Before I get started on this post, I want to mention that I am not interested in debating the merits of the "immigration reform" (bill's full text here) that looks like it just might become law. I don't want to hear about the alleged nefariousness of the immigrants nor the alleged racism of the border hawks. I am more interested in this as a procedural matter. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the current bill is a really, really bad one.

Over at Instapundit and in other border-hawk circles, a whole lot of anger is directed at Bush and the Republicans in congress. That's fair enough since without their support it the bill wouldn't be able to go through. I see conservatives asking what the point of voting Republican is when they let things like happen. I hear claims that 2006 should have been a wake-up call on the issue, but that the Republican leadership isn't listening.

Frankly, I agree. If they'd been stronger against immigration congressional Republicans might have saved the Republican majority (temporarily, anyhow).

It's worth point out, however, that there is no reason to believe that this bill would be going through if the Democrats hadn't gained control of congress. Bush has been rallying on this issue for some time now. Suddenly, within six months of a Democratic congress, things are starting to happen. Coincidence?

How many conservatives stayed home in 2006 or even voted Democrat because the Republicans "aren't any better"? How many got on their high horse about refusing to support a party not strong enough on this and other issues, only to hand congressional control over to the other party?

This should serve as a reminder that elections matter. Unless I can be convinced that a Republican congress would have passed this (and the record says otherwise), voters that stayed home or hedged their vote share the blame for this getting through.

For my part, I voted Democrat in my congressional election. But then again, I oppose the "conservative base" on this issue. Even though I think the bill is a bum deal, too (albeit for different reasons), I'm not losing nearly as much here. And the bitter pill of a bad law is at least washed down with a certain amount of satisfaction of the agony of people that want to turn the Republican Party into something I refuse to be a part of.

Update: Well. No sooner do I write this than the Senate puts it on hold. Since I don't like the bill I don't consider this an altogether bad thing. It does seem increasingly lightly that something that the border hawks detest is going to pass. The question at this point is how bad the bill is going to be.

Below, RAW takes Mary Landrieu (D-Governor of Lousyanna, the most corrupt state in the union) for some ill-conceived remarks.

However, I don't think that they qualify as "Dumbest remark of the year"; I think that category belongs to Joe Biden (D - currently running ineptly for President).

Biden's let out three gems recently:

"You don't know my state," he said. "My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state." - in describing Delaware,

Putting aside the fact that (A) Delaware has one of the highest tax rates next to Taxachussets and (B) the fact that Delaware's only "border" is with a big puddle of water, one gets the feeling reminding people of Delaware's slave history wasn't so bright.

Second up:

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking," - Joe Biden describing his "great" relationship with Indian immigrants to Delaware.

And the final gem:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." - in describing political competitor (they're running for the same office) Barack Hussein Obama.

Whether accurate or not, people are taking offense to this all over. This probably qualifies Biden as one of the dumbest politicians - or at least most inept in keeping his big mouth shut - in a long time.

However, let's look at a second issue: when similar things are said from across the aisle, the result is crucifixion. Senators Lott and Allen were beat to a political pulp over much less problematic comments.

My prediction is that the double standard the newsmedia plays for Democrats will be in force; already, the first two have "dropped out" of the news cycle, and the last will probably vanish by tomorrow, and Biden won't pay a political price, or face censure on the floor of the Congress, at all. Were Biden to have an R next to his name instead of a D, these wouldn't stop being "news" until he was drummed out of office.

As most of you probably know, John Kerry has gotten in to some hot water for saying "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

To which some clever GIs respond:



Hilarious!

Truth be told, I believe that John Kerry meant what he now says that he meant. He meant that George W. Bush, who has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, Dick Cheney, who has a Master's Degree, and Condo Rice, who has a PhD, screwed up and sent us in to Iraq because they didn't get an education.

This question is going to sound somewhat snarky, but I don't really mean it to. I am genuinely curious if there is something I am missing.

In a 2002 New Jersey senate race, Senator Robert Torricelli dropped out of his senate race, creating a vacancy. As Democrats lined up to replace him on the ballot, Republicans pointed out that the deadline for that had passed. It went to the courts and the Democrats won both the case and the race.

In a 2006 Houston congressional race, Congressman Tom DeLay drppped out of his congressional race, creating a vacancy. As Republicans lined up to replace him on the ballot, Democrats point out that the deadline for that had passed. It went to the courts and the Democrats won the case.

These two cases are not identical. I can understand logical reasons why the Republicans can take the two differing positions that they did:

1) New Jersey 2002 changed the rules. The courts ruled that it was more important that each party that made the ballot have a nominee than it was specific election statutes were followed. They may have been wrong in 2002, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

2) Tom DeLay did not only drop out of the race, he legally changed his residence from Texas to Virginia, making himself ineligable to serve, thus ineligable to run, thus technically not dropping out and replaceable.

For what it's worth, I don't buy it. I can understand the justification in the first difference, but ideologically it was wrong in 2002 and therefore was wrong in 2006. I also agree with the ruling of the courts, as I understand it, regarding DeLay's residency change: If DeLay wants to serve, he is welcome to move back to Texas. Since he does have the option to do that, his leaving the race (via leaving the state) was voluntary. That sounds about right as DeLay took advantage of what was little more than a loophole.

But while I disagree, I understand the argument being made.

So my question is what differences exist between Jersey 2002 and Houston 2006 that justify the change of heart on the part of the Democrats? Was the New Jersey law particularly unfair?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive. From a purely partisan level, parties will do what parties have to in order to achieve their primary function of winning power. But members of political parties often have to justify this to themselves. I imagine that Republicans use the justifications above (or maybe one/some that I missed?).

What justifications are Democrats using?

----

As for my feelings on the matter, I was rather upset that the Democrats sued not because they weren't right (cause I think they were) but because it meant that DeLay could come back and win. DeLay was never in as much trouble as Torricelli, from what I recall. Even despite all the problems he had, he still had an (R) by his name and that is quite possibly enough to get anyone elected in TX CD-22. But Democrats were willing to take that chance in order to have a shot at the seat (which they likely wouldn't have had if DeLay had been replaced on the ballot). The gamble paid off, but the whole maneuver suggests to me that for all their posturing on how DeLay was so uniquely corrupt, his biggest sin was the fact that he was a Republican.

But... it's over now. Due to the GOP's monumental mishandling of the situation, DeLay's very Republican district will almost certainly vote in a Democrat. I have no more sympathy for the GOP here than I did the New Jersey Democrats. Parties that don't ditch corrupt candidates until it's evident that they may lose deserve to lose. I'm sorry that didn't happen in 2002, but I am definitely not sorry that it's going to happen in Texas in 2006.

All of this reminds me... I need to register to vote and find out who my congressman is.

Step One: Isolate your target

Example 1: Bill Clinton is bad.
Example 2: Trent Lott is bad.
Example 3: Tom Delay is bad.

Step Two: Try to muster consensus with independents and honest opposition by assuaging accusations of partisanship by explaining that this particular target is a particularly bad example and not just someone with whom you disagree with on the issues.

Example 1: Bill Clinton is exceptionally dishonest, even for a bad politician, as evidenced by his lying about getting nookie in the Oval Office.
Example 2: Trent Lott is a particularly odious man whose racism cannot be denied in light of his comments at Strom Thurmond's retirement party.
Example 3: Tom Delay is an especially corrupt congressman as evidenced by his indictment and these other accusations.

Step Three: Reverse course from Step Two and frame said person's replacement in same manner.

Example 1: Algore lied about inventing the Internet, ergo he cannot be trusted with the Presidency.
Example 2: Bill Frist is just as bad because he spoke for this one group that shares a mailing list with this other group that has a member in it that belongs to the KKK.
Example 3: Roy Blunt is bad, too, he just hasn't been indicted yet.

Step Four: Use whatever goodwill consensus achieved earlier to score purely political points.

Example 1: Democrats are a bunch of immoral, two-faced, flip-flopping liars, as evidenced by Bill Clinton.
Example 2: Republicans are the party of racism, how else can someone like Trent Lott make his way to a leadership role?
Example 3: Republicans in the House are extraordinarily corrupt, as evidenced by their giving Tom Delay a leadership position.

Conservatives are salivating at the prospect of the upcoming documentary Inside the Bubble (trailer), which details the Kerry campaigns. I actually look forward to it myself, for reasons both noble (a look in to our political process) and ignoble (watching a lot of self-delusional Kerry boosters confidently coast to defeat).

One thing that stands out in some of the comments about the movie is a seen in the trailer where John Kerry is talking to himself while prepping for a debate. He's sort of practicing expressions and tone. Mostly he's just bored and waiting, though. I find it odd that some people have chosen this part to demonstrate how goofy John Kerry is. Or how much a phony he is.
It reminds me of a couple weeks back when the media read in on a note that President Bush passed on to Secretary of State Rice, informing her that he could use a restroom break and inquiring as to the feasibility of said break (using shorter and more direct language). This got a lot of play on the left because... well... because I guess it's a little bit weird thinking of the leader of the free world needing to take a potty break. A couple made remarks about how this may be indicative of how much he was paying attention to the context of the meetings (and that he's stupid ha ha ha).

I find this all quite bizarre. Presidents and presidential candidates, as they say, put on their pants one leg at a time like the rest of us. They need potty breaks and they get bored. They also get excited in a rocket hatch. Truth be told, I found the Kerry scene to be a bit endearing. It seemed like a quick piercing through the role he was playing during the campaign (and all candidates play a "role" during campaigns).

The rest of it, though, looks like a lot of fun from this cold-hearted Republican's point-of-view.

From RedState.org:

On one hand:

The pity is that Republicans who care more about their party than about the cult of personality attendant to its key figures have long warned of this day. We knew all along that Tom DeLay was a bully — ask the Heritage Foundation about his penchant for petty grudges. We knew all along that he was, on a fundamental level, unprincipled — ask him about the fat in the Federal budget. We knew all along that he was mostly interested in power for its own sake — recall, please, that he sought a House rules change to protect his leadership position in this very circumstance. And we knew that if it came to an indictment, it would be the end.

On the other:

As much as I would love for Tom DeLay to quietly fade away from the national spotlight, having him resign over trumped-up and quite possibly fraudulent charges would be a mistake of the highest order.

Trevino is right, he is a liability. However, if he were to step down on these charges he'd be creating an even bigger one.

Given the adage that politics is a slightly more polite version of warfare, what Trevino proposes is another Munich. Bowing to politically-oriented prosecutions like that is only going to emboldened more shamelessly partisan hacks like Earle to go after other Republican leaders with trumped-up charges.

Supporting DeLay may make many of us want to take a shower afterwards, but it's ultimately necessary to prevent others more noble from suffering the same fate.

With the exception of my ill-conceived 1996 vote where I'd thought that I was in Ken Bentsen's district and this last election where I voted in Idaho, I've voted against Tom DeLay at every opportunity. I even volunteered for an opponent of his. I take no pride in having grown up in his district. On the whole, though, I think he's been good for congressional Republicans and an effective leader. The absense of such leadership on the Senate side of things has actually made me [mutter, mutter] appreciate him at least a little. On the whole, though, I'd prefer him out.

So what do I think now that he's been indicted? Not much, actually. I decline to believe that his prosecutor's intentions are of the noblest sort. Be that as it may, it DeLay's guilty of the crimes that he's accused of none of this matters.

It's not at all impossible to railroad an indictment of an innocent man, though getting a conviction is much harder. But I believe him guilty. So I'm mostly just waiting to see what comes of it all.

I think he's guilty, but that and thirty-seven cents will get you a postal stamp.

What's interesting and fun and sad is that they'll likely make a big deal of running against DeLay a year from now and still won't win back the House because it's so institutionally favorable to Republicans right now. It's interesting because that sort of stuff interest me. It's fun because... well it's fun for all the wrong reasons. And it's sad because the the no party's control over the House ought to be bulletproof.

I've more-or-less kept quiet on this site about what I think regarding Katrina and Rita. I pulled on impassioned post almost as quickly as I put it up and I have a couple others in my drafts bin, probably never to see the light of day. I am reluctant to say much because I don't think that there's a dialogue as much as a bunch of folks shouting from the rooftops with megaphones, passionately screaming how this completely validates whatever they thought before the storms even struck. I continue to believe that a lot of people - on both the right and left - would rather shout themselves hoarse than re-evaluate their beliefs enough to understand that crappy things happen and it's not always the other team's fault and your team did not do (or would not do given the opportunity) everything as well as it could have.

Time passes, though, and these days I'm only a little annoyed at those who suggest that the massive traffic buildups caused by over 2.5 million people leaving a city in the course of 48 hours is evidence of gross incompetence on the part of... well, somebody, preferably someone they didn't like before Rita was even christened. As this was Houston's first large-scale evacuation in decades it's a little bit idealistic, in my view, to expect things to go great. The lesson for Katrina was "Everybody get the hell out!" while the lesson for Rita was "Well maybe not everybody!" and "don't forget the contraflow!"

Every mistake, I think, is determined to lead to another mistake of the opposing variety. Unless, of course, enough time has passed that we forgot the original mistake enough to repeat it.

I carry no water for Houston Mayor Bill White or Texas Governor Rick Perry. I voted for Perry, reluctantly, based almost entirely on political ideas and not out of any affection for him (I voted against him in 1998). I didn't vote in the Houston mayoral elections, though if I had I don't know who I would have voted for. I disagree with a lot of White's ideas, but I get the sense of a competent man doing a decent job. I've voted for Harris County Judge Eckles on an occasion or two, but he never faced much in the way of serious opposition. If none of these men are in office two years from now I would likely not really care (depending, of course, on who succeeds them).

I spent much of Thursday worried sick about my brother, headed for San Antonio when there was a hurricane headed right for Galveston Bay. I wasn't stuck out there, but I am not dispassionate about the possibility that things could have gone very, very badly.

But from where I stand the officials involved at least served up par. I know a lot of people are irate, but it's my belief that a lot of people have lost sight that hurricanes suck and they’re difficult to deal when people haven’t in a time, and asking for comfort in the face of Category 5 (or a Cat 4) is asking too much. I'm not saying that things could not have gone better nor that we should not work to improve the plan and make it better, just that this was inherently going to be chaotic.

Katrina helped in terms of dusting off the emergency plans, but it’s also made everything a lot more stressful (As Ethan says, "We've seen this movie before"). They’re all politicians and they all want to avoid the blame that was flung at New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. The fact that so many have basically accused Nagin, Blanco, FEMA, and Bush of murder for failure to act did little to keep heads level this time around. That's not to defend those involved in Katrina, but it is to say that a lot of the rhetoric is utterly unhelpful even when true. Holding a leader accountable for each and every last one of its citizens is unrealistic in the extreme.

The object lesson here for me is that these guys can’t win. Many say Louisiana waited too long to call the evacuation and now many are suggesting that Texas called it too early. Too many people left behind followed by too many people on the road. Officials from all levels were seemingly too lax in Louisiana and it appears they may have been too spastic in Texas. And too slow. And just... imperfect, dammit.

One of the reasons that I fall to the right of center is that I don't expect terribly much from our government. I expect better than Bush's appointments for FEMA, but on the whole I'm not so much outraged that so little was done as I am that the government is spending so much to do so little. It's a point-of-view that I am beginning to understand to be irreconcilable to those on the left. I haven't much interest in having that fight, but Rita at least gave me a clearer idea of where the battle lines are drawn. Rita let me understand that for the outraged on the left it was not all about getting Bush like it seemed to be. They honestly have expectations that they dare to hold even though I personally find them to be unreasonable. I needed to see that, even though I don't know what to do with it having done so.

We've got to get better at this in the ways that we can do better than this. Even though I don't believe it to be nearly as simple as critics of the Houston evacuation believe it to be, maybe there are ways that we can get contraflow open sooner. There ought to be ways to get gas out there quicker. By all means, let's have this conversation. But let's look at the big picture. Let's look at what worked as well as what didn't. Let's look at things we didn't even think about that may be perfectly obvious in hindsight. But that's not going to happen as long as the media and the critics are focused solely on what went wrong. As the Katrina-to-Rita transition demonstrated, in my mind, that only leads to the equal-and-opposing mistakes.

Now, being a heartless, short-sighted conservative, my main interest begins in Houston and ends in Texas (okay, I guess considering my betrothed, ends in Lousiana). That's where Houstonians (even ones that live in Idaho) need to focus. Miamians need to focus on Miami, Mobilians (??) on Mobile, and so on. Just like those on the left seem to honestly believe that the government can work at a level I find to be unrealistic, I hope they understand that I (and many others on the right) honestly believe that this is best handled on the local level with federal assistance but not federal direction. I would honestly rather former Houston Mayor Lee P. Brown lead the evacuation than President George W. Bush.

President Bush has heeded the cries of those who hold the federal government accountable and wants to take complete control of the situation. I'm tempted to say that his critics should be careful what they ask for, but that's not very helpful. Instead I will simply say that I believe that the federal government's ability to handle the situation (under any administration) is limited and that I hope to God that city and state officials are figuring out what to do on their own if and when the federal government is slow to respond. And I hope that individual citizens are trying to figure out what they should do if and when the state and local governments are slow to respond.

I am not very hopeful on all this. While the post-Rita-evac recriminations help me understand how minds that work differently from my own work, it also points out that people are, in general, reactive. We want everything to go flawlessly. When things don't happen that way, we go after one another. We're either too lackadaisal in the face of disaster or we're too panicky. We're whatever we shouldn't have been because that's the only reason that people could be deathly uncomfortable for hours or days on end and could die. Ordinarily I might appreciate a public that refuses to accept things as they are, but in this case they want someone else to change it. And we seem to declare it in such a way that assures we will never get it.

Every now and again I will look back at something I wrote a few years ago and be astounded that I wrote it. I will be astonished at how wrong I was. I really hope that a couple years from now I will look back at this post in a similar manner.

From the office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay:

· Before I begin, I want to reiterate my support for President Bush's address to the nation last week from New Orleans.

· His commitment to helping the people of the Gulf Coast region recover and rebuild is shared by every member of the House Republican Conference.

· Every dime that as been appropriated - and every dime that will be appropriated - from the federal treasury to the people of the Gulf Coast comes from the votes of the House of Representatives, and we are honored to have that opportunity.

o And with that opportunity comes an equally important responsibility to make sure the money comes from and goes to the right places.

· Oversight of the relief funds will remain a high priority throughout the effort.

o The $51.8 billion package we passed two weeks ago set aside $15 million for inspectors general to follow the money.

o The president is also calling on vigorous IG accounting.

o Committees here on the Hill are already following suit, preparing for robust oversight over every dime.

o The Congress' moral obligation to the people of the Gulf Coast is not simply that we send money down there, but that that money does what it is supposed to do for them.

· Just as important as where the money goes is where it comes from.

o Even before the flood waters started to recede, many voices were calling for Katrina-related tax hikes. But those same voices were calling for tax hikes before Katrina was even a blip on the Doppler radar.

· Katrina tax hikes are not about Katrina; they're about tax hikes, and they are not an option.

o Raising taxes would kill jobs, choke off investment, and stifle economic growth. That's not exactly a recipe for the kind of economic renewal that region so desperately needs.

· Instead, I hope some of the money can be the product of spending sacrifices elsewhere in the federal budget.

o There are programs all over the federal budget that are bloated or wasteful or inefficiently using the funds we provide them, and I'm very interested in identifying them.

· We can fund this relief effort without raising taxes or wasteful spending - and it's up to us to do just that.

DeLay has a point that most everyone calling for tax hikes in regards to Katrina were also calling for them before Katrina. But you know all those bloated programs that he refers to later? Yeah, those were there before Katrina, too.

But instead of arguing about the past, let us raise a toast to new beginnings. The beginning of, for instance, of a Republican Party that even remotely cares about bloated, wasteful, inefficient government. The beginning of a Republican Party that's at least a little bit concerned about the gap between accounts payable and accounts receivable - they must be a little concerned, right, or they would write this off as deficit, too, no?

I would hold my breath in anticipation of this New Republican Party, but I don't wanna die.

But in leiu of holding my breath, I will cross my fingers.

Small-government conservatism is my preference. Kicking back more of the taxes and duties to the state and local governments sounds like a good way to go to me. This bloat that we refer to is a lot easier to hide in a larger government than a smaller one, after all. But absent that I will take big-government conservatism as preferable to big-government liberalism. More market-based solutions with more civil servant accountability. But a government that gives lip-service to small government, taxes at smaller government rates, and then operates like big, big government but with small-government efficiency is increasingly unpalatable to me.

The tax cuts won't choke a government that isn't concerned about sound fiscal circulation - and much as I hate to nod in agreement with a largely insincere opposition, the biggest bloat we've got now is interest on the debt that grows regularly from the difference between accounts receivable and accounts payable.