Krauthammer gives up at halftime on immigration
Then Krauthammer takes his potential breakthrough plan and … throws it all away, claiming, “Regrettably, there appears to be zero political will to undertake this kind of definitive solution.” He winds up semi-endorsing the Rubio/McCain scheme, wrapping himself in the fig leaf it offers: That even if legalization is instant, those legalized won’t be getting “green cards” and citizenship until some enforcement targets are met.
A few obvious questions:
1) Why is there “zero political will”? Has Krauthammer forgotten about the House? Why is he suddenly in awe of President Obama’s ability to mobilize public pressure on Speaker Boehner to bring an across-the-board amnesty bill to the floor when Boehner’s caucus prefers a step-by-step (Dream Act + high-tech visas, etc.) approach? I’m reminded of the 2007 amnesty debate, when a Beltwayish pessimism gripped conservatives–’There’s going to be a bill,’ they told themselves. ‘We might as well make it as conservative a bill as possible.” But there wasn’t necessarily going to be a bill. The bill could be stopped–and it was stopped, by an outside-the-Beltway outcry. “Moving the bill to the right” only made beating it a bit more difficult.
That’s the alternative Krauthammer misses: If there’s “zero political will” for his (rightly) preferred solution now, there might be if the current amnesty-first push fails again. Granted, it won’t be as easy to stop it this time, given GOP-elite hysteria over the Latino vote. But last time it failed to even get a majority for cloture in the Senate. This time it will be closer–but Krauthammer is throwing in the towel when the game is tied at the half. (And of course, by rationalizing the Rubio bill, he makes it a little bit more likely the game will be lost.)









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So, does this mean barbed wire and landmines are out of the question?
I’m so confused.
locomotivebreath1901 on February 23, 2013 at 11:51 AM
I’ll tell you why Dr. Kraut threw in the towel, Mr. Kaus. Thats because theres not even 1 single top Republican, yes not even one, whos against CIR. Now you can rave and rant, but thats the truth.
tommy71 on February 23, 2013 at 11:59 AM
So does that say more about the people who are against it, or about the “top Republicans” that aren’t?
gryphon202 on February 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM
@gryphon Mr. Kaus wondered why Dr. Kraut threw in the towel. I just gave an explanation to Dr. Krauts reasoning. Thats all.
tommy71 on February 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Read the article troll.
Wigglesworth on February 23, 2013 at 12:52 PM
No amnesty ever again. Republicans need to understand that if they help pass any law that includes amnesty, they might as well include a party dissolution statement in the preamble.
Knott Buyinit on February 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM
That would be a nonsensical reason, because it’s not just “top” Republicans who get to vote on it.
Jon0815 on February 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Kraut is for Amnesty.
May all who are go to Hades. You are all for breaking US laws and for rewarding such. May you and your masters suffocate, all, and your kin too.
Schadenfreude on February 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM
Oh Jon, theres an hierarchy. On both sides of the aisle. And most will vote with the leadership.
tommy71 on February 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM