Fooey.
Reid, who couldn't block two key Supreme Court nominations, is now able to block legislation?
The fact of the matter is that not one Republican senator voted for the legislation. Many of those who supported it deliberately voted against, in order to "show their discontent with Reid's activities" - which makes as much sense as shooting yourself in the foot to show how much you hate Nike.
Republicans hold a full majority in the Senate. The only reason Republican legislation doesn't pass is because Republican senators vote against it.
The troops are thumbing their noses at both Frist and Bush. These two worthys need to stop blaming the powerless Reid for the mutiny and start getting their house back in shape.

"Journeyman trades, such as carpentry, plumbing, painting and masonry are now done almost exclusively by illegals"

Won't these "jobs Americans want" per your previous post, now be taken by guest workers? Doesn't that still leave high school educated Americans behind the register at Wal-Mart and McDonalds? I'm trying to understand what your position is regarding competition and wages for non-college jobs, and how this supports family values for non-college educated Americans.

Its a bad week for the Demorats, Reid blocked legislation, one Demorat House member may get arrested next week, another is charged with policial corruption, the economy is booming, and Nada Gate (aka Plame/libby story is dead).

Tina

What world are you living in? You think the Democrats had a bad week. Tina, take your head out of the sand and look around.

"allow access to workers who can fill jobs no American wishes to fill"

Here in lies the rub, Mark. There is no job that an American won't fill, if the wages are fair. Americans don't "wish" to do backbreaking work for less than the minimum wage. And that is exactly when Republicans want to bring in Mexican illegals.

But in comparison to the Republicans week, the Dems were in paradise.

Tom Delay, Tom Delay, Tom Delay. Oh did you hear he sent his goons to disrupt a press conference by his Democratic successor? Oh yea, and Delay was disgraced and became such an embarrasement to his party that even his enormous ego knew it was time to withdraw.

Bush of course caught in his double speak over leaks.

That ought to make the Dems feel good for a couple of years.

Ash...you are delusional!!! But we like having you around!!!

I second the "Fooey" from Small Town Hick.

Come on, Mark. You and the President have got to come up with something better than this ploy to blame it all on Harry Reid. Just so we're very clear here, I loathe Senator Reid and there's plenty of slime with his words and actions written all over it. But on this issue, you and W are just missing the mark.

"We can now state firmly that there is no depth the Democrats won't stoop to. It doesn't matter how low in the political gutter it is, if a Democrat thinks it will advantage Democrats, then it will be done."

STOP THE PRESSES!!! As far as I'm concerned, you should put that at the end of almost every one of your posts. I wager that nine times out of ten, you'll be right on target. Explain to me how the events of this week culminated in the President's Radio Address charging that Harry Reid and the Dems were responsible for the Republican votes against the legislation in question?

I spent a good many hours last week phoning my Senators and subjecting their staff to passionate and angry words regarding the immigration issue. Secure the borders first. Work on immigration reform later. Why the legislation had to have both components was beyond me. I expressed my demand that they vote against both the bills coming from the Judiciary backed by Arlen Spector and the Frist sponsored legislation, since they both dealt predominantly with changing citizenship status with a varying degree of acknowledgment for tight border security.

But when the Gang of Five got together overnight (Wednesday) and hammered out a compromise, they did so among themselves. That is to say, about five percent of the Senate arrived at a compromise. They held a press conference, gushing with self adulation and giddy with pride that a deal had been hammered out. But had a deal been hammered out? None of the Gang of Five consulted the other 95% of the GOP in their zeal for compromise. Where was Senator Allen? Where was Senator Sessions? Neither of my two Senators, Chambliss or Isakson were contacted or consulted. And so, on Thursday I continued to hammer their staffs with faxes, phone calls and e-mails.

One of my Senators, Johnny Isakson, had submitted a simple amendment to the legislation being considered at the end of March. It was completely in line with my thinking.

S.AMDT.3215
Amends: S.2454 , S.AMDT.3192
Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (submitted 3/31/2006) (proposed 3/31/2006)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To demonstrate respect for legal immigration by prohibiting the implementation of a new alien guest worker program until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to the President and the Congress that the borders of the United States are reasonably sealed and secured.

It was not allowed to be debated or voted upon. This was due the "unanimous consent" agreement which is commonly practiced in the Senate.

My other Senator, Saxby Chambliss, had also submitted a proposal to essentially gut the Agricultural Worker components of the Spector-sponsored bill. I read his words on the record, and he felt that it was a makeover of the 1986 Special Agricultural Worker Amnesty which for a variety of reasons, was an abysmal failure.

It was not allowed to be voted upon.

So there's two percent of the Senate that I've got some measure of confidence in on this issue. They were on the same page as I was. But somehow due to procedural motions, discussion or voting on any amendment was prohibited. So that's Harry Reid's fault? Did anyone make Senator Frist bend over and grab his ankles when Harry spoke?

I urged my Senators to vote against cloture on both of the pending bills because they were inherently flawed, and put the emphasis where it didn't belong. On Rollcall 89 on April 7th (cloture on the Frist-sponsored Bill S. 2454) they did as I asked them to. So did Senator Frist. Shall we blame Senator Reid for that?

On Rollcall #90, however, my Senators and Senator Frist voted to invoke cloture on S. 2454. Senator Reid remained consistent and voted against cloture.

So it's all the fault of Harry Reid. Thanks for making that clear for me. What part about being the so-called "party in power" don't the Republicans get? For forty years, the Democrats ran the House and Senate and they ran it with an iron fist. Love them or hate them, they got legislation passed. Granted, in many, many instances, it was bad legislation, often passed against the wishes of the then-minority party, the Republicans. But they could pass legislation. And so could the Republicans if they remained true to the ideals which brought them to power. But they seem more insistent on bending over and grabbing their ankles any time they meet resistance from Harry Reid and his band of haggard has-been politicians like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and their ilk.

The record clearly shows that failure to invoke cloture was due to a large no votes from Republican Senators who fundamentally disagreed with the proposed legislation and who were not even given the courtesy of contact by The Gang of Five for their view on the matter. But go ahead and blame Harry Reid, if you must, Mark and President Bush. The rollcalls speak for themselves.

One of the biggest things that has irked me about President Bush and the Republicrats since their ascendancy to power is how they seem to always waver in their resolve when push comes to shove. When attacked, they seem reluctant to aggressively defend themselves and their policies, often leaving the defense to their associates in Talk Radio and the newer "right wing" media. But it's not the same, it doesn't have the same effect, when you've always got SOMEONE ELSE defending you, is it?

In this instance, inasmuch as I appreciate the President - and you, Mark - going on the offensive and fighting back against perceived attacks, you've chosen the wrong time to take up arms for the wrong battle.

The immigration reform bills that were being considered were fundamentally flawed. That they didn't become the new law of the land is a good thing, in my opinion. We've got another two weeks, while the louts are off on Easter break, to pick up the pieces of the legislation and try again when they get back.

In the meantime... Gentlemen... pack your powder. You're going to need it!

extramedium,

Well, that last post was actually written as a letter to Newsweek by a good friend of mine - he thought I'd be interested and copied me on it, I thought it quite good and asked if I could blog it, and he gave the ok. His opinions are not exactly mine, however.

A guest worker program is still necessary in order to ensure our economic needs are met. My preferred form of a guest worker program would work thusly:

After an American company has diligently tried to fill a position for at least two calendar weeks, they may send a request down to INS stating what their requirements are, INS would then check their data base of potential guest workers and set up interviews with representatives of the company in question. Whomever is hired is given a visa for 358 days, after which the guest worker must return to his country or origin for at least one week before resuming employment (this last bit because I'd change the law to state that no citizenship or other benefits kick in unless a person stays legally in the country for at least 366 days).

As I've been saying for literal years, I'm a fan of immigration - but I want it legal, and I want it geared entirely to suit our needs.

dbogdan,

My understanding of it is that Reid prevented votes on amendments which would have made the bill more palatable to the GOP majority...in other words, both in the House and the Senate, the Democrats are trying to keep poison pills in the immigration reform proposals to ensure that nothing passes...this way they can still pander for hispanic votes without having to take a public stand on illegal immigration.

Ash,

You really think a Democrat is going to win DeLay's seat?

If you do, then Xango is right - you're dellusional.

I understand the strategic parliamentary moves taken by the Democrats and the implications that follow. I also agree that some sort of Guest Worker program be reformed and implemented that will allow for legitimate workers to be matched to legitimate opportunities here in the USA. I'm absolutely committed to legal immigration.

But in this instance, "unanimous consent" was agreed upon by all parties. If unanimous consent was not forthcoming, was there not a parliamentary maneuver which could have been implemented that would have forced the issue to a vote?

On another post within this site, entitled "How the Senate Immigration Compromise Collapsed," a poster put it far more succintly than I have ever been able to, when he stated,

"...My point: the liberals had nothing to do with this amnesty bill going down. Sessions blocked it with a brilliant legislative action. then ALL 55 republican senators voted against cloture - they killed their own baby - what will Dr. Dobson say?..."

Posted by: polwatcher at April 8, 2006 07:49 PM

That pretty much sums it up. If the Senate agreed to a Unanimous Consent point of order, then they agreed. Again, instead of blaming Senator Reid, Senator Frist, President Bush, and you (and I don't mean this to be personally vindictive) should stop grabbing your ankles, and get back in touch with the constituents that gave the Republicrats their position of "leadership," a position which appears to have been squandered on this issue...

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!

"My understanding of it is that Reid prevented votes on amendments which would have made the bill more palatable to the GOP majority...in other words, both in the House and the Senate"
Why wasn't it palatable in the first place, Mark?
For that matter, why didn't the rank and file pass the motion, flawed or not, and make amendments later? Why did they just drop the whole thing and go on vacation?
On another tack, is there any legal reason that Texas, on its own, cannot build the Fence (other than cost)?
And, has anyone thought about the need for a naval version of the Minutemen? You know that they're going to try boats next, right?

Its evident that Reid is to blame for this. He did not even permit an amendement from Dorgan, the Senate Demo from ND. That was one out of twelve amendments. I can see the ads in September and October.

This was Harry Reid's take on why the "compromise" on immigration reform failed...

Democrats all voted to end debate on the Senate's bipartisan compromise, but Republicans wouldn't allow it because several GOP lawmakers wanted to offer amendments. As lawmakers headed to the airport, Democrats were launching a new argument: President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., didn't push hard enough to get the GOP to go along with a proposal to let most undocumented immigrants get legal status.
"Even though we supported two bipartisan bills that were tough on enforcement and included smart comprehensive reforms, Bush Republicans were unable or unwilling to support the bipartisan compromise that the president and Senator Frist said they supported yesterday," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.

Legitimate or blowing smoke up one's skirt? You be the judge...

So let me get this straight, on Thursday the Democrats, the Republicans and the President all praise a major new bill on immigration reform. Than the very next day, Republicans want to change the break through agreement with 10-admendments (which completely changes the previously agreed upon legislation by the Republican) and it is the Democrats fault( the ones not in power) for killing the deal.

You people are priceless.

The proximate cause of this week's breakdown was a series of unusual procedural demands by Reid.
He insisted that Frist limit the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill. He also called on Frist to commit to naming members of the Judiciary Committee — most of whom favor a comprehensive approach to rewriting immigration laws — as the representatives who would advocate for the chamber's bill in negotiations with the House.

Frist rejected the demands, denouncing them as unreasonable attempts by the minority to dictate Senate procedures to the majority.
These procedural disputes, though, seem only proxies for the larger, more political differences.

Most observers agree that Frist's insistence on allowing introduction of numerous amendments reflected pressure from Senate conservatives unhappy with the compromise bill that he blessed this week.
Although virtually all Senate Democrats embraced that package, it appears that at most, little more than half the GOP caucus supports it. As a result, Frist faced strong demands from conservative critics to allow votes on amendments that would toughen the legislation's enforcement provisions and narrow its legalization elements.

Repeatedly in recent years, the Senate has forged bipartisan agreements on issues such as energy policy, the Medicare prescription drug plan and renewal of the Patriot Act, only to see much more conservative approaches emerge from conference committees with the House.

Such a shift seems possible again because the House immigration legislation, drafted largely by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), would not create any guest-worker program or a route to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Instead, it focuses on tough enforcement measures, such as the building of a border wall and a provision designating illegal immigrants as felons.

Barney,

What we wonder is why you Democrats are so afraid of votes...after all, if the GOP proposals are that bad, then opposition to them could easily be ginned up and the amendments would have been defeated on the merits...now we'll never know, because Democrats don't like democratic procedures..

You people are priceless.

No, Baloney, your incoherent writing is what's priceless. Even a highly-trained intelligence analyst such as myself can't decipher your hieroglyphics. Can anyone else?

Is anyone under the impression that this issue was brought to the forefront because of the upcoming election, that we're gonna be left with the status quo, when all is said and done?

This issue stands to hurt the GOP more than it does the culture of hypocrisy, the left. I, for one, don't care. Maybe we ought to let the real fu*kups run this country again, at least for the next two years. Let them handle the dangers we face--the dangers they ignore...

Mark, ...What we wonder is why you Democrats are so afraid of votes...

I believe that they did have a vote, and not one Pub vote for the compromise agreed upon immigration bill , so what are you talking about?

As much as I hate to admit it, Keefer, you may be on to something there...

"Maybe we ought to let the real fu*kups run this country again, at least for the next two years. Let them handle the dangers we face--the dangers they ignore..."

At least with the Demublicans, we can be assured that anything they pass with be wortheless and against our country's better interests. Maybe then W will pick up that dusty Veto pen and ruin his veto-less record...

And if the Dems remain true to form, they'll show us their true colors once again, reminding anyone who had any lingering doubts about how dangerous their agenda really is. After two more years of their hijinks, we can all come to our senses again and put the Republicrats back in. Converesely, if the Repubs are allowed to cool their heels for a short "time-out," maybe it will give them time to grow a pair and get serious about being Conservative again...

Actually it was Chuck Schumer who engineered the downfall of the agreement. He did not want any Dem votes on record over the proposed amendments since there are two camps within the Democrat party on the issue. Reid is a loser who allows himself to pushed around by Schumer who seems to be the true minority leader.

Barney 2000,

That "agreed upon compromise" was "agreed upon" by 5 senators. That's 5% of the Senate. That hardly seems like a representative democracy to me. It seems like a heavyhanded effort on the part of a very small minority, to shove a bad piece of legislation down the throats of the other 95 senators to me.

Had they been successful, I suspect you'd be right up there with the detractors to point out how heavyhanded the Conservative Republicans can be when they're in power...

So they had a vote. With any chance of amendments being debated or voted upon successfully quashed by Harry Reid (and acquiesced to by Senator Frist and the Gang of Five), the other 95 Senators told them what they thought about the tactic.

Barney2000,
And your earlier assertion that "...Than (sic) the very next day, Republicans want to change the break through agreement with 10-admendments (sic) (which completely changes the previously agreed upon legislation by the Republican)..." is fallacious. There were over 300 amendments that had been offered by Senators of both parties weeks before this "compromise bill" was agreed to by the Gang of Five. That Gang of Five included members of both parties, but NOT the overwhelming majority of Senators.

Nothing remotely like what you assert occurred. Pay attention to the chronology of events, please. Senator Isakscon (R-Ga) offered his amendment on March 31st, for example, before this "compromise legislation" that you speak of.

If you're really interested at all in seeing how this played out, got the Library Of Congress and read the Congressional Record. It's straight from the source, where it all went down.

http://thomas.loc.gov

Then click on the Daily Digest Tab. It's the official word-for-word record of all legislative activity...

xango and Mark:

As Descartes said:

I'm delusional, therefore I am. (Or something like that)

Barney,

But we wanted votes on the proposed amendments...I can modify: we wonde why you Democrats are so afraid of some votes?

Barney,

But we wanted votes on the proposed amendments...I can modify: we wonde why you Democrats are so afraid of some votes?
Posted by: Mark Noonan

I understand, so some votes refer to the 20 proposed changes to the original compromise which would mean that the new compromise was not the same as the original compromised that they all agreed to and fully supported.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Mark. Mea culpa

The Republicans had a good compromise bill, but they had to try to add amendments to it, that made it unpalatable to Harry Reid, and It looks like quite a few people from Mexico find it unpalatable too....

Here's some middle of the road news from the Washington Post .

"Marches will only get you so far," said Armando Navarro, coordinator of the National Alliance for Human Rights, a network of Hispanic activist groups in Southern California. "There has to be an electoral component to get the Republicans out of the majority.
************************************************

Thousands Rally for Immigrant Rights

By ANABELLE GARAY
The Associated Press
Sunday, April 9, 2006; 10:14 PM

DALLAS -- Tens of thousands of people banged drums, waved U.S. flags and marched in a protest Sunday urging federal lawmakers to pass immigration reform that would legalize an estimated 11 million undocumented workers.

Shouting "Si Se Puede!" _ Spanish for "Yes, we can!" _ the marchers crammed into the downtown streets. They included families pushing strollers with their children and ice cream vendors who placed American flags on their carts. Many wore white clothing to symbolize peace.

After Republicans eventually lose control of one or both houses of Congress (it's inevitable), I look forward to people like yourself praising them for their brave "obstructionism" to Democratic legislation.