Thursday, June 28, 2007

The Senate Vote

As Kevin Johnson just reported, the senate Immigration bill was blocked on a procedural vote.

According to the Washington Post, "the 46-53 tally fell dramatically short of the 60 votes needed to overcome opponents' dilatory tactics and parliamentary maneuvers that have dogged the bill for weeks."


| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Senate Vote:


Does anybody know if there is a shot in hell of them bringing STRIVE up in another bill this session. This news may be good for rights activists and hood-toting horace, but it means I will in all likelihood have to leave my home to haul my all-American ass to Mexico so that my wife who has lived here since she was a toddler can petition the consulate. Sure seems like this particular set of laws, enacted and left unreformed by congress, is impeding my pursuit of hapiness....but oh yeah 'llegals are a scourge. Binchi racistas!

Posted by: jsm | Jun 28, 2007 11:08:37 AM


You only hurt your own moral authority by resorting to ignorant ad hominem attacks. Blame your wife's parents for ignoring that little detail called a border, not the immigration laws. I suggest you stop whining and spend your vacation in Mexico because STRIVE won't happen in your lifetime. Those of us opposed to amnesty will not remain complacent but continue to keep illegal immigration in the news and inform the poorly informed public of the facts, despite the tyranical efforts of pathetic people like Peter Schey and the blogging professors. If the immigration lawyers wish to participate in the dialogue, they're welcome, in spite of their anti-free speech tendencies. We'll let the issue stand or fall on the facts and not emotional hyperbole.

Posted by: Horace | Jun 28, 2007 4:02:28 PM

Much of the failure of this bill lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid. In spite of fact that he hadn't an overwhelming majority, he arrogantly lorded it over the entire Congress that he was going to control the debate process with an iron fist. If this bill was so important to he and his supporters, there was no reason why it shouldn't have gone through the usually procedural maze of committee hearings and amendment proposals. For some strange reason our egotistical Senators are offended when left out of the debate process. Duh! Reid even offended his fellow Democrats by his clay pigeon procedures. If the merits of the bill were viewed as marginal at best, Harry's attitude sure clinched the outcome.

Posted by: George | Jun 28, 2007 5:09:21 PM

I just read in a Newsweek article today that issues rarely ever "stand or fall on the facts and not on emotional hyperbole." Here's the url:

I only point that out so that we can remember that both sides of the aisle "let the issue stand or fall on . . . emotional hyperbole." Look at Horace's word choice: "ignorant," "amnesty," "tyranical [sic] efforts of pathetic people like Peter Schey and the blogging professors," "anti-free speech tendencies," even the "emotional hyperbole" quip.

Ironically, according to the Newsweek article and my own memory, the right is far better at taking advantage of emotional hyperbole than the left.

Posted by: Jeremy Masten | Jun 28, 2007 8:20:33 PM

"Ironically, according to the Newsweek article and my own memory, the right is far better at taking advantage of emotional hyperbole than the left."

You've got to be kidding! I rarely hear the economic issues from the MSM and the left. More often than not the MSM is full of emotional personal accounts from the illegal aliens, ones that should best be heard by the Mexican government. That's another issue, the Mexican program to drive their people north instead of caring for their needs. We rarely hear criticism of their government. Furthermore, nothing is heard of the potential catastrophic affect of the socioeconomic burden of overwhelming our nation with millions of ghetto dwellers. The needs of illegal aliens seem to trump those of our citizens in the eyes of the MSM. The MSM tells us that it's impossible to enforce the current law (yet to be tried) and impossible to send the illegal aliens home (also yet to be tried, despite repatriation by enforcement of workplace immigration laws).

Posted by: Horace | Jun 29, 2007 6:06:02 PM

Again: "You've got to be kidding!" You're appealing to the emotions of people who read these comments. With that statement, you're explaining to them that my comment shouldn't be taken seriously not because of its lack of merit (more on that in a second), but because it's so ridiculous to you that I must be joking. We all want to feel smart; that's the emotion you're appealing to. And that's far more effective than a comment trying to win people's compassion by calling me mean or something like that.

And I'm not saying that the "MSM" and the left don't try to play to emotion more often than the right. I'm saying that the right is more effective at it. You yourself point out that the mainstream media and the left paint very sympathetic pictures of the lives of illegal immigrants. Yet the general public (as evidenced by the actions of Congress, a group very attuned to public opinion) is still opposed to "amnesty." Why? Because the rhetoric against immigration reform is so much more effective in that it plays to emotions that have more impact on decision-making and opinion-forming. In general, Americans are more concerned about being thought of as smart than about being thought of as compassionate. So rhetoric that makes us feel smart is far more effective than rhetoric that makes us feel compassionate. Better yet if we can feel both compassionate and smart. The right accomplishes that far better than the left.

Posted by: Jeremy Masten | Jun 30, 2007 7:44:22 AM

Actually, Jeremy, the informed citizens, those who actually understand the bill are up-in-arms over being overruled by their Senators who are acting contrary to good sense. If I see someone about to jump over a cliff I'm not going to whisper it to them, but will shriek it to high heaven in an effort to make them stop. Amnesty is the socioeconimic cliff for anti-amnesty citizens, one that is an irrevocable deed as certain as corporeal death. This simply isn't one of those idiotic road-to-nowhere pork barrel projects, but an action that could change our country for the worse in the decades to come. What you call xenophobic is an honest response to a real risk in which failure, illegal immigration and a huge tax levy on children but an exponential expansion of the welfare state. As such, this debate deserves far more than midnight deals in smoke-filled rooms full of special interests groups in the absence of respect for its oppositon.

Posted by: Horace | Jun 30, 2007 12:19:09 PM


I don't claim a moral authority and frankly, I am guessing my harmless jab at your fringe beliefs had zero to no effect on you. I am not a professor. I am just a citizen with an immigrant wife who found this site to be the best place to go for immediate and comprehensive info on immigration issues. I represent the huge majority of Americans that exist in the wide political chasm between you and La Raza - that believe in reasonable enforcement of reformed, simplified immigration laws, better border enforcement and a pathway to citizenship to those contributing to our society. If you reread my post you'll see I was venting at both groups opposed to the grand deal/compromise and also at the notion that illegal immigration is THE issue of our time. If I recall correctly, the right was telling me Social Security was the crisis of our time just 18 months or so ago. What will it be now that the President has proven himself impotent on yet another domestic issue? Has Karl sent you talking points yet? As far as you giving me advice about where to lay blame, my wife's mom is dead - hence the reason she didn't file the needed piece of paper so that I could pay the fine under the appropriate section before your right wing congress let that provision sunset But who gives a shit? Its not about blame, its about the fact that this is ridiculous and our congress isn't going to do a thing. Instead, they will hold on to the issue for campaign fodder to whip fanatics like you into a fervor about the impending financial ruin that will befall them if anyone left of Newt Gingrich gets elected. Where is your outrage at the enormous war budget and the huge tax levy it will mean for our children's children's children?

Posted by: jsm | Jul 2, 2007 11:47:55 AM

Post a comment