Reid Pays Off Hispanics For Putting Him Back Into Office By Pushing Four (Four!) Different Versions of DREAM Act

None of which went through committee. A rush job, as usual, an attempt to get stealth legislation by without a public debate. As usual.

On the good side of things, all 42 Senate Republicans have signed a letter stating that they will block (filibuster, I guess) all Democrat-backed bills until the Bush tax cuts are extended. Note: That link states that it is not known (or wasn't known at the time of the article's writing) how many of the 42 Senators signed the letter, but the first link (the Fox link) says:

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter Wednesday vowing to block any legislation until a government spending bill is passed and the Bush tax cuts, set to expire at the end of the year, are extended. A couple of Senate Republicans could cross over once those issues are resolved, but Reid would still have defecting Democrats on his hands.

Ben Nelson (up for reelection in 2012) has already said, strongly, he'd block the attempt, so that's one on our side:

"I'm not going to support any legislation that I don't think adds to jobs, or to the military or to the economy. Consequently, I won't support any motion to proceed or any kind of cloture measure on the DREAM Act," he wrote. "In addition, I think that it must be part of an overall comprehensive solution to immigration once we have the border secured, and not until then."

Alas, the Maine sisters always check with each other and act as a pair -- but then, Snowe is up for reelection in 2012, too, and further, this isn't even an issue where a "moderate" position has an advantage.

I'm not happy that the letter was bargained down (most likely by the Maine sisters, plus Lindsey Graham, plus maybe John McCain) down to a commitment to block this not until the next Senate is seated, but to a mere commitment to block this until the tax and budgetary issues are handled. However, on the plus side, that might just be a fig leaf for the amnesty agents, who don't want to make a flat commitment against the bill but are willing to make a commitment that prioritizes other things first. That is, they might not want to be on record as supporting, flatly, a blocking of the legislation, but might actually be willing to do just that. If it's dressed up a bit.

The vow also has the effect of putting the vote off for a while, which is a plus for the anti-amnesty forces. We have gotten results before; we can probably get them again. We just need time and energy.

Not sure about the House: Sixty Democrats were voted out of office. The Democrats have something like a +32 advantage in seats at the moment. Would a little more than half of those voted out of office (all those Blue Dogs) vote with Republicans to block the bill? If only to preserve their future viability, or to honor commitments made to constituents?

posted by Ace at 12:04 PM

| Access Comments