Thread: DREAM Act gets watered down, and latest whip count

DREAM Act gets watered down, and latest whip count

by kos
Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:20:03 AM PST
The GOP has sent out marching orders to its members -- vote "no" on everything. But a handful have to deal with a growing Latino population in their states or districts. Others want to do the right thing. Thus the DREAM Act is a dilemma for several of them. The act would legalize the children of undocumented immigrants who either complete two years of college or serve in the military.

Thus in a bid to bring aboard the 7-9 Republicans necessary to pass, the following changes have been made to DREAM Act:

The latest version, filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) late Tuesday night, would bar illegal immigrants from receiving in-state college tuition; drops the age of eligibility to 29 from 34; would not grant permanent legal status to anyone for at least 10 years; would restrict eligibility for those who commit certain misdemeanor crimes; and would limit individuals from being able to sponsor family members for U.S. citizenship, among other changes.

Those who receive conditional legal status under the DREAM Act also would be ineligible for Medicaid, food stamps and other government-funded benefits.

These changes are designed to appease Republicans who want to prove to everyone that they're big assholes. No in-state tuition? If anything, why not allow the states to make that decision? Instead, Republicans seek to put up further roadblocks for those kids getting educated and trying to live the American dream. These changes universally scream, "we're going to be assholes simply because that's what we are -- assholes."

Mission accomplished. They're a bunch of assholes. Thank heavens, too, because I'm sure the DREAM kids didn't have enough assholes to deal with already.

That said, this thing is still worth passing, because it'll still be a lifesaver for many undocumented youngsters who are in America by no fault of their own, yet are American in every possible way. Penalizing children for something that isn't their fault is about as low as an elected official can go.

Here's the whip count as of early this morning, apparently before these changes were introduced:

GOP probably voting yes:

Bennett (UT)
Lugar (IN)
Murkowski (AK)

DEMS probably voting no:

Baucus (MT)
Conrad (ND)
Manchin (WV)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Tester (MT)

Now we have a poll in the field in Montana, last calls are being done right now, to see how Montanans view the issue. One thing is for sure, if Tester votes "no" on this bill, then this site won't lift a finger to help him in his 2012 reelection bid. We don't help people who are assholes to innocent kids.

Conrad, Manchin, Nelson, and Tester all face tough reelections in 2012. Baucus, Manchin, Nelson and Pryor are members in good standing of the asshole caucus.

GOPers who might vote "yes"

Brownback (KS)
Brown (MA)
Collins (ME)
Gregg (NH)
Hutchison (TX)
Kirk (IL)
LeMieux (FL)
Snowe (ME)
Ensign (NV)
Voinovich (OH)

Hutchison and LeMieux (who was a placeholder appointee) are both under particularly intense pressure from home state Latino Republicans, faith groups, university presidents, etc. Hutchison is going to get teabagged, so her vote may be an indication of how she plans to proceed -- if she votes "no", it'll likely be because she still thinks she can win a Republican primary. If she votes "yes", consider it the first sign that she'll run as an independent. LeMieux represents a state with a large Latino population (and a significantly Republican one, too). But he seems to have caught the Senate bug and rumors are that he'll be back for another shot at the seat. If so, he might figure a "yes" vote will kill him with the teabaggers in a primary.

The Maine twins would normally be good possibilities for "yes" votes, but with the teabaggers rising in their homestate and a 2012 election looming, I wouldn't hold my breath on Snowe. Brown has to be reelected in 2012 in liberal Massachusetts. Voinovich has retired and has nothing to lose. Kirk has said he thinks "this is not the time" for this bill, but he does represent liberal Illinois. He'll have to start voting accordingly at some point.

Democrats who might vote "no"

Landrieu (LA)
McCaskill (MO)
Hagan (NC)
Dorgan (ND)

I'm surprised Landrieu is even in play. She's a member of the asshole caucus. Dorgan has retired and has nothing to lose. Hagan is in a tough state, but with a growing Latino population. She wouldn't be Senator without their vote. Hagan lost the white vote 57-39, yet won the state 53-44. Given that whites were 75 percent of the vote, you can do the math. It was a dominant black and brown vote that won her the seat. McCaskill won't survive 2012, but if she still thinks she can, she'll vote "no" to try and keep the hounds at bay. Won't work.

Bottom line?

DREAM Act supporters need to pick up 7-9 Republicans, and then limit loses among Democrats to no more than 5-7. Hopefully that new compromise language is assholishness enough to attract more than a few members of the asshole caucus.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/ ... whip-count

Sorry, I had to look up the mod-deleted appellation. Pretty graphic..and I'm glad we don't use choice words like that or allow them to be used on this blog. Case in point:

(V.......V caucus"
sounds way hotter than it is.

Fired Up

Thanks for the tip. Now we know who to concentrate on. Add in McCaskill and Stabenow---as per the blog comments.

GOP, the right thing to do is obey the law and refuse to even consider amnesty or a pathway to citizenship to these unwanted squatters and their anchors.

Ensign (NV) Should be a prime target of calls but he has been
straight against any amnesty in the past

Normally he lines up with the good guys

I suspect that this version makes a false promise to Americans. If illegals become citizens, how can they be prevented from bringing in their family members. Preventing them from sponsoring family members seems to create a different class of citizen. I expect that the Supreme Court would rule against that. Better to continue to oppose amnesty and push for a moratorium on immigration, until we can construct an immigration policy which is the best interest of Americans.