Posted on 03/30/2006 3:17:40 AM PST by harpu
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is about to have his moment in the conservative sun. The potential 2008 Presidential candidate has had his highs and lows with the conservative base. Frist brought home the bacon by pushing the Democrats to the limits on judicial nominations and finally confirming two conservative all-stars. But he has to date failed to lead Senate Republicans back to their fiscally conservative roots. He also took a position on stem cell research that infuriated the socially conservative base.
But now, as the Senate debates the too-hot-to-handle immigration reform issue, Frist has an opportunity to shine yet again. By introducing an immigration reform bill that focuses on border security and interior enforcement, Frist has endeared himself to the conservative base – and, indeed, to a majority of Americans – who have been clamoring for an end to illegal immigration.
But introducing a good bill was the easy part. As the next two weeks unfold, Frist will have to oversee the legislative process in the Senate, which is sure to weaken his border security-first approach. Granted, in a Senate that has demonstrated wobbly knees on this issue, Frist may be powerless to ward off all weakening amendments, but the final product will be scrutinized by many. For his part, the Senate Leader appears to understand what is at stake.
Writing yesterday on his VOLPAC blog, Frist acknowledged the gravity of the issue: “We should not break faith with those who played by the rules, so I will not support amnesty. We respect the rule of law and those who made it here the right way, and are trying to make it here the right way, rather than reward those who came here the wrong way.”
Later in his post, Frist conceded that he faced an uphill battle. Many of the amendments that will be offered “propose amnesty, weaken border security measures and strip away interior enforcement provisions,” wrote Frist. “These we must oppose.”
No doubt, many 2008 Republican primary election voters agree.
Dem’s play politics on immigration
As the immigration debate in Congress heats up, so does the Democrats' rhetoric. Democrats have been accusing conservatives who want to secure the borders of employing "draconian" measures. Hillary Clinton even went so far as to say the GOP immigration bill would criminalize "Jesus himself."
But when given the chance to soften immigration policies, Democrats backtracked for political reasons. When the House debated immigration reform last year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) offered a little-noticed amendment that would reduce the penalty for immigrants who overstay their visas from a felony to a misdemeanor. Only 8 Democrats backed up their rhetoric and voted for Sensenbrenner's amendment, which ultimately failed.
Democrats voted against Sensenbrenner’s amendment because they were concerned it would lead to more prosecutions. Their reasoning was that misdemeanors are prosecuted more often than felonies, so they opted to keep the status quo felony level in the hopes that prosecutions would remain minimal.
During last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee immigration bill markup, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) pointed out the hypocrisy highlighted in this vote. "It does not further the debate for politicians to state that churches will be raided; Jesus himself would be prosecuted…when no member of the Senate or the House has ever indicated that that is their intent or understanding of the law," said Cornyn.
Cornyn defended a provision in Specter's bill that would treat immigrants who overstay their visas in the same way that illegal immigrants are treated. Although, Cornyn emphasized he did not support making overstays a felony.
"But I would note that when the opportunity arose in the House to reduce the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor, only 8 Democrats voted to do so, and 191 voted to retain the felony penalty," said Cornyn. "This issue is too important for Congress to play political games with. My state is impacted every day by illegal immigration, and Texans are ready for the federal government to step up and address a federal issue."
Taking down Moveon.org, no matter what the cost
Republicans in the House of Representatives are preparing to move legislation that would regulate so-called 527 groups like Moveon.org. The legislation is an answer to what many perceive is a huge problem. In the 2004 election cycle, 527 groups flooded the airwaves with over $400 million in spending. The vast majority of that spending came from liberal 527s like Moveon.org.
The fix that Republicans are proposing is to apply the McCain-Feingold campaign laws to 527 groups. This law was considered by many conservatives to be an affront to citizens’ 1st Amendment free speech rights. Indeed, many of the current backers of 527 reform were opponents of the McCain-Feingold legislation.
In a conference call with conservative bloggers on Tuesday, members of the House GOP conference admitted as much. Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) told bloggers he “was no fan” of the McCain-Feingold campaign legislation but that it was now the law of the land. As such, Cole and his colleagues agreed that it should be applied to 527’s.
But this approach flies on the face of the conservative principles of limited government and deregulation. Why would Republicans, many of whom derided McCain-Feingold as anti-constitutional, apply that law to new areas thereby implicitly acknowledging its Constitutional validity? Sadly, the answer is simple: Despite bright spots like the Club for Growth and Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Republicans are losing—and losing big—in the 527 wars.
There is, however, an alternative: Republicans could level the playing field by decreasing regulations instead of creating more. Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) has teamed up with Democrat Albert Wynn (D-MD) to offer a deregulatory approach that applies more freedom to the situation instead of more federal regulations. This approach would allow other political entities to compete with 527s on a level playing field.
Cole, who says he is a supporter of the Pence-Wynn approach, admitted that applying McCain-Feingold to 527s was not “as ideologically pure.” Nevertheless, he and his colleagues on the call told bloggers something had to be done and that this would be a "temporary fix" along with what Tom Price (R-GA) called "the road to real accountability and real reform."
If passed, this “temporary fix” would have the short term consequence of boosting Republican chances at the polls this November. But many conservatives think the long-term cost—further restricting 1st Amendment protections and broadening the scope of the McCain-Feingold campaign law—is not worth it.
Can one actually grow a spine in 2 years?
I don't know. Has stem cell research come that far?
To me, it's still all talk...let's see if he even begins the walk.
Frist wasa far more effective majority leader than Dole or Lott would have been, judging from his accomplishments. Although I also disapproved with regards to his stance on stem cell research, at least he was able to successfully bring forth the nomination of two brilliant justices and pass legislation without making extensive compromises
I have little faith in frist.
I was an early supporter of Frist. When he let the rat push the Alito hearings off until Jan. he began to look less like the guy I wanted. I now want George Allen as our nominee. I wish Frist well in retirement, but this is too little too late.
The matter at hand is fairly simple to quantify.
Americans overwhelmingly want the illegals sent home.
The Senate overwhelmingly wants to continue to take the money from the businesses that employ illegals and they want the bonus of the vote from the illegals when they become citizens.
Doing the right thing has not been this clear for a long time.
It is precisely what makes the decision so difficult for the Senate.
It's positions on major issues would be defined by annual or semi annual conventions of the full party membership. Put an end to this "big tent" shit that enables democrats to "bore in" and run as republicans only to "dump" all over conservative principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.