Republicans Key Job: Protecting Democrats?

Source: NYT

It appears Rachel Swarns, intrepid reporter for the New York Times is unhappy...

"House lawmakers stood before the television cameras on Thursday and hailed the introduction of a new measure to secure the border and move millions of illegal immigrants toward citizenship….Key lawmakers in both chambers seem to be moving to the right to assuage conservatives who helped derail immigration legislation last year. Now there are doubts as to whether Congress will actually send an immigration bill to President Bush this year.

How dare politicians listen to their constituents! Thats not how they did things in Russia! (the best place in the world according to her Womyn's studies teacher who made homemade soap).

As the good folks at TimesWatch note good Rachel makes copious note of things being deliciously reich wing, but when it comes to her homies, um, not so much...

Examples of delicious reich wingedness being pointed out...

...moving to the right to assuage conservatives who helped derail immigration legislation last year.

...moderate and conservative Democrats

...a barrage of criticism from conservatives

Now as to the 'balanced' part?

...said Michele Waslin of the National Council of La Raza, an immigration advocacy group

How moderate is La Raza? Well during the debate last year a memo was leaked which should have put them out of business...

"while it doesn't overtly mention assimilation, it is very strong on the patriotism and traditional American values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities."

So moderate it makes my teeth ache!

Now, here's the meat of this story...

"Democratic leaders say Republican backing is critical, both to ensure passage of a bill in the Senate and to protect newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats in the House, some of whom campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.

"Some of whom campaigned against illegal immigrants?"

It was more than some sweetie, in fact a whole lot more!

Care to take a guess as to why they "campaigned against illegal immigrants?"

Was it because Americans are so wildly in love with them? No.

Was it because of their 'crazy deliciousness'? No.

Perhaps it was because that is what the American people want? Ding-ding-ding! I think we have a winner. Now, one wonders why having gotten elected on 'getting tough' on illegals' they now wish to dump that and provide amnesty? It is a bit of a puzzler ain't it?

Perhaps they are trying to pull an end run around what the American people actually want? Which I think we can all agree is the very definition of a "representative democracy?" Right H? Aren't politicians supposed to make promises and then break them? Or will you lecture us yet again on how this would constitute listening to the rabble?

Note this, it is important. As always they make it sound as though a majority of Americans supprt amnesty yet they feel they need 'cover' to pursue this, why? Because the American people hate it and they know it, and they are trying as hard as they can to NOT do the will of the people who voted them into office.

Is it the purpose of the new Republican minority to provide 'cover' to Democrats as they seek to undo this nation? I don' theenk so skeepy, but what the hell do I know, I'm just a citizen who votes!

Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, flake, gutierrez, la raza, amnesty, republican, democrat