I could write the NYT ombudsman but I figure why try in vain to give them a clue. Is is far more fun to just sit back and watch their making fools out of themselves. The NYT is beyond hope. After Judy Miller it was the last straw for me. As far as the hold out Open Borders Republicans, their days of hoodwinking the "Kool-Aid" drinkers are over. Goodbye Huckleberry Graham, perhaps Mark Foley has a spare bedroom. Because I just do not think working and middle class Republicans are going to give a rats ass about Terry Schiavo, Gay marriage and stem cells this time around. For the Democrats it will take another round of defeat in 2008 for them to purge the Ruy Teixeira's from the party STRATEGERY sessions. You can not be the Corporatist Cheap Labor through Open Borders party and defender of the working class and welfare state at the same time. Given the current primary schedule the party is still likely to nominate Hillary of The Punjab only to find out they have committed a major F'up when it is way to late.

6. THE ARTICLE SAYS "SOME [DEMOCRATS] HELD VIEWS SIMILAR TO THE REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS OF THE BILL" BUT DOESN\'T APPLY ITS STEELY ANALYSIS TO WHETHER THIS WOULD HURT THEM IN THE SAME WAY THAT OPPOSING THE BILL SUPPOSEDLY HURTS THE GOP. Freshman Indiana Congressman Brad Elsworth, an ex-county sheriff was screaming that if the Senate passed "CIR" he was going to do everything in his powers to defeat it in the house. I think the entire Indiana Democratic Congressional delegation sighed in relief when Evan Bayh came out against "CIR" on the first cloture vote. It was a critical turning point. If NYT was remotely honest and accurate about the current state of political affairs, it would have mentioned that killing "CIR" in the Senate was a blessing to the class of 2006 "Fair Trade" Democrats who are having their hands full already battling the out of touch entrenched leadership.

"If NYT was remotely honest and accurate about the current state of political affairs, it would have mentioned that killing "CIR" in the Senate was a blessing to the class of 2006 "Fair Trade" Democrats who are having their hands full already battling the out of touch entrenched leadership." Oh, and BTW, according to David Sirota, it looks as if the "Secret Trade Deal" that K Street was trying to ram through Congress has been "delayed" because they and their supporters in Congress are afraid to bring it to the floor. Anybody see a connection between the people raising unshirted hell with the Senate on this "POS" immigration bill and K Street's reluctance to take another unpopular globalization bill up right now? I DO!!

D Flinchum, I have talked to folks who went to Elsworth's town hall and these Freshman Democrats are catching hell for not doing more. Sorry but expectations are high. Since the party leadership has been so craven and weak, it really falling on their shoulders to take a stand. That is why Elsworth has spoke out numerous times in opposition to the "CIR" fiasco. Its getting him lots of calls of support.

I'm in VA and Sen Jim Webb is kind of in the same position, I suspect. He voted Yea on the next to last cloture round, but rumor had it that he wanted to see if they kept his amendment to move the date back on when an illegal alien could have entered the US and still get a Z-visa. In short, his amendment would cut off those who had come into the US only in the last few years. The Senate defeated his amendment (I would have bet the farm they would). He voted Nay on the final cloture round. Vital lesson learned, I'd say. Kennedy had more or less said that all those strict enforcement portions could get modified (that is, basically stripped out) in conference. I can't decide if Teddy is senile, stupid, or crazy, though I guess he could be all three.

D Flinchum, Underneath it all Ted Kennedy is a old fashioned sentimental fundamentalist Catholic when it comes to Immigration issues. It causes him to completely throw out any rational or economic argument or respect for Democratic values or the rule of law. I really do not believe Kennedy's stands on immigration come from a strong well reasoned liberal philosophical viewpoint or an understanding of the complex ethical issues. Personally I cringe when somebody suggests that Kennedy's pro-immigration fanaticism is rooted in New Deal Liberalism. Ted Kennedy may rebel against his Irish Catholic upbring on religious issues like abortion. But on immigration Ted Kennedy is as much a quoter of good old Leviticus as the loony the Rev. Fred Phelps is on homosexuality. Kennedy may be hated by most strict Catholics and modern day Papists but he sure does relish hanging out with clergy like Cardinal Mahoney on immigration matters. But Kennedy is not the only Democrat who does this. Even Hillary has quoted Leviticus when questioned on her immigration stands. Even a number of far lefty Immigration Lawyers like the Open Borders Rick Schwartz are fond of quoting the Bible. Imagine that Leviticus, the enemy of Free Thinkers everywhere, being used as the basis for completely subverting rational discussion of such a complex issue as immigration. Where is Richard Dawkins when you need him? Also It is also pretty easy for Kennedy and Hillary to hold such illogical, conflicting and sentimental views when your wealth and social position has isolated you all your life from the "externalities" of immigration while belonging enjoying so many of the benefits in the form of cheap labor. There is also the complicated legacy of the potato famine Irish diaspora. Then tends to make some Irish Catholic believe that "Open Borders" is a fundamental human right based on a questionable reading of history and much sentimentality. And lets be honest many otherwise secular American Jews also hold similar views on Immigration based on Leviticus. Not to mention flawed readings of the history of the Holocaust and the Zionist movement. NumbersUSA and the Social Contract press has a series of really good pdf's on the complex history of the views of the Catholic Church and Judiasm on immigration. They are well worth reading.