Just What We Don't Want

By TIM KILLEEN

John Hudson wrote a good roundup piece about pundits' views on the White House's treatment of the AZ immigration law and what it might mean politically. The consensus seems to be that Democratic Governors feel like the White House has put them in a difficult spot by failing to take the lead on immigration, allowing AZ to set the tone for the issue and considering the fact that the majority of Americans in each state have responded to polls claiming that they'd support local legislation similar to the AZ law. Hudson asks whether it's politically expedient or advantageous for the Democrats to challenge Arizona's treatment of the illegal immigration issue.

The problem, however, is that political calculations as the basis for policy decisions, on either side of the spectrum, is exactly what the American people are sick of. Whatever your political affiliations, one thing most people can agree on is that they'd rather see a politician take a principled approach on a tough issue despite his reelection bid if it's what's best for his constituents or for the country.

In this particular matter, whether or not the majority of Americans polled like the AZ law or not has no bearing on its constitutionality. What's important is whether state law is being used to trump federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. The Democrats are right to pursue a course of action they believe to be upholding the law, even if it means they lose political points. We elect our representatives to do what's best for us, not what's best for the future of their careers.

Call Their Bluff, or Smart Politics

Over the past year or so, we've seen the Senate filibuster take center stage as a political tactical tool. Or have we? As much as the 60 vote "supermajority" and the obstructionism of the 41 vote "micromajority(?)" has been talked about, both within the Senate and in the media, we haven't yet seen the filibuster actually used recently. Instead, we see the threat of a filibuster used which causes the party introducing the legislation to scramble around furiously as it tries to pick off one or two more members of the minority and garner supermajority status.

Today, the Republicans will give up their threat to filibuster the banking regulation bill, which they hoped would give them time to change it before debate, and instead will offer amendments on the floor to get the change they want. Of course, despite the fact that Republicans have been doing it lately, Democrats are no strangers to the threat of the filibuster.

Here's my suggestion though: call their bluff! Voters get mad enough to see the minority party stalling the people's business by saying they'll use the Senate tactic; so they'll likely be incensed when they actually see a filibuster in action. The Senate's job is to write and pass legislation beneficial to the people. So when one side (it doesn't matter which one) says they'd rather stand up and read a phone book just to take up the Senate's time, they're cheating the people and wasting our money. So, in the hopes of reworking that ridiculous tactic (though I do understand it's importance in certain circumstances), hold them to it. Let the people see how petty they look and see what that means the next election year. It just may be the accountability they so enjoy being free from.