There's No Defending Amnesty
By Bluey Posted in Featured Stories | Immigration — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hugh Hewitt is defending Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), one of the masterminds behind the amnesty bill. Hewitt opposes the bill because it doesn't include a 700-mile fence, but he thinks Kyl is getting a bum rap for this role in the deal. That might be true, but it was Kyl's choice to negotiate with Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and a pro-amnesty president. No one made him sit at the table.
Kyl has claimed that were it not for his involvement in the negotiations, the bill would be worse. That might be true, but it's not saying much. As I wrote more than a month ago, Kennedy got the best of Republicans in this deal. There's no question about it. He always has and he always will.
Conservatives have a lot of reasons to thank Kyl for what he's accomplished during his legislative career. But immigration reform isn't one of them. His support for this bill is what's giving cover to other Republicans who might otherwise oppose it. For that reason alone, I see no reason to defend him.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | A Thank You for Fighting Amnesty — Comments (3) »
There's No Defending Amnesty 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But his ambitions for any higher office, at least outside of AZ, are over because of his role in this. Heck, maybe inside AZ as well!
...Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), one of the masterminds behind the amnesty bill
Calling Kyl a "mastermind" of this bill is sloppy wording to say the least. Actually, "misleading" would be a better characterization of that sentence. You leave the impression that Kyl is one of the driving forces FOR Bush-Kennedy-style "comprehensive immigration reform," instead of a leader amongst those trying to soften its blow.
it was Kyl's choice to negotiate with Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and a pro-amnesty president. No one made him sit at the table.
Sigh. More hyperbolic wording. You make it sound as if Kyl gleefully and enthusiastically sought out Kennedy.
Kyl has claimed that were it not for his involvement in the negotiations, the bill would be worse. That might be true, but it's not saying much.
Well...OK, if you say so! As for me, I think it could be saying quite a bit. If Mitch McConnell had the will, or the votes, to shut this bill down, I suspect he would have. Do you see him doing so? I don't. So, then, what do we do? Make the best lemonade we can with the lemons that a pro-amnesty President, a pro-amnesty Democratic majority and (apparently) enough pro-amnesty Republicans seem heck-bent into writing into law? Or, just quit?
Maybe you answered my last question, with this sentence...
As I wrote more than a month ago, Kennedy got the best of Republicans in this deal. There's no question about it. He always has and he always will.
Well Bluey, you have to admit---with sentences like that one I bolded up there, you won't be inviting any comparisons to Horatius or John Paul Jones anytime soon.
His support for this bill is what's giving cover to other Republicans who might otherwise oppose it.
I suspect there are other sources of cover for Republicans who vote for this bill. Business lobbies, Latin-American voter groups, agriculture.
Jon Kyl's a big man, but he's not big enough for all those "other" Republicans to hide behind. Putting this amount of blame on him might feel good. But, that kind of claim (IMO, of course) seems to spring more from pique and frustration than from a thoughtful and rational analysis of the political battlespace before us.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
As I wrote more than a month ago, Kennedy got the best of Republicans in this deal. There's no question about it. He always has and he always will.
Well Bluey, you have to admit---with sentences like that one I bolded up there, you won't be inviting any comparisons to Horatius or John Paul Jones anytime soon.
You do remember DHS secretary Michael Chertoff's recent comments re: the immigration bill in referring to Senator Kennedy as "awesome"? And the comments on the Senate floor of Senator Trent Lott who told the Republican conservative base to drop dead and who also had these fine words to say about Senator Kennedy:
"Senator Kennedy, I appreciate the legislative leadership you have been providing. I know it is not easy, you know, and your own colleagues and those of us over here have been beating you up. I mean, your a nice poster child. Thank you very much for what you do."
So Kyl makes nice with Kennedy at his own risk, and thus will then deserve the same scorn as Chertoff and Lott.
if you wish.
But, one shouldn't project that Kennedy will "always" defeat Republicans. He'll win his share, and we'll win ours.
Unless we quit, that is. I.e., if we choose not to fight, then Kennedy indeed will always beat us when it comes to this particular immigration deal.
Do you share Bluey's opinion, as I bolded it above? Do you think that we absolutely, simply can't hold the line against Amnesty Ted Kennedy? If so, then you quit too easily. IMO, of course.
I see more and more GOP Senators coming out against cloture. I see Jon Kyl acting more forceful, and proclaiming that he plans to lead efforts to toughen the bill. That doesn't sound like quitting to me.
We may lose this fight, but it's not over yet. Unless we surrender, that is.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
>>Kyl has claimed that were it not for his involvement in the negotiations, the bill would be worse.
That reminds me of the former California Speaker Willy Brown (D) who once said "I'm against the three strikes law because it's not tough enough".
Kyl's involvement lends legitimacy to this horrible bill. He's not getting a bum rap. He's acting like a co-conspirator. He needs to distance himself from this bill and bring credibility back to the Republican party before it goes down completely in flames.
Let the bill "be worse" Kyl!
associated with this bill, so he gets to take the heat.
If he thinks it might have been worse, he might be right.
However, if it were worse, might it not also be easier to defeat?
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork. Next week I get a new wall.
Jon Kyl is another conservative Republican gone bad. It's too bad he is not running again next year.
All Republicans supporting this non-enforcement, Amnesty Bill for illegal aliens should be kicked out of their Senate seats at the earliest opportunity!
The elites in governement are stupid. Let the liberals surrender to the invasion, not the conservatives.
If the Republicans want to pander to their political donors, then go ahead with a guest worker program, but make it the responsiblity of the employers to document the whereabouts of illegals at all times and pay their taxes. If an illegal skips, then he/she is permanently barred from the U.S. What's so hard about that?
The elites are stupid because Americans will NEVER agree to citizenship for them. I repeat...NEVER. Get that throught your thick skulls or find something else to do for a living because any Republican supporting amnesty will be sent home.
Kyl has repeatedly told conservatives he wanted to become involved with the immigration bill in order to add in some tougher provisions. His consistent line has been that this bill is unstoppable, and conservatives had better be grateful for whatever crumbs we can get, because it's going to pass regardless. Well, the bill died in the Senate, but Kyl is till trying to pass the "unstoppable" bill.
If this reasoning is true, why is he doing everything in his power to resuscitate this bill? It seems to me, if you were honest that it was a flawed bill, and you can stop it, isn't that a better alternative? Why not instead push only for the enforcement provisions?
If Kyl walked away from the amnesty bill, it would immediately die in the Senate. Clearly, he WANTS the Ted Kennedy amnesty plan.
As a former supporter of Jon Kyl, one whose household gave him significant contributions and personal volunteering, I am disgusted. His main theme was his opposition to amnesty.
The man will never get another dime from me!
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
and yet he chose to sit in secret with other Senators and craft legislation with no input from all the other members and then attempted with said other secret Senators do get it out and vote on it before Memorial Day and these actions make me believe him why? If this bill did not have him and Graham and Lott and the other sell outs it would never have made it to the floor in the first place, bogus argument, not in touch with reality.
If this bill did not have him and Graham and Lott and the other sell outs it would never have made it to the floor in the first place
Kyl was not one of the Senators that drove this bill to the floor. Lumping him in with Graham and Lott in this...er, argument of yours doesn't make it true.
bogus argument, not in touch with reality.
If you say so, Bocephus. (You do use a spitoon, don't you?)
and yet he chose to sit in secret with other Senators and craft legislation with no input from all the other members and then attempted with said other secret Senators do get it out and vote on it before Memorial Day and these actions make me believe him why?
bogus sentence, not in touch with the rules of grammar.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Are you bored? Do you post just to fill in the minutes before nappy time? What is the use of a post with quotes but no responses just name calling? And your deep intellectual retort is to call him on his grammer? Man you sure swayed us with that.
Nothing can now be believed which is seen
in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes
suspicious by being put into that polluted
vehicle! Thomas Jefferson
of shining lights like you!
Hugs and kisses,
smagar
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
You have blown me away with your sheer intelligence, thank you Professor and in the future I will most certainly pay closer attention to my rules of grammer as of course I will be graded on it by you.
could be calculating that R's are gonna get destroyed yet again in 2008 and is just trying to get something on paper.
Or he could really owe Mcain for his reelection last year.
Or he flat screwed up, got rolled and is trying to save some sort of face.
Personally I think he has always been on the correct side so I really want it to be the last choice.
He went in because he thought that with the President's support, the base would realize that the bill would bring flocks of new grateful voters to the GOP side of the ledger.
Like you said, it's the last one.
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
Did anyone else here listen to Hugh Hewitt's interview about a week ago with Mark Steyn. The issue was the much maligned (and deservedly so) immigration bill.
It was great. And any of you who have read Steyn or heard him speak can attest to his sharp wit and incisive commentary. He really had Hewitt going, I thought; it seemed to me that Hewitt was totally on board with Mark's criticisms of the bill.
Next thing you know, Trent Lott is spouting off about how talk radio is running America and "we've" got to deal with that.
One week later Hugh Hewitt does an about face. At least that's the way I read his interview with Sen. Kyl.
Is that what Trent Lott meant?? Is that how he intended to "deal" with talk radio? Put the screws to the radio hosts to what? bow to pressure to back off??
Who knows. It just seems mighty eerie to me.
Go to steynonline.com for more from Mark.
Only if conservative Senators would just turn and walk away from Kennedy, on ANY issue, the country would be a better place.
As a Senator, I wouldn't give Kennedy the time of day.