Unsigned editorials

Chron op-ed:

There were plenty of senators last week who shirked such honest work. Many Republicans rightly wanted to shape a bill that had been crafted by their leaders behind closed doors. But too many also wanted to sabotage reform, preferring the disorder we have now to any measure that would grant illegal immigrants some chance at joining our society.

"If it hurts the bill, I'm for it," said Sen. Jim De Mint, R-S.C.

Republicans John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas backed reform in principle -- but in the end also gambled against it by rejecting the measure to cut off debate.

What exactly does that last bolded sentence even mean?

Cornyn and Hutchison were against the bill from the start once the back room grand compromise was unveiled. They saw it as a bad bill. Senators -- by nature generally very protective of their privileges -- were in the middle of offering amendments to a 4000 page monstrosity to attempt to mold it into something they liked better. Harry Reid, despite knowing that he didn't have the votes to pass the bill, tried to cut off debate and stop the amendments. [It certainly seems to me that Reid was making a political judgment that he could damage W by not passing the bill and then blaming the president. What else can be concluded since he didn't even pretend to try to pass the bill.]

So what exactly does the Chronicle mean? It's languid, misleading writing in the midst of a disjointed editorial. It sounds to me like the Chron editorial board wanted to criticize Cornyn and Hutchison, but wanted to be oblique about it. Which kinda defeats the purpose.

Posted by Evan @ 06/12/07 08:33 PM


Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry


No comments yet

Add Comments

No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.