Our wonderful President and Legislators have let us down yet again

September 6, 2006
Washington, DC
Vol. 41, No. 18b
To: Our Readers

Republicans have fumbled on immigration, likely to pass nothing before November


Republicans are in a better mood in the renewed congressional session than they were when they recessed a month ago. GOP strategists feel their key endangered House and Senate races all are in better shape than they were a few months ago. Speaking on a confidential basis, they concede the Democrats could win both the House and Senate, but believe that is unlikely.


One reason for better Republican spirits is that the Democrats did not come roaring out of the August recess with a carefully calculated plan to tie the Republicans in knots during the September session. The no-confidence vote on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld looks a little weak.


Nevertheless, the September session does not bode well for the Republicans. The supposedly hard adjournment date of September 29 now figures to slip at least to October 6. That is bad news for endangered Republican incumbents for two reasons: Not only would they have less time to campaign at home, but probably will have to cast more embarrassing votes in Congress.


The White House's high priority effort to confirm John Bolton as ambassador to the UN could hinge on whether he gets support from Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. Hagel and Bolton were scheduled to talk this week.


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-Calif.) looks like a cinch to be elected Speaker of the House if the Democrats win control, but a fierce battle for Majority Leader is shaping up between Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), with Pelosi supporting Murtha.


Immigration: Republicans have all but decided to scuttle immigration reform legislation that has become a noose around their necks. The perception that Republicans are doing nothing on immigration could be very damaging. This is why the House leadership's decision to put some kind of border-security bill on the floor may be smart, even if it has no chance of becoming law. Meanwhile, Republicans may get some border enforcement provisions passed into law through the appropriations process, including a partial fence on the Mexican border.

Both the Senate Republican leadership's unofficial agenda for the last pre-election session of Congress (beginning this week) and a privately circulated White House legislative wish list are extraordinarily heavy. But immigration is not mentioned on either expansive list. The nail in the coffin for comprehensive immigration reform was probably the Congressional Budget Office report that detailed the $127-billion price tag for the Senate's guest-worker program.


In retrospect, the President's decision to make immigration a big election-year issue was particularly unwise. This is not to say that the issue is permanently intractable, or that immigration reform should not happen -- only that it has been handled as clumsily as possible by the White House. Bush could have called on Congress to pass tough border-security measures and then tinker quietly and gradually to raise legal immigration quotas, but he instead took head-on the task of implementing sweeping reforms that frighten many average Americans.


But at the urging of the business lobby -- whose need for many more workers is very real in today's low-unemployment, high-wage environment -- Bush has created the wedge issue that works against his own party, and it came to a head just months before an election. His forcing of the immigration issue has forced Republicans to take sides at a very inopportune time between an ugly nativism and an anti-populist position which -- to rank-and-file voters of both parties -- appears to favor open borders at the expense of American workers. In other words, President Bush created a lose-lose issue for his own party going into an already-tough election year. Now he's abandoned it altogether, just as he abandoned Social Security and tax reforms when they failed as political issues.


At this point, Republicans can approach immigration in one of three ways: (1) pass the lax Senate immigration-reform bill before the election, (2) campaign vigorously for stronger border security or against illegal aliens, or (3) set the issue aside until after the election. It is clear that after months of trying to force the first option, the White House is now being forced to adopt the third. Various House and Senate campaigns are moving to the second option, in order to create distance between themselves and an unpopular President.


This summer's legislative debate has also driven many Republicans to attempt option No. 2 because they fear the reaction of their base if they appear to be too accommodating to illegal immigration. This "nativist" posture, however, is political fool's gold, except perhaps in a very limited number of local constituencies. Immigration is a local issue in some parts of the country, such as the San Diego district where Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) rode nativism to victory in a special election this year, and perhaps in some parts of Arizona. But it will fail in most places, and in the long run, it will hurt Republicans not only with the emerging Hispanic electorate but also with the business community and a wealthy, white suburban demographic that shrinks in horror from the specter of nativism.


Still, the short-term loss from appearing to pursue an open-borders position could be just as bad for the GOP. If any single issue causes the Republican base to sit it out in 2006, this will probably be it. That Republicans have finally figured this out is a good sign for them, but it is perhaps too late to do them much good. Democrats, meanwhile, can only benefit from this fight, and all they have to do is stand by and watch, unless they are foolish enough to throw themselves in front of the "border security" train when these provisions come up for a vote.


Sincerely,

Robert D. Novak
I think I'm going to throw up..............................