You have told constituents in private meetings that you’re involved in a lot of bipartisan work behind the scenes. If so, why do you then negate that work in your public statements and in your legislative approach?
Before the House passed your immigration bills last Thursday, your press release headline read: “Goodlatte: House Republicans are Delivering on Promise to Strengthen Immigration Enforcement.” While your anti-sanctuary bill did receive almost exclusive GOP support (I didn’t check names, but 195 Representatives voted against it, and 193 Representatives in the House are Democrats), your so-called “Kate’s Law” passed with the help of 24 Democrats. That’s about 1/7th of the Democrats in the House, so not a resounding bipartisan effort, but still, I applaud the movement in a centrist direction. Why aren’t you?
So you wrote one bill that hardens the Democrat-Republican divide and one that begins the more difficult and important job of building bridges. Which of the two bill do you think has any chance in the Senate?
Similar bills were defeated there last term when the GOP held 54 seats. Now they hold 52. And that slim margin applies only if eight Democrats join all of the Republicans to reach 60 votes to end any filibusters. Maybe Kate’s Law will achieve those thresholds. But why did you write and promote it in such a partisan way knowing that you needed Democratic support for it to reach the President’s desk? Why not craft bills with Democrats in mind? Or at least in such a way that doesn’t intentionally repel them? Why not take advantage of the vast middle ground instead of always pandering to the far right?
I understand why you might feel the need to waste so much legislative time and effort making pointless political statements on an election year, but six months into a new session is a bipartisan opportunity you’re squandering for no reason.