A delicate and vulnerable immigration bill remains alive because of a package of amendments being promised to a broad array of key lawmakers.
Republicans like Sen. Kit Bond seem very conflicted over the bill, and Missouri's senior Senator could be key to the bill's survival.
Bond is one of several Senators who have been promised votes on their amendments. Sen. Bond voted to move ahead with the measure, after siding with opponents earlier this month on a different vote that stalled it.
If you head over to the Drudge Report, Bond's face is plastered on an ad paid for by NumbersUSA. The headline reads: "Tell Senator Kit Bond . . . A Vote for Amnesty is A Vote Against Missouri."
"I voted to allow further debate on the bill, but if its amnesty and other bad provisions remain, I will oppose ending debate or its final passage," Bond said in a statement Tuesday.
The conservative National Review has already drawn the line in the sand. It labels Bond as one of 7 Senators who can stop amnesty.
The Review calls Bond's stand "contradictory." The Review predicts his amendment -- to gut the Senate deal by stripping "a path to citizenship" -- will go down to defeat. "By the time his amendment fails, it may well be too late to stop the bill," writes The Review.
Ironically, the Review heaps praise on Missouri's junior Senator. "The other senator from Missouri, the newly elected Democrat Claire McCaskill, has figured this out even if Bond has not. She is voting no on cloture. Missouri voters would do well to reflect on the fact that their junior Democratic senator has a more consistent and effective position against amnesty than their senior Republican one," writes the Review.
Does that sting?
It's ironic that the Missouri G.O.P. and former Sen. Jim Talent's campaign lambasted McCaskill for supporting "amnesty" throughout the campaign.
Now, it's McCaskill -- the former prosecutor -- who holds the "conservative" position. She's proving she is against amnesty in the most literal sense of the word.
The amnesty charge is now being leveled against Bond -- from his own side.
Sen. McCaskill voted against debating the bill, joining her colleagues from other Midwestern and Rust Belt states.
McCaskill and others said Tuesday they would watch closely to see how the bill is amended, but are doubtful they would support it.
"I'll keep an open mind," McCaskill said, but she quickly added that she could not imagine that the bill could get her vote.
The odd thing is that if Bond ultimately supported the immigration deal, that would probably give McCaskill the political cover to do the same.
How could the G.O.P. credibly attack McCaskill for "amnesty" if its senior Senator voted the same way?
But McCaskill seems pretty firmly against this bill, and we should take her word until we see otherwise.
Wouldn't it be something if McCaskill and Bond split on the vote. Her against it. Him for it.
I wonder what National Review would say when Bond is up for re-election.
What would the Missouri G.O.P. release say?
What would Jim Talent would think?
2 comments:
I smell hypocrisy. The question is immigration reform and McCaskill sits against reform as opposed to compromise. Not a bad position, keep face while doing ...well nothing to address the issue. Do you have the interview file available.
On Band, can he stick to his guns and get anything done, or is he voting on a bill that has no hope of passing.
I think from a Public Relations perspective the Cons win on this one...
Here's my thoughts: I can't really fault Bond for allowing debate to go forward to see what amendments are attached, etc. 2010 being as far away as it is, I don't think that's heavily on Bond's mind as I don't think he'll run again. Due to the small margin of support the bill holds right now, I think Bond has established himself as a power broker in this process and if the final version of the bill isn't acceptable after the amendment process has run its course, then Bond will vote against it.
What I can't figure out is McCaskill's angle here. It's not out of principle, so why did she vote no?
Post a Comment