Immigration Reform Legislation Still Faces an Uphill Battle

By Stuart Rothenberg

“This bill would allow 12 million-plus illegal aliens to remain in this country indefinitely and provides them, as well as their immediate families, a path to citizenship. This is amnesty. ...”

No, that’s not the view of Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, a leader in the fight against illegal immigration. They are the comments of Randy Pullen, the Republican Party chairman in Arizona, the home state of Sens. John McCain (R) and Jon Kyl (R). McCain is a leading advocate of a comprehensive immigration bill and the co-sponsor with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) of last year’s unsuccessful proposal, and Kyl is one of the lead spokesmen for this year’s compromise plan.

Pullen went on to say he was “very disappointed” in the new proposal, arguing that the compromise would “do more to encourage illegal immigration than to discourage it.”
The initial reaction to the bipartisan compromise on immigration, which was hammered out by a diverse group of Senators including Kennedy, Kyl and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), makes it clear that passage of any bill will be difficult, and the upcoming presidential election is an additional problem for those supporting the compromise.

Hours after the compromise was announced, one Senator told me it already had fallen apart and been Scotch-taped together. That’s not a good sign.

Four months ago in this space, I wrote that Congress and the White House needed to get busy to pass an immigration bill, and they needed to do it quickly. Time is an enemy, especially given the early start of the presidential race.

In early January, immigration seemed to be the one big issue Congress and President Bush could deal with, since everyone agrees that action to stop the flow of illegal immigrants is crucial, and substantial elements of both parties favor a comprehensive approach that involves a greater commitment to border security and a temporary worker program.

But as with everything, the devil is in the details, and while everyone seems to want to address the conundrum of illegal immigration, everyone also seems to have his or her own idea of what must be done and what is unacceptable.

Grass-roots conservatives and their leaders in Congress aren’t merely playing politics when they complain that the compromise is “amnesty.” You don’t have to agree with their use of the term, but that’s how they see any plan that gives workers who are in the U.S. illegally a route for citizenship. (Supporters of the compromise obviously take exception to that characterization, but so far they have been drowned out by the “amnesty” chorus.)

That’s why Republican presidential hopefuls such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, both of whom temperamentally are more inclined toward compromise than confrontation, have not embraced the compromise on immigration.

The issue of immigration reform, which once seemed so promising for Republicans, has now turned nasty for the party. As Roll Call noted recently (“Immigration Deadline Slips,” May 22), Republican Senators who have had a role in the compromise have been booed at state party events.

Indeed, grass-roots Republicans who oppose anything but a strong security bill are likely to be more incensed at Republican officeholders who compromise with Democrats than they will be at Kennedy, whom they have long believed is a lost cause. After the party’s 2006 losses, some Republicans think purification of the GOP is the answer, not working with a Massachusetts Democrat.

You can easily imagine what the talk-radio hosts are saying as they express their outrage and promise to punish those who are pushing the plan. They know they aren’t going to defeat Kennedy or Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but you can bet that they’ll declare war on Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The president, meanwhile, seems totally irrelevant to the immigration debate. The midterm elections, the Iraq War and the administration’s other problems have stripped President Bush of any influence he once had. So instead of uniting Republicans and putting the onus on Democrats for favoring lenient treatment of lawbreakers, Republicans are spending much of their time firing at each other. Democrats, wisely, prefer not to get in the line of fire.

Of course, the Democratic Party is divided over the issue, too, but since Senate Republicans hold the key to any measure, Democrats, including those in the House, have been able to pass the buck, at least for now. While many Democrats would like to see a bill passed by Congress and signed into law, they know that, politically, they are best off if, at the end of the day, they can take credit for dealing with the issue but let Republicans take the blame for the details.

Supporters of the immigration compromise face the same problem that health care reformers faced more than a decade ago. There are so many facets to the bill, so many things to consider and deal with, that changing one part of the bill to add support means losing others who are already on board but can’t swallow proposed changes.

While a Senate compromise could hold together and pass the chamber, this bill has a long, long way to go before being enacted into law. And in Washington, D.C., it’s always better to bet against a big bill making it through the legislative gauntlet and being signed into law than it is to predict passage and enactment.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 24, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

Louisiana Senate: Rove Seeks Challenger to Landrieu

By Stuart Rothenberg

Without fanfare or national media attention, White House strategist Karl Rove went to Louisiana the weekend before last to woo State Treasurer John Kennedy (D) to the GOP and into the 2008 Senate race against Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

Republican insiders see Landrieu as the most vulnerable Democratic senator up for reelection next year, but with none of the GOP members of the Congressional delegation stepping up to the plate, party strategists are looking elsewhere. Kennedy has good poll numbers statewide and would be a formidable challenger to the Senator.

But it is far from clear that the state Treasurer is all that close to making either jump -- to the Republican Party or into the Senate contest. And some in the state think that, given the President's current standing and the party's showing in the 2006 midterm elections, Rove may no longer be the best person to make the appeal to Kennedy.

This item first appeared on Political Wire on May 23, 2007.

For Bush, Sticking With His Iraq Policy Now Is the Only Choice

By Stuart Rothenberg

Democrats and even more than a few Republicans seem increasingly frustrated that President Bush hasn’t been persuaded by their arguments or by the midterm election results to change policy in Iraq. They shouldn’t be. The president has little alternative but to dig in, given both his view of the conflict and how history may judge his presidency.

History has a way of turning failed presidencies into well-regarded ex-presidents. Richard Nixon left office in disgrace but came to be viewed as an authority on international and security issues after his resignation. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was widely seen as disastrous, and voters denied him a second term, yet he is now treated as an authority on a range of domestic and international issues and often evaluates Bush’s performance.

Bush’s chances of having his reputation improve years or even decades after he leaves office almost certainly depends on what ultimately happens in Iraq. If things turn out surprisingly well, historians may actually look back and conclude that Bush did the right thing by ignoring public opinion and Democratic critics.

If, on the other hand, Iraq experiences years of civil strife and Iran fills the region’s vacuum, spreading its venom throughout the Middle East and giving sanctuary to terrorism, Bush will be judged as the person most responsible for that outcome.

Given that, and given the way Bush now views the situation in Iraq and the costs of failure, he cannot possibly agree to remove U.S. forces as quickly as his critics would like. Withdrawal would guarantee “defeat,” as the president sees it, thereby establishing the error of his policy and the failure of his administration.

If the president did what his critics (as well as some of his friends within the GOP) want, his reputation would be permanently set. His only legacy would be the mess in Iraq and the United States’ failures. Even if things improved in the region 10 years down the road, Bush would get no credit for it.

And let’s be entirely clear: Bush wouldn’t get any credit for pulling troops out at this point. Nobody really thinks the president’s overall reputation would improve after being forced, kicking and screaming, to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq, do they?

If all of this is even close to correct, it suggests that opponents of current U.S. policy won’t have an effect on Bush administration policy as long as they are merely demanding an exit or talking about U.S. sacrifice.

The only way to influence policy is to demonstrate to Bush that his long-term goal of a peaceful, stable and free Iraq — which would be good both for the Middle East and for his historical reputation — can be achieved only if Republicans hold onto the White House, and that continued Republican control of the White House is impossible, absolutely impossible, without some withdrawal of U.S. forces within the next few months.

This argument isn’t about Republicans regaining the House or avoiding a bloodbath in next year’s Congressional elections. I’m pretty certain the president would prefer Republicans to hold their own in the 2008 House and Senate elections, but if the president sees the choice as between stopping terrorism and re-electing Ohio Rep. Ralph Regula (R) to his House seat, I’m pretty sure we all know which Bush would choose.

If the president was to conclude that a Democratic victory in 2008, including the presidency, would assure a more abrupt exit from Iraq than he thinks is wise — the kind of exit, to the president’s thinking, that would doom Iraq and give “victory” to radicals — then he might see holding the White House in 2008 as part of the Iraq War and the larger war against terror.

The key for critics of Bush’s Iraq policy — at least those who are more interested in changing policy than in scoring political points by beating up on a president who has already demonstrated that he doesn’t much care how many and how often his critics beat up on him — is to get the president to believe that his ultimate goal depends on electing a Republican to succeed him and to believe that a significant change in policy can help accomplish that.

Regardless of how you feel about the president’s Iraq policy, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the president isn’t easily persuaded to change his course. He has his entire presidency and his historical reputation invested in Iraq and regards that war as a fight against terror and for peace. Given that, the loss of a few more House or Senate seats and even the loss of the White House aren’t all that important.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 21, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

The Webs They Weave: Campaign Committees’ Net Strategies Evolving

By Nathan L. Gonzales

These aren’t your grandparents’ — or even your parents’ — campaign committees.

Howard Dean’s run for president in 2004 uncovered the financial potential of the Internet, but just three years later, the subsequent explosion and popularity of blogs, YouTube, MySpace and Facebook have the campaign committees installing online liaisons as permanent fixtures.

Most of the coverage of technology this cycle has focused on the race for president, including the “1984” YouTube ad promoting Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and the controversy surrounding former Sen. John Edwards’ (D-N.C.) official blogger.

But online activity could be a factor in a number of House and Senate races. As the relationship between bloggers and party strategists becomes more complex, the committees are hoping to harness the energy of the net roots without upsetting an online mob.

This past cycle in Illinois’ 6th district, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee locked horns in a classic battle between bloggers and the establishment. Online activists rallied behind the candidacy of 2004 nominee Christine Cegelis, while then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) put every ounce of energy behind Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth in the Democratic primary. (Similar battles, albeit on a smaller scale, also occurred in Florida’s 13th district, California’s 11th and the Ohio Senate race.)

Duckworth narrowly won the nomination but lost an extremely expensive general election race, further upsetting bloggers who believed the money could have been better spent in other districts where Democratic candidates lost narrowly with little national support.

There are often multiple sources of tension in these battles. First, there is the insider-versus-outsider mentality. The bloggers resented Emanuel’s heavy-handed support for a candidate unknown to the district and, worse yet, unknown to the blogging underworld.

Second, many bloggers tend to support the 50-state strategy Dean has developed as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, while the Congressional campaign committees tend to focus their resources on the most competitive races. In the case of Illinois’ 6th, Emanuel supported Duckworth precisely because he was trying to expand the playing field and believed that a Cegelis nomination would have taken the seat off the table.

Eventually, the bloggers and the campaign committees may settle into separate, complementary roles.

“We can’t target every race. It’s just not possible,” explained one Democratic insider. Influential blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of DailyKos agrees. “The DCCC can focus on districts that are the most winnable,” he explained in “The Thumpin’,” Naftali Bendavid’s new book about the 2006 elections. “We can do the others, every district, to spread the Republicans thin and to have a body there in case someone resigns.”

Third, there are bloggers on both sides of the aisle who believe in the purification of their party, with the view that any candidates who stray from the ideological fold must be punished. Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) felt the wrath of their respective blogospheres last year.

At this point, Democratic bloggers are more demanding and require more care from the committees than their Republican counterparts. Democratic bloggers have sought recognition as strategists, particularly on resource allocation and candidate recruitment, rather than just fundraisers.

This distinction is apparent in how the committees are structured. Taryn Rosenkranz, the DCCC’s director of online services, oversees a staff of three people, including Stakeholder blogger Brandon English, and answers to both Executive Director Brian Wolff and Communications Director Jennifer Crider. Jesse Lee, who handled online outreach for the committee for the past two cycles, now blogs for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on The Gavel.

Mike Liddell is beginning his third cycle at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and is the director of online communications. He temporarily is a one-man operation, running the committee’s official blog and reporting to DSCC Executive Director J.B. Poersch.

On the Republican side, online liaisons are more junior positions and are a part of the communications department. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has hired John Randall as the e-press secretary, working under Communications Director Rebecca Fisher.

Josh Shultz is the new media director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, falling under Communications Director Jessica Boulanger. Shultz is filling the position for the only committee that didn’t previously have a dedicated staffer for online activity.

Winning does cover many wounds. This year it’s the Republican committees that have found themselves at odds with bloggers. In January, blogger Hugh Hewitt issued his “NRSC Pledge,” challenging conservatives to withhold their support from the committee unless the NRSC agreed to withhold resources from any GOP incumbent who voted against President Bush’s troop “surge.” NRSC Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) immediately got on the phone with Hewitt and appeared on his radio show to respond.

Now, Erick Erickson of RedState, with the support of prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, is challenging the Republican leadership and the NRCC, calling it a “war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.” Erickson is concerned with Rep. Ken Calvert’s (R-Calif.) past land deals and personal conduct and is asking supporters to withhold contributions from the NRCC until Calvert is removed from the Appropriations Committee.

“This will be ugly. This will be hard,” Erickson wrote.

Just last week, NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) posted on RedState in response to a Washington Post article, but he’s not the only chairman to speak directly with the bloggers.

DSCC Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) did a sit-down interview with Jonathan Singer of MyDD in March and has posted twice on DailyKos this year. National Democrats first learned about Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks (D), now a potential challenger to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), in a comment thread following his post. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) did a live blog on Firedoglake and holds periodic conference calls with other bloggers.

Official committee blogs can serve as an outlet for political messages and ads, but it’s often necessary for the online liaisons to develop credibility on outside blogs. “Folks need to feel as if you believe in ‘the movement,’ that you respect them and what they do,” explained one Democratic operative familiar with the online culture.

The medium can lend itself to inflammatory rhetoric, but that’s why personal contact and relationships are critical. “When you talk face to face, there is a lot of agreement,” said one Democratic insider, who noted some bloggers will be against the establishment no matter what.

Along with the national blogs, the committees are making a concerted effort to communicate with state-specific blogs. Because state and local political reporters often read the local blogs, the national committees see an opportunity to affect the media coverage that voters read and watch.

National strategists are also exploring other ways of communicating their message online. Besides developing microsites such as DirtyDickPombo.com and TheRealDemocratStory.com, all four committees have YouTube channels to circulate their Web videos. The NRCC also has a Twitter account and a MySpace profile and will launch a Facebook profile next week. The NRSC has a MySpace account in the works. And the DCCC has asked each of its Frontline incumbents to generate a list of 30,000 e-mails in their district by Election Day.

In the near term, the flow of information will predominantly come from the committees. On the Democratic side, bloggers are gaining a prominent seat at the table, but their ability to influence strategic decisions is still minimal.

This story first appeared in Roll Call on May 17, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.