You're correct and I edited my comment. I suspect that that may just be a tactic to save face in vulnerable districts rather than a sincere desire to oppose the bill.
Yeah. The part about the bill also extending to block political opposition gave it clearly away for me. Possibly hidden motives aren't typically announced in campaigns.
I don't see anywhere in the statement where they say they're "against" the bills. They express some concerns, but they leave themselves a ton of room to support slightly modified versions.
The point is that a Senator is now on record opposing that type of new statutory authority.
This bill is not intended to be a defensive wall; it's a stake in the ground in a debate that's just starting. It's a political move, not a serious legislative move. Most bills are.
> This is also an incredibly stupid thing to be pushing right before a pivotal election
Maybe for the democratic party as a whole, but it might be beneficial to the bill sponsor(s) if this wins votes in their own district. The main sponsor's district is Portland, OR so I suspect it's locally savvy for them.
So my questions was motivated by trying to understand if the bill is an actual attempt to pass legislation or just a few people scoring some green votes before an election by floating a bill they know is doomed.
It just seems to me that if "kill the bill" is the sole entirety of the message, then there is no way to move forward on the issue. Your 2nd paragraph makes a lot of sense, but as far as I know has not been offered or endorsed by any of the opposition groups. If I'm wrong please let me know.
Probably they're listening to the online campaign against the bill. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) have been writing in petitions urging their congresspersons to vote against it. It does seem weird to be agreeing with the GOP though.
While I agree that the proposed legislation is probably terrible, this opinion piece uses weasel words like "republicans" and "democrats" when they only cite I think 2 republicans that are supporting the proposal- out of all of the republicans in Congress! While it may be technically accurate (they are republicans) it is important to remember the spin on political pieces like this.
Not all 'republicans' and not all 'democrats' are the same.
As the article says, the bill, as is, is too radical to pass. But I'd wager that's intentional. Knowing that negotiation will have to happen in order to get the bill passed, he proposed something extreme, so it would still be close to what he actually wanted when all was said and done.
I like the idea as described in general, but the devil is always in the details. Unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't cite a bill number or name, to my frustration. That makes it harder to go look at the text of the bill to see if it is indeed something I should support or not, or to contact my representative to voice my support or disapproval.
The article did mention it was introduced Thursday, so that does narrow it down somewhat, but after a quick search, I haven't found it yet.
This bill has a very-low likelihood of moving forward. It is a political statement. Its sponsor's might be dumb enough to actually want it, but I suspect they are just trying to score points and get media attention.
>Getting such a law passed does nothing to prevent a future law from saying the opposite.
What it does is make the proposal for the future law look like a much larger departure from the status quo, which makes it a harder sell. Furthermore, members of Congress don't like to change their positions for a number of reasons relating to both ego and what it allows election opponents to put in political advertisements, so if you can get them on record supporting your cause then you make them less likely to go against you in the future.
reply