MacRanger wonders why the Senate - and President Bush - are going to try again. There are several reasons. Part of it is because President Bush has his dander up after five years of abuse from his “allies” on this issue. Face it, one can only take so much of being called a “sell-out” or “traitor” before one is compelled to fight back. Part of it is because he really believe this approach is best for the country - it is a matter of principle for him. Finally, he campaigned on this issue in 2000 and 2004 - and having been elected, he feels a moral obligation to enact the agenda he campaigned on.

There is one other reason: President Bush may honestly see this situation as somewhat parallel to something his father had to deal with in 1991. Not Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, but something domestic - specifically, David Duke’s run for governor of Louisiana as the GOP nominee. In essence, Duke had managed to take advantage of Louisiana’s open primary system and people’s disdain for the establishment. But it didn’t change the fact that the man’s beliefs are morally reprehensible.
AJ-Strata has some examples, but two columns from Linda Chavez really lay out how President Bush could be flashing back to what his father had to deal with in 1991.

The column at Jewish World Review is something that should cause the powers that be at Townhall.com to hang their heads in shame. By allowing the abusive comments she quoted to stand, they have not only allowed the debate to coarsen, but they have also made it easier for the left to perpetuate the usual canards about conservatives being racist and/or bigoted. Those comments, by the way, are not the only ones. Go back months or years, and you will find those sorts of things on any immigration column she has done.

Her first article - a long one at National Review Online - goes into much further detail. It speaks a lot about how the words used in this debate can cause a lot of problems. Furthermore, if half of the stuff about FAIR in her article is true, then it again speaks to a very significant lapse of judgment on the part of some on the right - they have become involved with people who would otherwise be rejected on moral and ethical grounds.

Linda Chavez is very quick to add that this is not all the bill’s opponents. I agree with her on that 100%. But I am about to go a little further than she did. In recent years, conservatism has been very lax about policing its own on this issue. In essence, some very problematic stuff was ignored for whatever reason. Eventually, as is usually the case in the Age of Google, the stuff will come out. And then, another cycle of name-calling and charges will begin. Both sides will be partially right. On the one hand, one cannot accuse Linda Chavez or Lindsey Graham of playing the race card - there seems to be enough to back up those claims. On the other hand, the broad bushes have come out - on both sides, and often they have been used in the heat of the moment.

There’s not going to be a very pleasant way for this to end. Neither side can really back down. Too many are either unwilling to admit they are wrong, or are afraid they will somehow look weak by working out a deal everyone can live with. Perhaps we on the right are doomed to ongoing internecine warfare on this issue at this point.

I hope not, but there just seems to be no way to avoid this upcoming fight. Then again, a part of me that I’m not so sure I like is looking forward to it.