Ron Brownstein, who I, to say the least, don't always agree with-he seems to be another media member like David Brooks or Bob Woodward who seems to believe in bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship; I always say that if the Republicans wanted to build concentration camps and the Dems didn't, Brownstein and Brooks would criticize the Dems in insisting on no concentration camps-'The Congressional Republicans want 50 camps and Obama wants 0 so let's just have 15 or 20'-has written a pretty interesting column. Here he may be right about 2016 and I hope he is: that it will be a referendum on Obama's executive action on immigration.
"It didn't take long for the potential 2016 presidential contenders to retreat to separate corners last week after President Obama announced his executive action providing legal status to some 5 million undocumented immigrants.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/battling-into-overtime-20141124
I mean it's like being the coach of the NFL's best secondary and the team your playing this Sunday is the Jets with Geno Smith at Quarterback-I want that matchup. .
I wonder if the GOP leadership really wants it. To just be explicit about this: We're the party of deportation, the party that would rather see the sky fall than have Latinos in this country.
He also argues that the GOP will run against Obama in 2016 as well on ACA-that's a certainty-and climate change as well as foreign policy. Everything Obama has done, the 2016 GOP candidates will be against. I think this is a very good matchup for the Dems-especially on immigration but I don't think running against ACA is such a winner either. What the GOP narrative that 2014 was about Obamacare never explains is how Obama one in 2012 then as his defeat would have set the GOP to overturn it.
But fighting against immigration reform is a real albatross. I said back in 2012 that the GOP wouldn't learn: learning at the time being defined as nothing more than passing immigration. Now they've not just failed to pass it but are going to run against it. From a Democratic standpoint this is perfect.
This is why the leadership is so upset and why McConnell was giving those overwrought warnings about waving 'red in front of a bull'-he didn't really mean this would be a big problem for Obama but his own party. I believe Obama's policy was the correct one on principle-it makes great sense economically, it's just the humane thing to do-but politically as well, it's just pure gold.
Realistically now, if you as a Latino or an immigration advocate or anyone who supports it-like myself, while I'm not Latino I see it's just the right thing to do-want something done on immigration you need Democrats elected. Not just President either, so maybe motivation for off year elections might finally improve among many Democratic demographics, particularly Latinos-who it has been admitted have been poor voters till now.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/thank-you-fernando-espuelas-for-saying.html
Hopefully now it's clear to them that they will get the immigration policies they want if they get out and vote Democratic every 2 years.
More generally, the way to get liberal or progressive policies done is vote for Democrats which I know Jane Hamsher and friends can never face. They want some grand socialist revolution, apparently. If you don't know what I mean read their comments section some time.
"It didn't take long for the potential 2016 presidential contenders to retreat to separate corners last week after President Obama announced his executive action providing legal status to some 5 million undocumented immigrants.
As quickly as Hillary Clinton tweeted her support for Obama's explosive decision, a procession of possible 2016 Republican candidates condemned it. In the process, both sides underscored the likelihood that the next presidential election will function as a sort of sudden-death overtime for the confrontations already escalating between Obama and congressional Republicans, not only on immigration, but also climate, health care, and foreign policy.
The public's assessment of a retiring president always shadows the race to replace him: In exit polls, attitudes about the overall job performance of Ronald Reagan in 1988, Bill Clinton in 2000, and George W. Bush in 2008 powerfully predicted whether voters supported his party's choice to succeed him.
But in those elections, the party nominees actually spent relatively little time debating whether to maintain the outgoing president's specific policy agenda. In 1988, Democrat Michael Dukakis largely avoided Reagan. In 2000, Bush handled Clinton mostly through his oblique promise to restore "honor and dignity to the White House" (though as president Bush later revoked Clinton initiatives in such areas as stem-cell research and climate). In 2008, Obama criticized the outgoing Bush's direction more directly, particularly on national security, but still primarily looked forward.
In its early laps, the 2016 race is unfolding very differently. The Obama immigration decision provoked an eruption from the leading potential Republican presidential candidates, including those, like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and that state's former Gov. Jeb Bush, who have previously supported a legislated pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Whatever else they say about immigration, those reactions suggest it is likely that every major 2016 Republican presidential candidate will pledge to repeal Obama's sweeping executive action.
I mean it's like being the coach of the NFL's best secondary and the team your playing this Sunday is the Jets with Geno Smith at Quarterback-I want that matchup. .
I wonder if the GOP leadership really wants it. To just be explicit about this: We're the party of deportation, the party that would rather see the sky fall than have Latinos in this country.
He also argues that the GOP will run against Obama in 2016 as well on ACA-that's a certainty-and climate change as well as foreign policy. Everything Obama has done, the 2016 GOP candidates will be against. I think this is a very good matchup for the Dems-especially on immigration but I don't think running against ACA is such a winner either. What the GOP narrative that 2014 was about Obamacare never explains is how Obama one in 2012 then as his defeat would have set the GOP to overturn it.
But fighting against immigration reform is a real albatross. I said back in 2012 that the GOP wouldn't learn: learning at the time being defined as nothing more than passing immigration. Now they've not just failed to pass it but are going to run against it. From a Democratic standpoint this is perfect.
This is why the leadership is so upset and why McConnell was giving those overwrought warnings about waving 'red in front of a bull'-he didn't really mean this would be a big problem for Obama but his own party. I believe Obama's policy was the correct one on principle-it makes great sense economically, it's just the humane thing to do-but politically as well, it's just pure gold.
Realistically now, if you as a Latino or an immigration advocate or anyone who supports it-like myself, while I'm not Latino I see it's just the right thing to do-want something done on immigration you need Democrats elected. Not just President either, so maybe motivation for off year elections might finally improve among many Democratic demographics, particularly Latinos-who it has been admitted have been poor voters till now.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/thank-you-fernando-espuelas-for-saying.html
Hopefully now it's clear to them that they will get the immigration policies they want if they get out and vote Democratic every 2 years.
More generally, the way to get liberal or progressive policies done is vote for Democrats which I know Jane Hamsher and friends can never face. They want some grand socialist revolution, apparently. If you don't know what I mean read their comments section some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment