Congressional Quarterly has an overview article about the 29th, including recent developments like the Nachbar candidacy.
In a WETM story about worker shortages, Randy Kuhl is quoted as supporting two immigration reform measures. The first is the "Z" Visa, which requires a worker to pay $3,500 for a 3-year work permit. The second is an expansion of the H2-A program, which allows farmers to import temporary workers under a stringent set of conditions intended to ensure that foreign workers aren't taking U.S. workers' jobs.
Unlike the AgJobs bill, which he cosponsors and is preferred by the Agriculture industry, the Z-Visa and H2-A programs don't provide a path to citizenship. However, AgJobs has not cleared committee, so the Z-Visa or H2-A expansion might be the best compromise that will come out of the current debate on immigration reform.
Comments
According to the article referenced, Eric Massa says: “The Iraq war and making the Bush tax cuts permanent are two things Randy Kuhl supports,”
Opposition to the war for many of us in the southern tier is more based on the way the war has been fought, not the fact that the war is going on. I think in general, the opposition to the war is broad, but not very deep. This was somewhat proved out when the democratic congressional leadership stopped trying to frame the war as “another Vietnam”. The public isn’t that stupid. Unlike Vietnam, we do have strategic interests in the Middle East and the number of casualties pales in comparison. (Disclaimer: I am a Vietnam era vet – US Navy). If the Iraq situation gets better, it bodes well for Kuhl.
Also, I would like to think that most people in the southern tier are not opposed to tax cuts. If Bush made us mad, it was because he was spending way too much money on too many programs.
I agree that we have a strategic interest in the Middle East, and that is one important difference between Iraq and Vietnam. Two things on that:
First, I think you're right that opposition doesn't run too deep, mainly because people want something done about the real threat of extremist Islam. The Iraq war is a sideshow in that struggle, and we've been throwing our troops and money down that rathole while the threat is resurgent in places like Afghanistan. Also, when we leave Iraq, it will be more dangerous to us that when we entered it. As time goes by, I think the consensus will be that Iraq was a strategic mistake, not just an incompetently executed war.
Second, one of the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq is the way we're not fully committed to the war. During the Vietnam War, both Republican and Democratic presidents were micromanaging the military to keep troop levels down. I see the same behavior by the Bush administration. If the war in Iraq is truly vital to our national interest, why didn't we ramp up our military to fight it? In today's New York Times, Maj Gen (Ret) Batiste is quoted as saying that he constantly had to shuffle troops around because he didn't have enough, and that he always was asking for more up his chain of command.
I give Kuhl credit for supporting diplomacy with countries in the area to help end the Iraq war. Unfortunately, he also repeats the divisive rhetoric of "waving the white flag", which is part of the Bush Administration's and Republican party's decision to take a partisan line about the war.
The reality under all of this is that the Iraq war has been a massive blunder, both strategically and militarily. I wish we could move on to how we're going to recover from it and focus back on the real threat: Islamic extremism.
I believe that Massa's position is that with tax cuts are OK as long as they are passed with a reduction in spending. The Republican position for the last 7 years has been that we can cut taxes while increasing spending and conducting a war. That's fiscal irresponsibility, pure and simple. I agree with you that Republicans and Democrats want that to change.
Unfortunately for both sides, when they're interviewed for short pieces like the CQ story, they only get a sentence or two.
Did we need to invade Iraq, probably not? I think we needed to send a message that we won’t take terrorism lightly and that message was probably clear enough with the invasion of Afghanistan. But, in the back of my head I keep wondering if the lack of terrorist attacks on our country is in any part due to our invasion of Iraq. I don’t totally buy that, but the results are there.
I agree 150 percent that politicians should never micro manage the military. Once the politicians define the mission, then they should leave it in the hands of the generals and admirals.
I don’t think that partisanship in this war is strictly limited to republicans.
I probably wouldn’t have voted for Bush had I known how he was going to manage our country’s budget. That being said, I would not have voted for Gore or Kerry either.
I have often thought that Kerry lost the 2004 election partly through the help of Michael Moore and some other folks like him I wonder if I’m the only person who thinks that. How much of a role will Hollywood play in the next election?
My saving grace with George Bush is the fact that he placed two conservatives on the Supreme Court (even though he almost screwed up the second nomination).
I think that the lack of terrorist attacks here is probably in part due to Iraq, but, sadly, the reason is because Al Qaeda is able to kill Americans in Iraq more cheaply than mounting an attack here.
I agree that partisanship in the war cuts both ways. I also think that the partisan atmosphere was fostered by the Bush Administration. But "they started it" isn't much of an argument, and both sides haven't distinguished themselves in the war debate.
I agree that Bush finally appointed qualified judges to the court, even though I probably won't agree with some of their rulings. But the Miers nomination just shows how little judgment the man has, and how he values loyalty over talent. Whether a Republican or a Democrat runs the country, we should expect them to appoint smart, capable people to important positions in government. There are plenty of smart, conservative judges in the world, but instead Bush's reflexive response was to appoint a mediocre but absolutely loyal non-judge. Unfortunately, a lot of less talented loyalists were installed at the Justice Department.
BTW, I think the Dems have relied on the luxury of a more activist court over the years, but an activist court isn't necessary for the D's to advance their agenda. They can still do it the old fashioned way, by passing legislation.
Kerry was a poor candidate. Minor lights like Hollywood celebrities and Michael Moore drew more attention because Kerry wasn't able to outshine them. A better candidate would have drawn attention from them to his agenda.
I believe that the endgame in Iraq has been from the beginning many large US bases in the center of that oil rich area. The administration thought that a new Iraqi government would accept the bases as a quid pro quo for the elimination of Saddam. It also believed, naively that Chalabi's people would be running the country. I'm convinced that the Clintons and McCain still hold on to the idea that we can manage to have bases in Iraq if stability is established. This will be tough to accomplish if the Shia continue to consolidate power. The American people tend to believe that acts in their best interest, that's why oposion to the war is wide and shallow. Most hope that we can still pull off a success. If things go very well the best we can hope for is several very secure American bases in a country that is willing to tolorate our presence.
I wonder if any sustainable Iraqi government could bear having US bases in country long-term, but I assume pullout plans would require such bases over the short- or mid-term.
Sorry I didn't mean to post the above. Just noodling and hit the wrong button. Anyhow, I was thinking that the reason opposition to the war is wide and shallow is that the majority of us want to think that the Preident is working in our best interest. Some never trusted him, some are disallusioned, but most need to believe in him. He's in that majority. That's why he needed a war csar to pin his failures on -- just in case. That ploy didn't fly. So it looks like he plans to make Patraeus the fall guy -- his Westmoreland.
You're right - we must believe the president is working for our best interests or the government just can't work. That's why Bush's conduct of the war has damaged the Presidency, and why some Republicans are talking about how much damage the Bush presidency has done to the party.
I agree that Petraeus is set up for the fall guy role, but part of being the fall guy is falling quietly. In other words, the fall guy needs to tout the administration plan until it is clear to all that the plan isn't working, then he takes the blame for the failure of the plan. I don't think that Petraeus is going to rise (or fall) to that level of foolishness. The way for a general to avoid becoming the fall guy is to make sure the truth is front and center at all times, and to avoid the coloring and spin that characterized Westmoreland's tenure in Vietnam. If Petraeus has been upfront on what's working, and what's not, in Iraq, it's hard to see how he'll shoulder all the blame for failure, especially if it's clear that he failed due to lack of resources.
The signs that Petraeus isn't going to take the fall are already there. He's giving his commanders in the field more free reign to speak out about what's happening on the ground. This LA Times article details how the commander in Diyala province is asking for more troops openly and in public. That hasn't been happening in previous years.
1. I believe that if the war fails, President Bush will be blamed for it all, as he should be.
2. I firmly think he did what he thought was right.
3. As I stated above, more damage has been done to the Republican Party in budget matters than in the war.