As a diverse, well-representative, pro-democracy movement representing unfolds in autocratic Egypt, few politicians in the U.S. have stood firmly to call for an end to the current regime controlled by Hosni Mubarak and his political party. Worse, a growing chorus of Republicans have voiced sympathy for the current autocratic government and are on the record opposed to a democratic transition in Egypt.

The Mubarak regime has maintained a grip over Egypt for 30 years using torture, child labor, censorship, violent political repression, and other brutal violations of human rights. Most recently, reports indicate that agents of Mubarak’s government have attacked journalists, killed 300 protesters, and are currently detaining and beating other people caught demonstrating against Mubarak.

Yesterday, at a Tea Party Express event at the Press Club, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took questions from reporters. ThinkProgress asked Hatch about Glenn Beck’s latest absurd conspiracy theory that radical right-wing Muslim groups in Egypt are conspiring with left-wing progressives in America to create a “global caliphate.” Hatch dismissed the idea, telling us that he “hope[s] that’s not true.” However, he then told us that he has a personal relationship with Egypt’s autocratic leader, and that he “feel[s] sad that” Mubarak is “going through this”:

FANG: There’s been a theory that’s been out in Fox News and other places that the turmoil in Egypt has been planned by Islamists who are planning a global caliphate with Marxists in America and Western Europe. What do you think about that?

HATCH: We hope that’s not true. I know President Mubarak personally, he’s been a friend of America. I feel sad that he’s going through this. On the other hand, from what I see so far, the Muslim Brotherhood is not asking to be in the leadership in that country and they seem to be coming together under Suleiman and we’ll just have to see. We’re worried about it. And we should be worried about it because if the radical takes over, Egypt has been one of our best allies. It has helped maintain stability and peace in the Middle East. Mubarak deserves a lot of the credit for that. I’m not going to second guess the president or the current foreign policy establishment, but it does appear he can be a placeholder for the current position, but they’re going to move him out. That’s sad for America. I just the hope that the people who do take over keep relationship with America and maintain peace in the Middle East.

Watch it:

In our interview, Hatch ignored the Egyptian people being crushed under Mubarak’s boot and instead expressed remorse that Mubarak’s rule may have to end soon. However, Hatch did accurately repudiate fears that the Muslim Brotherhood will takeover Egypt. The Associated Press again confirmed today that the Muslim Brotherhood will not seek a leadership role in a post-Mubarak government.

Today, Utah’s immigration copycat bill was supposed to get its first hearing before a state House Committee. However, it appears the hearing has been delayed due to concerns over a recent report which detailed the cost of enforcing the bill. NECN reports:

The sponsor of an Arizona-style immigration law in the Utah House is delaying a hearing on the bill because of the high price tag for enforcement. House Bill 70 was due for a committee hearing Wednesday afternoon. But it was removed from the agenda Wednesday morning.

Republican Rep. Stephen Sandstrom of Orem says in a statement the cost estimates for local law enforcement aren’t accurate. A fiscal note attached to the bill says the program would cost local government between $5 million and $11 million. Sandstrom says the fiscal note doesn’t account for savings generated by reducing the number of illegal immigrants. He says it also doesn’t consider how much money is being spent by local governments on crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

The article is referring to financial data released by the Legislative Fiscal Analysts office this past Monday. According to the office, “the expense of his legislation would range between $5.3 million and $11.3 million.” After the news came out, the bill’s sponsor — state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R) — started scrambling to find solutions which might help offset the costs.

One proposal Sandstrom is reportedly mulling is imposing a one-percent fee on wire transfers from non-citizens in Utah to a foreign country. Yet, if Sandstrom actually succeeds in driving undocumented immigrants out of his state, he may have trouble raising any significant amount of money from that initiative. Another idea involves levying a fee on the existing driving privilege card, something which is mostly used by the undocumented immigrants he hopes will leave his state.

Meanwhile, the estimated cost doesn’t seem that far-fetched. If anything, it’s low-ball. I previously reported on a Kentucky fiscal-impact statement which estimated that an Arizona copycat law would cost the state a net $40 million a year in court, prison and foster-care costs. That estimate did include savings from removing undocumented immigrants from the state.

Finally, neither of these reports included what the states will lose in the form of lost tax revenue and business activity. A 2008 study estimated that, if Utah successfully removed all of its undocumented immigrants, it would lose $2.3 billion in economic activity, $1.0 billion in gross state product, and approximately 14,219 jobs.

Last week, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) seemed to be stepping up to cast doubt on the Afghan strategy. He told the Boston Globe that U.S. policy in Afghanistan should not be allowed to “continue […] simply because it is there and in place.” Kerry pledged to hold hearings reviewing the strategy in the spring. CAP’s Colin Cookman noted that this provides an opportunity to challenge assumptions that “went largely unchallenged in the White House’s own review released last December.”

Kerry’s comments were interpreted by the Globe as a sign that the Massachusetts Senator would become an outspoken critic of the policy. Kerry, however backtracked and moderated his comments, insisting he just wanted to “tweak” the policy.

That’s a shame. The absence of a strong voice from progressive political leaders has weakened the hand of those advocating for a more aggressive timeline for withdrawal within the administration. The Afghan war is crying out for a voice like Kerry’s to call for a draw-down of our military forces. Kerry has an opportunity to play the role that the late Congressman Jack Murtha played on Iraq. While the two are very different, the fact is that Kerry’s closeness with the administration would make his public calls for withdrawal from Afghanistan a huge deal.

Currently Democrats on the Hill have fallen in line behind the President’s policy. That was understandable. But as the accounts from Bob Woodward’s book indicate, the administration is itself deeply divided on what to do and has often muddled through in formulating its policy. This is where Kerry could play a hugely important role. By arguing for a more rapid transition and draw-down of US forces, Kerry would increase the credibility of the withdrawal position and create cover for other progressive political leaders to become more outspoken in their opposition to endlessly staying in Afghanistan.

The administration may feel it is stuck. Having laid out the strategy, it doesn’t want to admit failure. But the war is incredibly unpopular with the American people. The clear difficulties being encountered in Afghanistan and the unlikelihood that the current approach will yield any results led to a slew of think tank reports this fall. The National Security Network surmised:

A consensus has quietly emerged among experts across the centrist-realist-progressive spectrum on a way forward in Afghanistan… This fall, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress, the Afghanistan Study Group and the Center for a New American Security all issued reports on Afghanistan that — perhaps surprisingly — largely agreed [that] … A military drawdown must begin in 2011, moving faster, not slower, if progress is lacking.

Kerry and Congressional leaders can help unstuck the debate and force a realistic hard-nosed assessment of the current course in Afghanistan. As Cookman points out:

Congressional leaders have a responsibility to the American public and the Afghan people to bring new scrutiny to our Afghan strategy if the transition is to develop into something more meaningful than an ever-shifting date continuously put off into the future.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is apparently seeking to pass a “lesser version” of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, a bill which would provide young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents with a path to legalization once they fulfill the necessary education or military service requirements. Hutchison voted against the DREAM Act this past December despite the fact that undocumented students were hunger striking in front of her office for weeks. Now, she’s suggesting that she supports the DREAM Act and always has — without the citizenship clause. The San Antonio Express News reports:

Hutchison, R-Texas, told the San Antonio group that she could not support legislation that includes “amnesty” provisions of citizenship, which was included in the DREAM Act. Instead, she said, she wants a bill that would protect foreign-born students and those who serve in the military from being deported — but would not want them to receive automatic citizenship here.

“To me, it is a clear-cut issue that we should not deport young people who have been educated in our school, who many times have a college education, who we encourage to go to college,” Hutchison said. [...]

Hutchison said she did not support the DREAM Act because of the citizenship provision — a key component in the bill supported by Democrats, Latino rights organizations and immigration advocacy groups. “But I’m working on a new DREAM Act proposal because I think there is a group of people who had no part in coming into this country illegally,” Hutchison said.

What’s odd about Hutchison’s statements is that the DREAM Act that was proposed in December did not include a citizenship provision to begin with. Even the San Antonio Express News journalist who reported on the story got it wrong. The DREAM Act would’ve given qualifying undocumented immigrants the opportunity to adjust their illegal status. A “path to legalization” isn’t just a talking point as the people who cry amnesty always claim. It’s actually what the bill provides. The legislation which Hutchison opposed just a couple of months ago would’ve granted young undocumented immigrants conditional nonimmigrant status for ten years. After that, once all the criteria are met, they could have obtained lawful permanent resident status. If they wanted to become citizens, they would have had to wait another three years to apply and go through all the naturalization steps just as any other immigrant does.

Hutchison isn’t the only politician who has apparently never read the DREAM Act. Newt Gingrich (R) and Howard Dean (D) recently debated the merits of the legislation based on the mistaken presumption that the DREAM Act conferred citizenship. “You can not give citizenship to people who — you can not jump past millions of people around the planet who are obeying the law, waiting their turn to come here,” declared Gingrich. “I would support finding a way for residency…if you have come here under certain circumstances and you were clearly a minor,” he confirmed. “Residency is very different than citizenship.” Indeed, it is and the DREAM Act makes that distinction.

Of course the difference between Gingrich and Hutchison is that that Hutchison apparently voted on a bill that she didn’t bother to understand. (Gingrich just chooses to ignorantly debate the legislation). With that said, Hutchison’s turnabout is a welcomed move. Hopefully, if she does introduce some sort of DREAM Act legislation, she’ll encourage all of her Republican colleagues to actually read it.