PrintJune 19, 2007
A Bipartisan Compromise or a Conservative Sellout?
It is the conventional wisdom in many quarters that the soon-to-be-revived immigration bill is a good thing, because it is the result of a grand bipartisan compromise. Leaving aside the implied notion that bipartisan compromises are somehow inherently good, the above is a completely inaccurate assessment of this piece of legislation.
If the bill indeed represents a compromise what is there in it for conservatives? In the open borders and across-the-board amnesty liberals have been handed everything they have ever wanted in connection with immigration. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been given... er... er... er...
Never mind. The bill is a great compromise anyway.
One should always become suspicious when the media and political establishment hail anything as a bipartisan compromise. What this usually means is that the Republicans have come out of the ‘negotiation' process laughably empty-handed. In return for their gullibility, they get a couple of favorable pieces in print and invitations on leftwing TV network talk shows where they are praised for their sound judgment and wisdom. The adoration invariably lasts until the next time they vote on conservative principle or run against a liberal opponent, whichever comes first.
We know that things are getting really bad when Republicans are targeted for praise by their sworn enemies for putting the good of the country above conservative allegiances. It is a truth not often spoken but plainly obvious that many liberals do not like their own country and consequently pursue policies which they hope will harm it. Nothing could illustrate this better than the current immigration bill, for how can the open borders and amnesty be good for America? Only a madman or a seriously deluded republican could ever think so.
Rather than letting themselves be played for suckers, Senate Republicans would do well to read the first page of the liberal playbook which is inscribed with Winston Churchill's famous dictum:
"Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."
The first part liberals heed with fanatical zeal as they would rather shout ‘bigot' and ‘racist' a thousand times than to give one inch to the other side. The latter part they also keep close to their hearts but in a perfectly inverted manner, ready as they are always to give in where honor and good sense are concerned. This is why they almost never tell the truth or advocate policies that actually work. Case in point: open borders and amnesties.
If anything, the Democrats must have been shocked by how easily they got everything they could ever dream of in that grand ‘compromise.' The Republican sellout was complete and, somewhat surprisingly, entirely voluntary. The Democrats received it all on a silver platter and they did not even have to dance for it.
To be fair, there was one issue where the Republicans were prepared to drive a hard bargain. On May 23, Senator John Cornyn introduced an amendment which would have made felons ineligible for the proposed amnesty. Needless to say, the Democrats - in the spirit of bipartisanship - categorically refused to give any ground and the Cornyn amendment went down to a stinging defeat. One can almost hear the celebrations in the illegal felon ranks.
The immigration bill travesty has brought home one truth which many conservatives have long tried to ignore - many among the Washington Republicans are for all practical purposes merely moderate liberals in disguise. Disquieting as it is, extravagant spending, burgeoning government bureaucracies, cynical earmarking, needless deficits and uncontrolled immigration are no longer exclusively Democrat priorities. Having essentially the same objectives as their more radical colleagues on the other side, the only real difference is the pace at which Republicans strive to bring these about.
The one clearly remaining difference is in the area of military and foreign policy where Democrats doggedly and unashamedly strive for America's defeat. But there are signs that some Republicans are at last coming around on this issue as well.
It is as telling as it is worrisome that Teddy Kennedy has become the favorite of many D.C. Republicans. George W. Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Michael Chertoff and Jon Kyl are only some among many who have in recent months heaped praise and plaudits on the man whom USA Today calls the Lion of Massachusetts. It apparently does not bother them that during his four decades in the Senate this man has wrought incalculable damage on the United States much of which was effected through his support and sponsorship of bungled immigration legislation in the past.
The Republican love affair with Kennedy is difficult to understand given that even many Democrats - especially those seeking office - are loath to publicly taunt their ties with him. How often do we see Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards these days boasting about their friendship with Teddy Kennedy as they traverse America in hunt for votes? They know better, aware as they are of just how despised he is by the majority of the American electorate.
The Washington Republicans, however, have for some reason failed to take note of this. One really wonders what kind of spell Kennedy has cast on those feckless ones to snooker them so. I am really starting to suspect that the Lion of Massachusetts is in possession of some dark powers of which we know nothing about.
If this is indeed so, we better quickly find what they are and come up with an antidote to his black magic as time is running out fast. A heightened sense of urgency should be the order of the day for all those who care for this country's continued well-being, because America may not survive another Kennedy-induced immigration disaster.
Contact Vasko Kohlmayer
