asshat of the Month

I'm make it short and sweet this month, summing up May's selection in two words: Paul Wolfowitz.