Yesterday on ThinkProgress, we wrote that, after the conference for the energy bill closed, Tom DeLay slipped in “a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas.” Specifically, the provision was written to benefit an consortium located in DeLay’s home district.

In today’s Boston Globe, Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, disagreed:

“We don’t see this as a sweetheart deal for anyone.” Wicker said.

In case you had any doubts, check out this article about the provision, just published by the Houston Business Journal:

The final draft of the energy bill expected to be approved this weekend by House and Senate negotiators contains a research funding provision long awaited by a Sugar Land energy consortium…The Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center has been counting on this source of funding ever since it was established two years ago…In 2003, the consortium was awarded $31 million in state economic development funds, but that funding later evaporated under regulations that stymied the consortium’s access to the money. The TEC has been basically on hold since then, waiting and hoping for federal funding to revive its mission.

Seems pretty clear to me.

When asked for reaction to the comments of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) about the treatment of detainees held at Guanatananmo Bay, the administration did not hesitate to attack the statements:

Q How do you take Senator Durbin’s comments? What’s your response to his comments?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, this is, I’m sure, a family program, Steve. I have to be careful what I say. (Laughter.) I thought Durbin was totally out of line But I just — it was so far over the top that I’m just appalled that anybody who serves in the United States Senate would even think those thoughts.

Q How is the President reacting to [Senator Durbin's comments]?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the Senator’s remarks are reprehensible simply beyond belief.

So the question at today’s press briefing about the remarks of Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) certainly seemed like a softball:

QUESTION: Representative Tom Tancredo recently suggested that taking out Muslim holy sites might be a good way to fight terrorism. Now, his statement has been showing up in newspapers throughout the Muslim world. Will the White House ask Mr. Tancredo to apologize and retract his statement as it did with Senator Durbin?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, I think the State Department actually addressed this issue right at the time and they expressed the views of the administration. The president has made very clear that it Islam is a religion that teaches peace and that it is a proud and great religion. And he stated his views on it.

A United States congressman calls for the bombing of Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, refuses to apologize, and this is the best McClellan could come up with. Bombing Mecca isn’t “reprehensible” or “simply beyond belief”?

On Tuesday, we released an immigration report that proved, for the first time, how financially reckless a mass deportation policy would be. We found that the cost of deporting 80 percent of the undocumented immigrants currently in the United States (we presumed 20 percent would leave voluntarily) to be at least $206 billion over 5 years. That’s $41.2 billion each year — more than the ’06 budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

Already, the report has been forcing right-wingers used to whipping up anti-immigrant hysteria to finally face up to a bit of reality. For years, some of the most prominent figures in this debate, like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), have thrown around mass deportation as a reasonable solution to our immigration problems. But in the last two days, prominent figures on the right, including Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, and conservative immigration analyst Mark Krikorian have disowned their threats and blustering, and now deny ever supporting a mass deportation policy.

Perhaps these reformed voices will actually work towards a practical resolution of our country’s immigration issues. Maybe they can ask the White House to get off the sidelines and start doing the hard work to help forge a compromise between the McCain/Kennedy bill and Cornyn/Kyl for real immigration reform that will help our country?

– Raj Goyle

P.S. If you’re interested in this issue, I’ll be discussing it in a Moving Ideas discussion from 2-3 pm. Mark Krikorian will also be participating, so expect some fireworks.

The day of the Roberts nomination felt like one minute to Doomsday–until John Roberts’ name was announced. Washington was expecting a slash-and-burn conservative like Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown. Instead we got a tabula rasa, a man with virtually no record.

This is hardly an unfamiliar position.

Fourteen years ago, the last President Bush nominated an equally blank slate to sit on the Supreme Court. Read more