There was some fear that Republicans would introduce an amendment barring illegal immigrants who worked at Ground Zero from aid under the $7.4 billion proposal. If this happened, moderate Democrats reportedly hoped House leadership would remove the bill from the floor to prevent them from a contentious vote close to the election.

The fear turned out to be baseless: No such an amendment was proposed, and those who opposed the bill argued about finances, not illegal workers. “This legislation as written creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund…open to abuse, fraud and waste,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said during the debate Wednesday.

The bill passed 268 to 160, with 17 Republicans voting for the measure and 3 Democrats voting against it.

The previous fight over the bill was over whether amendments should be offered, leading Republicans to vote down efforts to move forward with the bill. This time, some seem more likely to support it, but they may try to include an amendment to ban benefits from going to illegal immigrants who worked at Ground Zero.

The Wall Street Journal does not exactly promise Republican action — “it’s not clear that they will do so tomorrow,” they write — but the possibility has some Democrats worried anyway. Unnamed moderate Democrats facing tough elections in November reportedly have told Democratic leaders they want to avoid voting on such an amendment.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office declined to comment to the Journal on whether she would pull the bill off the floor if an amendment blocking illegal immigrants is offered.

Thanks to the beauty of the internet, however, someone was able to dig it back up again:

This morning, the Carnahan campaign fired back:

“Congressman Blunt’s desperate attempt to avoid talking about his role in the $700 billion bailout by exploiting victims and families of the 9-11 tragedies is the very worst kind of Washington politics,” said Robin Carnahan. “Congressman Blunt should immediately own up to what he did, take responsibility for it, and apologize to the families of the 9-11 victims, whose tragedy he exploited for his own personal political benefit.”

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam.  The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong.  But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.  In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

The Muslim community center in New York is just one of a number of planned mosques and Islamic centers around the country about which a slew of conservatives have drummed up controversy by arguing — with no shortage of inflammatory language – against their existence or placement. The Anti-Defamation League, which describes itself as “the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry,” is making a puzzling move by aligning themselves, however obliquely, with some of the hate speech of those who have come out against the proposed Islamic Center.

During the session, she declined to say whether she will endorse indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens or Rep. Don Young. Jury selection in Stevens’ corruption trial finished yesterday in Washington. Young himself is under federal investigation for corruption as well.

“Ted Stevens’ trial started a couple days ago. We’ll see where that goes,” she told reporters in what amounted to her first press conference since accepting the Republican vice presidential nomination.

She ignored a follow-up question on whether she would vote for Stevens and Young and wouldn’t say whether she would have done anything differently than the Bush administration in its war on terror.

“I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them,” she said. “We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy, but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.”

She deflected a follow-up question about whether she felt the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflamed Islamic extremists.

“I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. Do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction, terrible destruction on that day. But since September 11, Americans are uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.”

Palin also withheld her support for the Washington bailout package being negotiated in Washington “until the provisions that Sen. McCain has offered are implemented in Paulson’s proposals.”

On the bright side, the McCain campaign appears to have finally succumbed to pressure to allow Palin to talk to the reporters assigned to cover her — now all they need to do is get her to offer substantive answers to their questions.

It is also a day to celebrate a common purpose, said Obama, who is making a rare joint appearance with Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee, to show unity.  But Obama did not shrink from noting the prickly fact that hangs over every 9/11 anniversary this nation has observed:

Let us remember that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are still at large, and must be brought to justice.

Obama has also used the attention on 9/11 to reiterate his foreign-policy differences with President George W. Bush and McCain. Responding to a question about Bush and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, last night Obama told David Letterman:

I think Giuliani deserves credit.  He kept calm and he was clear.  You know, I still remember your show after it happened and how moving that was.  That was one of the most powerful moments on television.  I think that George Bush did the right thing by going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, and I would have done the exact same thing. And the big difference between myself and George Bush I think would have been to stay focused on Afghanistan — not get distracted by Iraq.

I think we would have tamped down Al Qaeda — we could have, if not captured or killed Bin Laden, at least made sure that they weren’t setting up the kind of base camps that have now reconstituted themselves, so they’ve got safe haven in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Sept. 11 is a day to “put aside politics,” says the conventional wisdom. We could all use a break from attack ads.

But it is also a day to embrace American values — which include democracy and robust debate. There may be no better day for Americans to hear out Obama’s foreign-policy arguments, and to consider whether Bush-McCain neo-conservatism has succeeded in catching bin Laden, or going on offense against the right targets. Or making the country safer.

“We will put aside politics and come together to renew that unity, to honor the memory of each and every American who died, and to grieve with the families and friends who lost loved ones,” said both presidential candidates in an unusual joint statement released in advance of the trip.

Even if the plan has mostly noble intentions, however, it is hard to imagine both campaigns completely putting politics “aside” on this one.

President Bush at Ground Zero (WhiteHouse.gove photo)

To the contrary, the very willingness of the GOP to share a 9/11 stage reflects a massive shift in terror politics.

In the last presidential election, Republicans bluntly ran as the party of 9/11. They put their convention in bright blue Manhattan for the sole purpose of making the 9/11 attacks “a primary theme of the convention.”

Sept. 11 was not a day for unity, in the GOP narrative; it was a day when people across the country were “glad” that “George Bush and Dick Cheney were in the White House,” as Lynne Cheney said in her 2004 convention speech.

Now, the Republican nominee presumably sees some gain in appearing with a Democrat on 9/11 — either to show another break with Bush-style politics, or perhaps in the hope that some of Obama’s calm, post-partisan sheen will wear off on him.

No matter what, Ground Zero remains a salient site for political symbolism and images. President George W. Bush’s bullhorn moment, indelibly burned in the public imagination of fans and critics alike, would not have worked anywhere else.

Michael Shaw, a psychologist who dissects political imagery at BagNewsNotes.com, tells TWI the images should be a net gain for Obama:

It puts Obama and McCain on equal footing. In the short run, given the RNC attacks on Obama as an empty suit, the joint appearance in such a solemn patriotic situation — both deriving benefit form the “America first”/ security context — helps level the playing field again.

While the headlines have focused on the nominees appearing together, Shaw predicts another participant could upend things:

The real visual key to the day will be the presence of Hillary Clinton. As N.Y. senator, and the most weighty and compelling female politician in the country, pictures of this emotionally charged and visually compelling event will allow Hillary to substantially return to the media sphere as not just the counterbalance to Palin, but the far more powerful and credible symbol between the two campaigns when it comes to gender politics.

Even putting politics aside, it is sure to be a striking day for politics.