Bill to end "sanctuary cities" fails in the Senate

My senator, Mel Martinez, voted with six other Republicans (mostly RINOS) against Senator Norm Coleman's bill.
I've e-mailed a message expressing my disappointment to Mr. Martinez.

It's inexcusable that cities can assist lawbreakers in avoiding apprehension by the federal government through a policy of non-enforcement. And the threat of foreign terrorists among illegal aliens makes the vote even more ridiculous.

Here's the list of Republicans joining a whole bunch of Democrats on this one (hat tip to Captain's Quarters):

Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Selected Democat votes:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Nay

Reads like soft on illegal immigration is expected to be a hit with Democrat voters, doesn't it?

Largest tax increase in U.S. history?

That seems to be the company line from GOP politicians and blogs alike.

Sounds like a claim reliant on fine print, to me.

First, the descriptions I've heard seem to attach the label to the mere sunset of the Bush tax cuts. Is that a minor point? I suppose it could depend on your perspective. I'm frankly conservative, but I think it's worth noting, at least, that the tax increase is a passive act of the Democrat leadership.

A mistake, in all probability? I think so; we'll see.

The problem I have with the claim is that it seems to play a game with numbers. The sheer size of the tax increase in terms of dollars we can expect to be the most ever. On the other hand, the tax increase in terms of percentages is almost certainly far lower than that. It's misleading political rhetoric. On the one hand, I kind of hope it works, since the Democrats will foul up the economy. On the other hand the use of misleading political rhetoric leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Even if I'm not the one using it.

How do we hamstring the war effort without making it look like we're at fault if it fails?

Hat tip to Powerline blog for making me aware of this story by AP writer Julie Hirschfield Davis:

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, tasked by Democrats to direct the next step, says his approach "stops the surge, for all intents and purposes," and would "force a redeployment _ not by taking money away, by redirecting money."

Former Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, said Democrats have made a "very clear point" this week by putting the House on record against Bush's troop buildup and now must be careful not to overplay their hand by seeking to cut off funding or limit deployments right away.

"They don't want to be a scapegoat for the Bush administration's failures," Frost said. "This is Bush's war, and there should be no confusion about who's war it is, and Democrats should not set themselves up to have that done to them."

Frost said he did not want to "prejudge" Murtha's effort to restrict funds, but cautioned that Democrats should not yield to intense pressure by outside anti-war groups for swift action to end the conflict.

(Breitbart.com)

The Democrats have turned out worse than I hoped on the war. They have continued to offer strategies that will result in defeat. Indeed, the rhetoric suggests that many in the Democratic Party regard the war as already lost.

This is one of the outcomes I predicted when the Democrats took both houses of congress in 2006. They would no longer be able to hide solely behind criticism of the ideas of conservatives.
I think they tried to hold the line on sticking with the just criticize them! strategy, but some good maneuvering by Republicans in congress and the start of presidential campaigning has begun to lift the veil.

An indirect commentary on congressional oversight

The left loves to criticize President Bush as an intellectual lightweight.
He's much smarter than they give him credit for, of course.

This post is about congress, on the other hand. The left likes to talk about the need for congressional oversight.

Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein found that Nancy Pelosi's current favorite for the chairman of the Congressional Intelligence Committee didn't know that al Qaeda was predominantly Sunni.

Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.
(CQ)

Unfortunately, this is not a problem limited to Democrats. Just a few lines prior:

For example, [Reyes] knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.

It's not even limited to congress (see FBI mention at the end).

I'd like to think that Rep. Jane Harman (D, Calif.) knows how the Sunni/Shiite divide stacks up. It speaks to the Democrats' misplaced priorities that Pelosi isn't supporting Harman for the chair.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

What is Charles Rangel thinking?

Representative Charlie Rangel of NY has again introduced legislation proposing to re-introduce the military draft.

This seems like an odd move after some Democrats (I'm not sure it was the DNC) campaigned to students that Bush and Republicans would re-institute the draft. I know that Rangel--against the data--feels that the volunteer army somehow preys on minorities--but even so this move seems strange coming so soon after the election.