[posted by Justin Levine] 

It is interesting to revisit some of my thoughts on the subject nearly 3 years ago. Perhaps I’m being naive here, but I honestly believe if [Republican] Congressman David Drier had been successfully voted out of office in 2004’s “Political Human Sacrifice“, the Republicans would have gotten the message then, and would not be in the trouble that they are now. Obviously talk radio, blog posts and Time Magazine cover stories were not enough to send the message to Washington on how important this issue has been to many people.

It is also interesting to read the comments from back then to revisit just how controversial the idea was to vote a single Republican out of office in order to send a broader message on immigration. I wonder if people have any second thoughts on this strategy in hindsight after the events of the last week.

Unfortunately, I can’t find any of Hugh Hewitt’s early blog archives from 2004 when he remained a Bush/Drier apologist over the illegal immigration issue. His views since then have become more (ahem)…nuanced. Let me stress that I never want to blame people for having second thoughts and a legitimate change of heart over an issue. I know that I have. Recently though, Hewitt was still blaming the messenger over the immigration issue and writing howlers such as this: “The GOP spent the late summer and fall talking about illegal immigration and running from the fallout of the Mark Foley scandal, only to discover that while the passions on the immigration issue run deep, they don’t run very wide.” (emphasis added.)

Would Hewitt still support this statement after the events of this week? At the very least, I’d like to hear more details on how his thinking has evolved on this issue beyond the purely surface aspects of helping Republicans gain political advantage in Washington.

The Washington Times this morning offers some hope that the amnesty bill may not be a done deal:

Fewer than 20 senators are publicly committed to supporting the immigration deal that hits the Senate floor today while nearly 40 are already opposed or have serious concerns, underscoring how difficult it will be for President Bush and his allies to craft a coalition that can pass the bill.

A Washington Times survey of Senate offices and public comments after the deal was announced Thursday found an additional 32 senators who said they cannot even take a position yet — a result of the fact that the deal was written in secret by a dozen senators and the Bush administration, wasn’t even finalized until yesterday and still hasn’t reached many Senate offices.

Anybody opposed to the bill should contact their Senator and say so.