Politics and irony were made for each other. Immigration reform has been a top priority of President Bush from the time he announced his intention to seek the Presidency. For his first six years as President, the leadership of George W. Bush helped increase the Republican majority in Congress. For these same six years, Republicans in Congress showed little interest in comprehensive immigration reform.
Most Democrats, who also wanted immigration reform, spent the first six years of the Bush Presidency attacking the integrity, character, and public policies of President Bush. The political tactics of personal destruction succeeded against President Bush in the 2006 elections as a Democratic majority was elected to Congress. Finally, President Bush had a Congress that was willing to attempt immigration reform.
There was just one little problem though. After six years of personal attacks against President Bush by his opposition, he no longer had the political capital and clout to persuade members of his own party to support new immigration legislation. Foiled again!
It’s weird how the war in Iraq has played a part in blocking immigration reform. It’s amazing how many checks and balances are built into the American political system.
Well done founding fathers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I imagine you are, to some extent, correct, though it seems cynical to me to attribute the success or failure of Immigration Reform to Bush's political clout rather than to the quality of the bill itself.
Your concerns about tyrrany of the majority notwithstanding, it is curious when legislation persists with only 20% support from voters.
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a good comment.
My main point wasn’t about the immigration legislation as much as the irony of politics. If the bill was popular, it would get passed and signed easily. I may be wrong, but I believe the bill would be more popular if our President was more popular. The bill would still hurt his popularity with some, but others would just go along because they like the President.
20% is very low approval for any type of legislation. It’s better this bill die a quick death and congress starts working on a better solution.
I don’t recognize you from other blogs; how did you find your way here?
Hi David,
David wrote: "I may be wrong, but I believe the bill would be more popular if our President was more popular. The bill would still hurt his popularity with some, but others would just go along because they like the President."
Probably true, and I think that is largely a shame. I didn't mean to dismiss personal popularity or trust as a mechanism in politics or even the ironic self-defeating dynamic you described, but rather just to augment it with the quality of the bill itself. Sorry, I did sidestep your main point, especially considering how close the bill has been to passing.
David wrote: "20% is very low approval for any type of legislation. It’s better this bill die a quick death and congress starts working on a better solution."
The House recently voted to include an amendment to an appropriations bill that would withhold some federal funding to sanctuary cities, which might be a step in that direction.
David wrote: "I don’t recognize you from other blogs; how did you find your way here?"
I followed you from a very brief and dangling question you left on Mark Daniels's post: "The Great God Debate." You have some thoughtful posts here, and so I've lingered.
Good to meet ya. :)
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
I wish Mark Daniels would have made some further comments since Hugh Hewitt used one of his propositions in the debate.
California is one big sanctuary city. Californian politicians all claim that immigration is the responsibility of the Federal government. Like most matters, I would prefer to have States and Cities set their own rules and keep the Federal government out of it, but this could be another irony; the city leaders who haven’t been honest about illegal immigration may now get penalized.
Thank you for the compliment.
Good to meet you, too.
Post a Comment