Thread: The Hastert Doctrine Peril

This is something we have to consider. Bush said, "Don't underestimate me on this".

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=431089

Editorial: The Hastert Doctrine peril
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: June 4, 2006

Those advocating comprehensive immigration reform are gearing up for hard-nosed negotiations to smooth out differences between an imperfect Senate bill that comes close to the mark and a hideous enforcement-only House bill that can't even see the target.
Advertisement

And all eyes are on Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the powerful House Judiciary Committee chairman, who was the main sponsor of the House bill, which would make felons of undocumented immigrants. Expected to lead negotiations, he is the man on the House side to convince in the conference committee. But his bargaining chip is really House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois.

Or, actually, the Hastert Doctrine, which holds that no bill comes to the floor unless it is supported by the majority of the majority. This would be the House GOP's 231-201 majority (with one independent and two vacancies). So even if a bill is supported by Democrats and enough defecting Republicans to ensure passage, it's on life support aborning.

This less resembles majority rule than it does that irksome kid who gets to call the shots in the game because it's his ball.

But it's why Sensenbrenner can still talk tough on immigration though it's entirely possible that enough House Republicans would support the Senate's version of immigration reform if it were allowed to the floor.

The solution to getting some meaningful give from Sensenbrenner and other House conferees is to take away this protection. Instead of trying to get the stubborn Sensenbrenner to change his mind, reform advocates would do better to concentrate on Hastert. This, too, is no small task. But it's better to deal with the kid with the ball.

Get Hastert to give, and Sensenbrenner will be deprived of a major bargaining chip going into negotiations. He might still have enough clout among House conferees, but at least any argument he'd make that the bill must necessarily be more tough than fair - lest it not even get to the floor - will have been undercut. And the reality will be laid bare: a House GOP minority dictating to a House bipartisan majority that favors comprehensive reform.

The only way this kind of meaningful reform will emerge from the conference committee is if House conferees are prevented from keeping alive current poison pills or injecting new ones. Among these: criminalizing undocumented presence in this country; gutting a staggered earned legalization process for many, though not all, undocumented workers already here; unraveling the guest worker program; further eroding the number of visas given out each year; and, essentially, doing anything that makes this bill more about enforcement than economic and humanitarian pragmatism.

The first step is persuading Hastert. We'll say it again. It's better to have no bill at all than one likely to enjoy the fruits of the Hastert Doctrine.


From the June 5, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Could this be why we were treated with an article about the President investigating Hastert.

Was that just a 'leak' to intimidate Hastert?

Was it an article they floated to see how the public would react?

Was it an threat to Hastert - "We can do this if you don't play ball?"

One thing WE should never do is underestimate these people. They are capable of doing anything undehanded. They are capable of doing anything out in the open and announcing it with a 'shut up and take it' attitude.