Joe On Immigration Vote–“We Had Them All The Way!”
Not only did we win but, in the end,
we coasted. Although analysts, including Senators on both
sides, predicted a razor thin margin on the cloture vote, it
turned into a 46-53 rout.
Nothing goes in one direction forever—and that includes the
influence of the
ethnic identity lobby on U.S. immigration policy. The
immigration winds continue at our backs. As I noted earlier this
month, the other side hasn`t won
This time, the American people`s voice was heard loud and
clear, Even our arch opponent
Frank Sharry, director of the
National Immigration Forum, acknowledged that the
outpouring of faxes, phone calls and e-mails made our
Said Sharry, with a nod toward the
grassroots organization NumbersUSA, “You have to give
of Immigration Bill Whip Up Grass Roots, By Nicole Gaouette,
Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2007]
Oddly—or maybe not—Sharry was more gracious than the Grand
Compromise`s chief architect, the pathetic Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy.
After his humiliating defeat, here`s how Kennedy sized us up.
He suggested that the immigration reform community would resort
to “Gestapo” measures. To compare patriotic Americans to
Nazi Germany`s secret police is as ugly as it gets.[Senate
Blocks Effort To Revive Immigration Overhaul, By Robert
Pear and John Holusha, New York Times, June 28, 2007]
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in a
blog item that Kennedy, 75-years old, is
of an age when many show signs of senility. If he were
senile perhaps, I theorized, that might explain his immigration
“Gestapo” crack, I`ve upgraded him from possibly to
Anyway, let`s move on to the good news about Thursday`s
telling vote—and there`s lots of it.
Among the things we learned:
only people in America who work “in the shadows” are
certainly not illegal aliens. They are instead the notorious
of 12” (plus several more) who drafted the treasonous
legislation behind closed doors. Now, left with plenty of
egg on their face, they are stalled and may face uncertain
political futures. Americans have long memories when it
comes to betrayal on immigration votes.
- Democrats, always viewed suspiciously by VDARE.COM, may not
be quite as bad on immigration as suspected. At least some
are our friends. Fifteen voted “Nay” They are:
Byrd (WV), Conrad (ND),
Dorgan, (ND), Harkin, (IA), Landrieu (LA), McCaskill
(MO), Nelson (NE),
Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV),
Stabenow (MI), Tester (MT),
- Certain Republicans, previously thought to be beyond reach
on immigration, voted “Nay” They are:
Brownback (KS) although as noted by
Patrick Cleburne his vote is tainted,
Domenici (NM) and
- No one
from either party shifted his voted from “Nay” to “Yea.”(Read
the complete vote count
Representative government is not be quite dead yet. In
fact, this vote could mark a turn around in responsiveness.
We likely have seen an end to the behind shut doors approach
to drafting legislation.
to shift the blame for S. 1639`s colossal failure away from
themselves and onto anyone or anything handy, Democrats seek to
by the FCC in 1985, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters
to present opposing viewpoints with
equal time on controversial political issues. Before1985,
government regulations called for broadcasters to
“make reasonable judgments in good faith“ on how to
present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.
movement to scotch any broadcasts that do not support the
Senate`s left-leaning perspective are the usual cast of
ever-slick Rules Committee
Chairman Dianne Feinstein:
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these
airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that
both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of
debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of
“I have this old-fashioned attitude
that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they`re in a
better position to make a decision.”
"I think the
Fairness Doctrine ought to be there … One of the most profound
changes in the balance of the media was when the conservatives
got rid of equal time requirements. The result is that they`ve
been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing
Senator James Inhofe, the attack on conservative talk radio
dates back to a conversation he claims he overheard between
Sen. Barbara Boxer and presidential
Hillary Clinton. Inhofe said that during an elevator ride Boxer
and Clinton were moaning about “right-wing extremists”
and calling for a “legislative fix.”
Boxer and Clinton deny that the exchange took place, it isn`t
hard to imagine it. [GOP
Preps For Talk Radio Confrontation, By Alexander Bolton,
The Hill, June 27, 2007]
you think that Senate leadership cannot look any more foolish or
out of touch, it comes up with an attack on freedom of
speech…but only in broadcast journalism,
conservative talk radio does present both sides of the
story. That`s why the shows are so entertaining.
and even more insulting to our intelligence is that those most
bent out of shape about
talk radio are either constantly on conservative radio
pitching their arguments or could easily get on by simply
calling and asking to be interviewed.
believe that Barbara Boxer would be turned down if she called
Sean Hannity to request an appearance?
life`s early lessons is—or should be—that when things go wrong,
look in the mirror first. Don`t be a coward by trying to shift
Talk radio and the
Internet are only partially responsible for the crushing
defeat of S. 1639. The proposed legislation was lousy. That,
more than anything, caused it to go down. Had it not been such a
stinker, talk show hosts wouldn`t have had so much fodder.
experience should have been educational for Senate imperialists.
But apparently the message about personal responsibility hasn`t
reached them yet.
Joe Guzzardi [e-mail
him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor.
In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has
a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive