Hawkins also offers this gratifying, but probably overoptimisitc paragraph:
I talked to my source about the shots Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham have taken at people opposed to the bill. My source replied that when this whole thing started, these guys were cocky and thought they'd get this bill through with 70 votes, no problem. But now, because of the blogs and talk radio, they've lost the public debate on the issue and they know it. So, at this point, they're way out on a limb supporting a wildly unpopular bill that may or may not pass, and they're lashing out in frustration. He added that a lot of Republican senators have been offended and embarrassed by their comments and are worried that the voters will lump them in with Graham and Lott.
Poor noble Graham's home state approval seems to be tanking. ... If, as The Hill reports, Graham
is not thought of as a top Democratic target
in 2008, the Dems need to think some more. ... 10:51 A.M.
Sen. Reid ... is still holding out a remote possibility of having the first cloture vote tomorrow night (Friday) after 7 p.m.
That "first cloture" vote would only be a vote to take up the bill, not a vote to limit debate. ... Friday evening is a good time to sneak an unpopular bill onto the floor. It's also a good time to kill a bill without getting too much negative publicity. ... Update: First cloture vote put off until Tuesday. 1:24 A.M.
Sen. Trent Lott, a key righteous supporter of the "comprehensive" immigration reform, compares illegal immigrants to "goats" ("maybe not as agile") who might be stopped by an "electrified" fence, then says it was only "an analogy" and generally flails around in dehumanizing semi-coherence. A prize to the MSM outlet that first portrays Lott's comments in a way that makes it seem as if the opponents of the bill were the racists. ... Bonus points if the story forgets who said we would be better off if segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected in 1948. ... 1:18 A.M.
Prof. Borjas findsanother bit of sleaziness in that Council of Economic Advisers "White Paper" claiming "annual wage gains from immigration" of "between $30 billion and $80 billion." It seems that's only the gain to "US natives," and conveniently omits losses to already-present immigrants. Borjas:
[T]he CEA uses a strange definition of who "we" are: including only native-born workers and ignoring the millions of immigrants already here who are affected by yet more immigrants.