ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [214] -- Rubio Talks, Obama Acts

[ Posted Friday, June 15th, 2012 – 15:51 PDT ]

Marco Rubio's chances of becoming Mitt Romney's running mate just got a little worse. Granted, he is still a senator from Florida -- the biggest prize among the "battleground" states this November. But Rubio's signature issue was just completely and brilliantly co-opted by President Obama, which tends to significantly lessen Rubio's value to Romney as a vice presidential choice.

Obama today announced that a large chunk of the "DREAMers" would be allowed to stay in America, and even given work papers (or "green" cards, even though they haven't actually been green for years). The original Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (or "DREAM Act") proposed by Democrats would have gone further than what Obama announced today, and given children brought to this country as minors who entered college or the military a "path to citizenship." Obama announced today that illegal immigrant young people will not be given a chance to walk this path quite yet, but will be able to legalize their status and live free of the fear of being deported to a country many of them do not even remember. Obama's action today is not a complete answer to the thorny problem of illegal immigration, but it is a step towards a comprehensive solution -- and a step in the right direction.

Where Marco Rubio fits into all this is an interesting example of the tightrope Republicans have been walking on the immigration issue for the past ten or twenty years. The Republicans refused to allow the original Democratic DREAM Act to pass Congress. When the Republicans took the House in 2010, it was pretty much seen as a dead issue. In the same election, Marco Rubio, son of Cuban-American immigrants, won a Senate seat in Florida. Seen as a rising star within the Republican Party, and one of its few Latino up-and-comers, Rubio made news when he decided to get out in front of the DREAM Act issue. Attempting to soften his party's rhetoric and political stance on illegal immigration, Rubio proposed a watered-down version of the DREAM Act, which would not provide any sort of path to citizenship. Even before he put forth this idea, he was already being talked about as possible veep material in Republican circles. Rubio's version of the DREAM Act was a big enticement for establishment Republicans who can read a demographic map and are worried about their future prospects if they lose the Latino vote forever.

The House Republicans, however, didn't see things this way at all. They let it be known that even Rubio's version of the DREAM Act was still a dead-on-arrival bill in their chamber (with gratuitous use of the word "amnesty," naturally). Mitt Romney, the party's frontrunner, waffled on the whole DREAM Act question -- saying he wouldn't sign the Democratic version as president, and expressing limited support for the idea that young people who serve in the military might be given some sort of consideration. Romney was, to be blunt, painted into a corner of his own creation. During the primary season, Romney had moved far, far to the right on the immigration question (including suggesting that all illegal immigrants "self-deport" themselves), and thus if Romney appreciably changed his position now he would be seen as even more of an "Etch A Sketch" guy than ever.

Marco Rubio, smartly, never actually drew up a bill. He left his concept vague, which reduced his exposure to his own party's hard-liners in the House, and made it easier for Romney to be similarly vague in his limited support for Rubio's idea. Inside the Beltway, many were betting that Rubio's plan would never actually see the light of day as a piece of legislation, for precisely these reasons. Rubio's plan was an asset, in the abstract, but once it became concrete it would have been picked apart by his own party.

Which left the big opening that Barack Obama just strode through. Rubio may have enjoyed talking a good game on his DREAM Act (which remained but a nebulous daydream within his own head), but now Obama has made his own version a reality, by one stroke of the executive pen. Since Rubio never let anyone know the concrete details of his plan it is impossible to say with any sort of precision, but given what vague talk there was about his plan, it seems that what President Obama just did co-opts pretty much everything Rubio was proposing to do, in one fell swoop.

In other words, Rubio talks while Obama acts.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

OK, this is pretty far inside the Beltway here, but the hilarity value is off the charts, so here we go. An Honorable Mention goes out to the "One Hitters" -- the softball team for the medical marijuana lobby -- who beat the White House softball team this week by the brutal score of 25-3. We mention this so you can suggest your own headline, in the comments. The Washington Post went with "White House softball team smoked by pot lobby's bats," which isn't bad, but there are far better creative ways to go, we'd bet. Perhaps "White House crushed, twisted up, and blunted by pot lobby's bats," for example? Anyway, we look forward to your ideas. No drug tests will be required for entry. Ahem.

In an entirely different direction, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is standing up for herself in a way Democrats don't normally even attempt. Senator Jeff Sessions tried last week to massively cut food stamps. Fair enough, it's what Republicans do, after all. But he had the temerity to rip into Gillibrand, when she tried to denounce the cuts. Sessions asked, on the floor of the Senate: "Is that a moral vision for the United States of America, just to see how many people we can place in a situation where they're dependent on the federal government for their food?" This is normally the point -- where morality is interjected into politics by Republicans -- that Democrats crumble into a spineless blob of jelly. Gillibrand did not. She answered back with: "In Matthew 25, the first question Christ asks on Judgment Day is, 'Did you feed the poor?' It's unacceptable that we have Republican advocates who are saying it's immoral to support food stamps."

Well done, Senator! It's simply amazing how many supposedly-Christian Republicans have seemingly skipped over all the parts in the Bible where Jesus talks about the poor, and it is a point that Democrats should have made long ago. For doing so in such elegant fashion this week, Kirsten Gillibrand is awarded her own Honorable Mention this week.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award was won hands-down by Barack Obama's late entry on immigration reform. Now, some might quibble that it's really really late for Obama to have acted. This is a good point. But act he did, and he did act boldly. The rest of this column explains why, so we're not going to harp on it again here, but President Obama has more than earned this week's MIDOTW award for wielding the executive pen in such a dramatic fashion. Political? Oh, surely. Election-year pandering? Probably, to some extent. We simply don't care, though. It's a step in the right direction, it's a step long overdue, and it's the right thing to do no matter how politics enters into it. Obama, long about last summer, gave up on compromising with congressional Republicans and ever since has been exploring ways to use methods available to him which don't require congressional action. Today's move is one of the more dramatic Obama has taken in this direction.

So whatever the quibbles exist on the sidelines, we're absolutely convinced that President Obama was the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. Well done, Mister President.

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

I hesitate to even mention this first one, mostly because it doesn't seem the Romney camp has picked up on it yet. There was a little non-story earlier this week, when Barack Obama visited a restaurant and left without paying the check. This error was soon rectified once it was discovered, but the problem for Obama is that it does take the punch out of a line he's been using to great effect on the campaign trail. Obama has taken to using a metaphor to describe the economic situation he was left with when he came into office and the subsequent complaints from Republicans on budgetary matters. The metaphor's a good one and takes some form of the following: "We all sat down to eat at a restaurant and then the Republicans skipped out on the bill -- and now they're the ones saying 'who ordered all these steaks and martinis?' " You can immediately see the problem. Obama's metaphor briefly became Obama's reality, and not in any sort of way that helps him. For this gaffe, we award a (Dis-)Honorable Mention to whatever staffer was supposed to be responsible for paying for the meal. Your lapse may have made it a lot harder for Obama to ever use this metaphor again (although maybe not, since as I said both the media and the Romney camp seem to have decided to take a pass on this story).

Minor transgressions aside, the winner of this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is House member Peter DeFazio of Oregon. In a debate over transportation and infrastructure spending, DeFazio decided it would be a good idea to ask (possibly of Republican Paul Broun personally, and possibly, as DeFazio later claimed, of the whole Republican Party): "Why do you hate this country so much?"

When asked about the statement later by Politico, DeFazio doubled down on his statement:

I'm tired of their [Republicans'] craziness, and we just need to push back with rhetoric that is as tough as theirs. I meant what I said. Why do they hate the country so much that they don't want to make those needed investments to put millions of people to work? It's just that they hate Obama so much they want the economy to fail. That's all I can figure out. Either that or they're just nuts. One or the other and I said both those things. And I stand by it.

Now this may seem a reasonable statement to Democratic partisans. It seems to many rank-and-file Democrats that Republicans do, in fact, hate President Obama. But we have to strongly disagree on DeFazio crossing this line.

"But Chris," you may say, "you do similar things here each week, and offer up scathing denouncements of Republicans as a matter of course." Well, that's true. I certainly understand DeFazio's reasoning.

But consider for a moment how Democrats felt when their patriotism was questioned in the entire Iraq War and post-9/11 era. It happened far too frequently, and was sometimes direct and sometimes hidden. Republicans regularly and repeatedly flung the charge that Democrats were somehow not patriotic enough for supporting this policy or that.

They were wrong to do so, and DeFazio is wrong to make the same assumption now -- that a Republican (or Republicans in general) "hate this country" for not supporting a transportation bill. There are several terms for this sort of thing, and they are all quite ugly: jingoism, witch-hunting, and McCarthyism spring immediately to mind.

Democrats: be consistent. If you denounced questions of your patriotism from Republicans in years past, then you simply cannot stand idly by and not denounce such accusations when one of your own does it. Even accusing a political opponent of hating President Obama is one thing. But accusations of hating America are simply a bridge too far, in our opinion.

For crossing this line, Pete DeFazio is this week's winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Contact Representative Peter DeFazio on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 214 (6/15/12)

There were all sorts of things which were worth talking about this week, but Obama's announcement this morning pretty much pre-empted all of it, which resulted in today's one-subject column. Oh, and I should mention that I returned from the Netroots Nation conference early this week, which is why there was no FTP column last week.

As always, the following talking points are offered up to both politicos being interviewed on television this week as well as to Democrats everywhere who want a few snappy lines to use in political discussions around the water cooler, backyard barbeque, or the like.

 

1
   Obama's leadership

Get the word "leadership" in there when mentioning the president, as often as possible.

"President Obama continues to show leadership on issues such as the DREAM Act. When the rest of the government is hopelessly gridlocked on the important issues America faces, it is good to see Obama taking a stand and achieving what he can on his own. This is a major policy change that will affect hundreds of thousands of young people in America, and without the president showing such leadership it may have been years before they saw any congressional action. Whether you agree or disagree with what President Obama just did -- and I do agree, myself -- you've got to at least admit it showed real leadership."

 

2
   We welcome the discussion

The Republicans really would prefer not to be talking about immigration at all. Many of them have figured out that, much like the gay marriage issue, they are not only losing public support but that being on the wrong side is going to hurt them for years to come. So be helpful, and point this out, every chance you get.

"Democrats welcome the discussion on immigration. Republicans have adopted such a hard line on the position that it now seems that anything anyone proposes to change the current situation is immediately labeled 'amnesty' by the Republican Party. They seem to have forgotten that real amnesty was signed into law by one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan. Putting that aside, however, Democrats have shown over and over again that we are open to any reasonable ideas on the immigration issue, no matter where they come from. Republicans seem to be in a race to see how nasty they can be towards anyone -- even a member of their own party -- who proposes such an idea. It's like Republicans actually want to drive Latino voters away from their party. But even in the face of such overreactions and denunciations, Democrats are still ready to have a sane and adult conversation on immigration at any time whatsoever."

 

3
   Where's your bill, Marco?

OK, this one is just a taunt, plain and simple. This one, ideally, would be best used by a Democrat being interviewed on the same show as Senator Rubio.

"Senator Marco Rubio seems a bit peeved that President Obama just co-opted his idea. This shows, once again, how Republicans are ideologically pure in one regard: anything Obama is for, they're against. Even if what Obama's for was what they were proposing the day before. They're still against it if Obama's for it. This is ridiculous, but it is also a well-established fact. Senator Rubio can whine all he wants about getting everything he was proposing, but the simple fact remains that Rubio could have actually shown some leadership, but instead he chose to do nothing more than sheer political grandstanding on the issue. He refused to actually write a bill so everyone could see the details of his plan, he is now annoyed that President Obama is going to get credit for making his plan a reality, and he is serving up a large heaping of sour grapes to any reporter in earshot. Well, you know what, Senator? You could have had this spotlight. You could have led. You could have gotten your bill through the Senate and then convinced the extremists in your own party to get it through the House of Representatives. You had plenty of time to do so. You did not. You knew that doing so was quite simply beyond your capabilities as a party leader. You're mad that the president just enacted your bill? What bill? Where is your bill, Marco? We've been waiting for months and months, and you couldn't be bothered to even write your ideas into an actual bill. That is the difference between talk and action, and the difference between leadership and grandstanding."

 

4
   Obama had to act

It's still very early, but the dominant message from the Republicans seems to so far be "Obama should have waited until Congress acted." This talking point likely will not last long, because it is so pathetically easy to shoot down, so look for a rhetorical shift from the Republicans, once they get a chance to huddle and regroup. For now, have at it.

"Republican reaction to Obama's bold leadership so far seems to be that Obama should have allowed Congress time to act, and to place a bill on his desk for signature. Well, you know what? We've waited long enough. Congress is not going to act. If they had the slightest inclination to act, they would have done so before now. The DREAM Act has been around for over a decade, and it was passed in the House and then failed in the Senate because Republican cosponsors of the legislation refused to vote for their own bill. Marco Rubio put forth the ideas that President Obama just made reality and although he's had half a year, he has not bothered to write it into legislation. He knows that the minute he does so, he will be the recipient of a boatload of scorn from the extremist Republicans who are running the House of Representatives. This is the political reality in Congress. Republicans have indicated over and over again that they will never vote for any bill which improves our immigration system in any way, shape, or form, and it is sheer lunacy to think that they would have done so before the November election. The president acted because Congress did not. The Republicans are now saying that Latinos should have been content to wait another decade or two before Congress managed to address the issue. This is precisely why the president just acted."

 

5
   Latino voters

These two words strike fear into the hearts of Republicans who see entire states shifting solidly blue as a direct result of their demonizing Latinos. Not all Republicans can see this, but for the ones who can it must keep them awake at night, worrying about the future of their party.

"Why any Latino would ever vote for a Republican candidate is simply beyond me. The Republican Party keeps proving over and over again that it would much prefer to use Latinos as scapegoats in order to shore up the nativist GOP base, rather than even attempting to reach out to the fastest-growing demographic group of voters in this country. Whenever a brave Republican stands up and offers any sort of compromise on the immigration issue, he or she is immediately shot down by the rest of the Republican Party. When George W. Bush pushed for immigration reform, he had a Republican House and a Republican Senate. They decided that their own president wasn't radical enough for them, and they killed his initiative. That, it seems, was the last chance for the Republican Party to show the Latino community that 'compassionate conservatism' even existed. I would say to every Latino voter out there who may be undecided as to which party to support at the polls this year -- take a good look at what Republicans and Democrats are saying in response to President Obama's bold leadership in the next few weeks. Take a good look at who addresses the concerns of you, your family, and your neighbors -- and who does not."

 

6
   The sins of the father

This is the core fairness issue which may be all but lost in the political chatter. Most Americans -- even those generally against true amnesty for illegal immigrants -- would hesitate to punish a person for something which happened when they were a baby. People who are not even citizens who serve in the American military are also pretty sympathetic figures -- putting their lives on the line for a country which hasn't even admitted them legally. So make a moral case for what Obama just did.

"In Old Testament times, the sins of the fathers were paid for by their sons. In more modern times, this is considered excessive punishment. How can anybody call a young man or woman a 'criminal' for something which may have happened when they were a babe in arms? Children brought here by their families before the age of majority likely had no choice in the matter at all. What was their alternative? Stay behind in their country of birth and fend for themselves? At age five, or seven? These children came here through no fault of their own -- unless you want to call following their family a 'fault,' which I cannot. They kept their noses clean -- Obama's new rules specifically bar people with serious criminal records from taking advantage of the program. They followed the law, in other words, after the initial transgression of following their mothers and fathers. They worked hard -- the only ones eligible are those who have completed their schooling successfully. To put this another way, they are precisely the type of people America should welcome as immigrants -- upstanding, hard-working, and successful. We should not visit the sins of the father on the child. America is better than that."

 

7
   Mitt's self-deportation

Of course, this one will need refinement once Mitt decides which way to jump. He'll be on the CBS Sunday morning political chatfest with Bob Schieffer, so we only have a few days to wait. He has weaseled out of directly answering many questions on immigration so far, but my guess is that Bob isn't going to let him get away with being wishy-washy this time. Until then, hit Mitt every chance you get.

"Mitt Romney is simply out of touch on the issue of immigration. This comes as no surprise, since his entire party seems to be in a rush towards a very hard-line extremist position. In the Republican primaries, we heard talk from various Republicans about magic electronic border fences and -- you can't make this stuff up -- even moats filled with alligators. Mitt Romney's contribution towards this debate was the suggestion that eleven million illegal immigrants in this country would suddenly 'self-deport' themselves back to their countries of origin. That's the Republican answer for you in a nutshell. Of course, everyone just assumed that Mitt was pandering to his base (as he's done on so many subjects), but such pandering can come back to bite you. Now, Romney faces the choice of supporting President Obama in an idea that one of the top contenders for Romney's running mate came up with, or denouncing the idea as amnesty. If he chooses the former, his own base will howl that he's flip-flopped once again. If Romney continues to pander to his party's base, however, he can kiss quite a few states goodbye in the Electoral College. I don't envy him the choice, but it is one of his -- and his own party's -- making. Good luck threading that needle, Mitt."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

142 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [214] -- Rubio Talks, Obama Acts”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    As is usual for my Friday nights, I am turning in early..

    But I just wanted to get one thing on the record..

    If ANYONE believes that Obama did this for ANY other reason than blatant pandering and padding his vote possibilities, then said ANYONE needs to have their head examined...

    I would also like to ask exactly what part of the Constitution gives Obama the authority to make uni-lateral decisions such as this??

    Finally, here's a little tidbit of prognostication for ya'all...

    What's gonna happen when we have President Romney and he starts taking all the liberties that Obama has set precedence for??

    Doesn't that bother ANY of you at ALL???? I bet it WILL, when it occurs.. And ya'all won't be able to bitch and moan about it one iota...

    That's it for me.

    "Hasta Lasagna, don't get any on ya..."
    -Emilio Estevez, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE

    Michale.....

  2. [2] 
    fischerg153 wrote:

    I agree totally with you. This is one more example of Obama making decisions to get votes, and not doing the right thing for our country. How does this help America? We already have massive unemployment for our 18 - 30 year olds. This is also unconstitutional. He does not have the authority to do this. I think Obama uses our constitution as toilet paper.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Oh, Michale, you are forgetting that Obama has been for the Dream Act from the beginning. That changes everything.

    Surely, even you can see that it is the Republicans who are pandering on this one - though, I don't expect you to admit it.

    Pleasant dreams, ahem ...

  4. [4] 
    fischerg153 wrote:

    Oh Elizabeth, you are forgetting that the President does not have the authority to do this. Surely, even you can see that it is all about getting votes - though, I don't expect you to admit it.

  5. [5] 
    fischerg153 wrote:

    Ok I have 2 civil/clean comments that are awaiting moderation. I thought you folks were the free speech champions? Is this America or China? I don't forgive you.

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    fischerg153 -

    China? Man, take a deep breath and relax. Here's my standard welcome notice:

    Welcome to the site. Your first comment(s) were held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post here and see your comments appear instantly. Comments containing multiple links are automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam, but if you only post one link per comment, you'll be fine.

    Here at ChrisWeigant.com Industries Incorporated, we must admit that we only employ a skeleton staff on Friday nights, as most of us are attending the "We got another FTP column out, woo hoo!" weekly party.

    So our apologies for the delay. You're actually pretty lucky, some first-time commenters experience delays of 12 hours, 18 hours, or even more.

    But there was no malice in this delay, be assured.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Bush told his Justice Department to execute the law how he interpreted it. See: warrantless wiretapping, torture, etc.

    Obama does the same (actually now the DHS, the INS used to be under DOJ, I believe), and your panties are in a bunch?

    I don't believe the Constitution mentions immigration at all (except vaguely, about the "natural born" thing for president). But then again, it doesn't mention the Air Force either... is that unconstitutional as well?

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    fischerg153

    This is the free-speechiest board in town, and Chris is the nicest liberal you'd ever wanna run into. You'll love it here. This is coming from a hard-core Republican.

  9. [9] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Quick question re: strategy...

    Has Obama lost his mind, entirely?!?!? As if 8.2% of unemployed Americans weren't having a tough enough time finding work, they're gonna be competing for jobs with illegals now? Really??? Exactly which country is O working for? And how does he think unemployed Americans are gonna feel about this?

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    Thanks for the boosterism. It's just because we both go into a kind of trance whenever a polling chart is presented to us, isn't it?

    Heh. Just kidding.

    As for the new Republican spin, thanks for pointing it out. Just reinforces the intro to TP#4. As to a response: "These people are already here. They are already in the labor market. Would you rather have them take menial jobs where they're paid under the counter, or would you rather have them use their full abilities to make this country greater? Do you know how many Silicon Valley computer corporations were started by immigrants?"

    That was pretty easy, actually.

    :-)

    But thanks for the kind words, as always.

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Public Notice:

    I finally got around to answering all the comments from the past week, especially the post-Netroots article. Go check it out.

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    fischerg153,

    First off, welcome to the site. And, you owe our gracious host an apology.

    Secondly, I agree wholeheartedly with Chris1962 - it happens, from time to time, despite everything - that there is no better site in the blogosphere for free-wheeling debate that is at once civil and passionate.

    I hope you stick around for all the fun and for the annual Thanksgiving Holiday Fund Drive as exceptional sites such as CW.com need to be supported!

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Always good to hear from you! :D

    Oh, Michale, you are forgetting that Obama has been for the Dream Act from the beginning. That changes everything.

    Being "for" something and making unilateral decisions to force it are two entirely different things..

    Obama is not a king, nor does he rule by fiat..

    He seemed to forget this, in this particular instance..

    Surely, even you can see that it is the Republicans who are pandering on this one - though, I don't expect you to admit it.

    Sure the Republicans are pandering. They are politicians after all..

    But at least Republicans are pandering within the law..

    Obama is not..

    fischerg153,

    As I am wont to do...

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Yea, it seems desperation has really sunk in with Obama.. I half expect him to order anyone who votes Republican to be rounded up and put into re-education camps...

    As for the moderation thing, don't sweat it. You'll find that CW is practically the most fair guy on the planet..

    He puts up with me, so he would HAVE to be.. :D

    CW,

    Bush told his Justice Department to execute the law how he interpreted it. See: warrantless wiretapping, torture, etc.

    Obama does the same (actually now the DHS, the INS used to be under DOJ, I believe), and your panties are in a bunch?

    Big Difference..

    As you said, Bush told his DOJ to EXECUTE the law...

    Obama is ordering his DHS to IGNORE the law..

    BIG difference. BIG.. HUGE...

    I don't believe the Constitution mentions immigration at all (except vaguely, about the "natural born" thing for president). But then again, it doesn't mention the Air Force either... is that unconstitutional as well?

    Under what authority can the President Of The United States order a federal agency to violate the law??

    Near as I can tell there is no such authority...

    It's as if Obama is TRYING to get impeached..

    But once again, Obama is making a HUGE miscalculation..

    This will thrill his base. This will thrill Latinos who are already inclined to vote for him..

    But it's royally going to piss of the Independents and NPAs...

    Unemployment is already a BIG concern.. Obama just created almost a million new legal workers that will now compete for jobs...

    It's like the gay marriage "evolution"...

    The ONLY people it's going to make happy are the ones who are voting Obama anyways..

    The Independents and NPAs?? They'll be driven right into the arms of the GOP...

    CB,

    Has Obama lost his mind, entirely?!?!? As if 8.2% of unemployed Americans weren't having a tough enough time finding work, they're gonna be competing for jobs with illegals now? Really??? Exactly which country is O working for? And how does he think unemployed Americans are gonna feel about this?

    Exactly... Obama just created another million workers that can legally enter the workforce..

    Non Koolaid Drinking Americans are going to be REALLY pissed off at this..

    And ya know what?? Many Hispanics who are legal immigrants are ALSO going to be pissed. THEY had to work hard to be in this country legally. They are going to be pissed at Obama for giving the illegals a free ride..

    CW,

    Do you know how many Silicon Valley computer corporations were started by immigrants?

    How many Silicon Valley computer corporations were started by **ILLEGAL** immigrants..

    I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count... :D

    The issue here is not immigrants, no matter HOW hard the Left tries to frame it as such.

    The issue here is **ILLEGAL** immigrants...

    "By and large, illegal immigrants obey the law"

    Isn't that the most ludicrous statement you have ever heard!??

    No matter how you slice, Obama just ordered amnesty for almost a million illegals...

    The President Of The United States is NOT above the law...

    Someone needs to remind of him of this..

    As an aside, Kudos on the MDDOTW award.. You called it dead on ballz accurate...

    If Democrats don't like their patriotism questioned then they shouldn't question the patriotism of Republicans...

    Good call....

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, the number of illegal immigrants that will be granted amnesty is not 800,000 as has been reported.

    The number is closer to 2 million illegal immigrants and could be as high as 3 million illegal immigrants..

    Do you want to know what's even MORE ironic??

    These 2-3 million new workers will most compete with legal Hispanics and Black people for jobs. Groups who already have record high unemployment figures..

    Obama's illegal amnesty proclamation will push those groups' unemployment numbers even higher...

    No matter how you slice it this power grab will, in the long run, be catastrophic for the Democratic Party and this country...

    Thru their elected representatives, the American People spoke. They did NOT want amnesty for illegal immigrants...

    President Obama has, once again, ignored the will of the people and unilaterally supplanted the will of the voters with his questionable judgement...

    If I wasn't sure that Romney would be our next president before, I am now...

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Imagine the outcry from the Left if President Bush had ordered that no more votes would be counted if they came from black people..

    Wouldn't the Left have an apoplectic conniption fit???

    Yer damn tootin' they would and rightly so...

    Yet, the Left CHEERS Obama for doing, in effect, the EXACT same thing..

    Violating the law that impacts a racial group...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    Anyone think the CrapCare ruling will come down this week???

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Yea, it seems desperation has really sunk in with Obama.. I half expect him to order anyone who votes Republican to be rounded up and put into re-education camps...

    Now, that's something I could support, if you think it would work ...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The problem is that when we DO get a GOP president (and we will eventually) all the liberties that Obama has taken and all the precedences that Obama has set will be used by that GOP President..

    I would think that the possibility of that would scare the hell out of ANYONE around here...

    Michale...

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Chris: It's just because we both go into a kind of trance whenever a polling chart is presented to us, isn't it?

    It's like staring at a piece of art — and then immediately launching into a price war over it. ;D

    And it's not the Republicans' spin; it's my spin. I created it myself. I should "TM" it. The GOP is forever ripping my spin off. I swear, Karl Rove must have me "fanned" over at the HuffPo.

    "These people are already here. They are already in the labor market.

    Not like the labor market they'll now be entering, fearlessly seeking any job they like. With 8.2% unemployed AMERICANS out there, I'm not okay with that. Far from it. O forgets that he's the public servant of Americans, not illegals breaking American laws. And I think he's gonna pay a political price for this.™

    Would you rather have them take menial jobs where they're paid under the counter, or would you rather have them use their full abilities to make this country greater? Do you know how many Silicon Valley computer corporations were started by immigrants?"

    I'd rather have them deported with their parents and reenter the U.S. the legal way; the same way that legal immigrants have had to do it.

  20. [20] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: And ya know what?? Many Hispanics who are legal immigrants are ALSO going to be pissed. THEY had to work hard to be in this country legally. They are going to be pissed at Obama for giving the illegals a free ride..

    I'm already seeing them posting over at the HuffPo. I've already read about four testimonials from folks who have entered the U.S. of A. the old-fashioned way: legally. And they ARE pissed over this.

    Another very poor strategic move on Team-O's part. They're risking the ire of legal immigrants AND millions upon millions of unemployed Americans, i.e. voters. Axelrod's got one helluva tight, coordinated circular firing squad going on over there.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd rather have them deported with their parents and reenter the U.S. the legal way; the same way that legal immigrants have had to do it.

    This is America, one nation under God.. Er.... Obama...

    We don't actually ENFORCE the laws here...

    Silly wabbit.

    I'm already seeing them posting over at the HuffPo. I've already read about four testimonials from folks who have entered the U.S. of A. the old-fashioned way: legally. And they ARE pissed over this.

    As well they SHOULD be... They worked hard to earn what the have and Obama and the Democratic Party just spit in their faces....

    Another very poor strategic move on Team-O's part. They're risking the ire of legal immigrants AND millions upon millions of unemployed Americans, i.e. voters. Axelrod's got one helluva tight, coordinated circular firing squad going on over there.

    Yep... Team Obama is pandering to the people who are already going to vote Obama. And in doing so, are ROYALLY pissing off the group that Team Obama actually NEEDS....

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    About the ONLY thing that makes sense in all this is that Team Obama is pandering to the base to get them on board..

    Then, starting say September, Team Obama will start pandering to the Independents and NPAs, hoping he can swing them his way before Nov...

    I think Team Obama is underestimating how badly he is pissing off the Independents and NPAs...

    Plus there is still the SCOTUS rulings waiting in the wings..

    June is not going to be very pleasant for Obama and Democrats...

    Michale....

  23. [23] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale, you asked somewhere (can't find the post) if anyone thought the USSC CrapCare ruling would come down this week. Have you seen Ginsburg's remarks? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77479.html I smell dead mandate.

  24. [24] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    I'm already seeing them posting over at the HuffPo. I've already read about four testimonials from folks who have entered the U.S. of A. the old-fashioned way: legally. And they ARE pissed over this.

    ...testimonials? At the Huffington Post!? You're kidding, right?

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    "“And I think this is not how you run a constitutional Republic. This ought to be in the hands of Congress, and it is an end-run. What's ironic of course is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration, the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness. This is not how you govern."
    -Charles Krauthammer

    That says it all....

    The Democratic Party will rue the day they allowed this precedent to be set...

    Because if a President can unilaterally do this, then NOTHING is off limits...

    This kind of unchecked power in the hands of the President, ANY President, should be terrify any sane American...

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Mr President! MR PRESIDENT!! You can't do this without the will of the people!!!!"
    -Jimmy Stewart

    Damn if I can find out what movie it was from. I was thinking MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, but I can't find a reference..

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Because if a President can unilaterally do this, then NOTHING is off limits...

    You said it, Michale. Here we have a president, who's supposed to UPHOLD the laws of the land, doing the exact opposite.

  29. [29] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    This just simply reeks of desperation on the part of the Obama administration..

    Team Obama tried everything.

    "War On Women"

    "War On The Catholic Church"

    Bain

    Gay Marriage "Evolution"

    Nothing was slowing Romney down. Romney's lead has increased, especially in the Swing States...

    One has to wonder..

    If this amnesty for illegal votes falls as flat as every OTHER attack Team Obama has pulled, how desperate will Team Obama be then???

    What will be the next desperate act from Team Obama??

    Anyone read THE LAST PRESIDENT???

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hoo boy.

    If this is any indication of the anger on the right, then this was even more of a brilliant political move than I thought it was, initially.

    Anyone want to bet whether Obama's polls will go up in the next week, or down? I'd say up, personally, at least barring any outside influence (all bets are off if SCOTUS starts handing down rulings, in other words).

    :-)

    -CW

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, and I have to say it is hilarious to hear conservatives whining about the concept of a unitary executive. As Michale pointed out, the precedent's already been set. But it wasn't by the current president.

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale.

    Please! There is nothing unusual or even slightly unconstitutional about what President Obama did. In a sane political environment it wouldn't even be controversial!

    He, like every other President, simply directed Justice to stop wasting time and money pursuing children and young adults who are only technically guilty of a crime because of the past actions of their guardians instead of pursuing truly dangerous criminals and flagrant lawbreakers.

    If, after the other 12 million illegal immigrants have been arrested and prosecuted, President Obama orders Justice not to pursue these remaining children THEN you'd have a case for his ignoring the law, violating his oath of office and the Constitution. But that isn't what he did.

    The only thing he did that was unusual, and yes of course it was political, is he publicly announced that Dreamer prosecutions would not be pursued, removing uncertainty so that Dreamers could get on with their lives. Usually justice likes to maintain uncertainty seeing the legal swords of Damocles as deterrents even if everyone knows you've a better chance of being struck by lightning than being prosecuted. But nebulous threats against third parties aren't much deterrent anyway.

    Since President Obama happens to disagree with current statutes and supports the Dream Act he used the happy confluence of his legitimate discretion in the performance of his duties and his own views about what's right to score political points and do the right thing while also doing his job.

    Just as Lincoln did when he freed the slaves and Johnson did when he pushed the Civil Rights Act. Neither would have gone there on their own without other overriding federal concerns that they had to, in the course of doing their jobs, address that also happened to open up the opportunities.

    I've often disagreed with liberals who thought Obama should be more aggressive and confrontational. Its not his job to legislate. If he can't convince the legislature to institute the policies he wants he can't just ignore the law because he disagrees.

    But he isn't ignoring the law here. He's executing the expected prosecutorial discretion to enforce the law as efficiently and effectively as possible. The fact that simply telling people what he's doing is a blow to Republicans do to the stupidity of their positions is simply a bonus.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    If this is any indication of the anger on the right, then this was even more of a brilliant political move than I thought it was, initially.

    This anger is not just from the Right, CW... It's from the middle.. It's from LEGAL immigrants.. It's from Independents and NPAs...

    Basically, Obama has pissed off every group that doesn't robotic-ly vote Left..

    Ya know, the groups he simply CAN'T win an election without...

    THOSE are the groups that are exhibiting the anger..

    Go read some of the testimonials over at HuffPo from LEGAL immigrants...

    Oh, and I have to say it is hilarious to hear conservatives whining about the concept of a unitary executive. As Michale pointed out, the precedent's already been set. But it wasn't by the current president.

    For example.....?????

    Anyone want to bet whether Obama's polls will go up in the next week, or down? I'd say up, personally, at least barring any outside influence (all bets are off if SCOTUS starts handing down rulings, in other words).

    I'll take some of that action...

    10,000 quatloos says Obama takes a hit.. If the SCOTUS rulings come down, all bets are off.. Because then, not even *I* would want to piss on a man's grave....

    LD,

    Your entire argument can be summed up with two words...

    BULL and SHIT....

    Obama is not a King. He was not Coronated. He cannot ignore laws he doesn't like...

    You know how I know this.

    BECAUSE OBAMA HIMSELF SAID SO!!!

    “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the Dream Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true,”
    -President Obama, 2011

    So, what's changed?? Not the laws...

    They are still on the books...

    The ONLY thing that has changed is that Team Obama has become more desperate. None of the attacks against Romney are working at all. Hell, even DEMOCRATS decry most of Obama's attacks..

    So, Obama is desperate.. He figured he would mint 2 or 3 million new voters by telling his people to ignore the Law..

    It's Castiel, Balthazar and The Titanic all over again. But that only netted Castiel 50,000 new souls...

    This illegal maneuver of Obama's netted him 2-3 million NEW voters..

    But guess what?

    It's STILL not going to be enough....

    Obama is going to lose. It's really THAT simple...

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Anyone want to bet whether Obama's polls will go up in the next week, or down? I'd say up, personally, at least barring any outside influence (all bets are off if SCOTUS starts handing down rulings, in other words).

    barring a very unfavorable supreme court decision, my 500 quatloos are on approval ratings staying pretty consistent. plus or minus three percentage points either way, my guess is 47.5 favorable, 47.5 unfavorable and 5 undecided.

    ~joshua

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask ya'all something..

    Ya'all seem to think that this is only going to piss off the Right..

    What do you think that the 14+ Million Americans who are unemployed and the TWENTY PERCENT of Americans who are under employed... How do you think all those tens of millions of Americans are going to feel about this???

    Honestly, do you think they are going to be HAPPY that Obama has illegally added 2-3 million more people as competition???

    How do you think THEY will vote in November???

    If you think about it and assess the situation honestly and objectively, you will realize what a bone headed move Obama has made..

    Obama was looking at short term gains for his campaign and his campaign only...

    He, apparently, doesn't give a RIP about the rest of the country and American citizens..

    THAT's why he bailed when that DC reporter asked him why he is more concerned about illegal aliens than he is about American citizens...

    The coward couldn't even remain to answer questions..

    I have never been more ashamed and embarrassed by our President as I am at this moment..

    And, considering the disgrace that Clinton brought to the office, THAT says quite a lot...

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But he isn't ignoring the law here. He's executing the expected prosecutorial discretion to enforce the law as efficiently and effectively as possible. The fact that simply telling people what he's doing is a blow to Republicans do to the stupidity of their positions is simply a bonus.

    If you want to see the classic republican version of this see the somewhat lax enforcement of antitrust laws during republican administrations...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD

    If, after the other 12 million illegal immigrants have been arrested and prosecuted, President Obama orders Justice not to pursue these remaining children THEN you'd have a case for his ignoring the law, violating his oath of office and the Constitution. But that isn't what he did.

    Oh, now THAT is such a load of crap, I can't believe it was even uttered!!

    In effect what you are saying is that the President (but only a DEMOCRAT President, apparently) can order his Justice Department to prosecute those who commit robbery with a gun, but ignore those who commit robbery with a knife...

    Do you REALLY believe that!???

    Do you HONESTLY believe that a President has the SOLE authority to quantify crimes and determine, SOLELY AND COMPLETELY ON HIS OWN, which level of crimes will be prosecuted and which levels will not!???

    And such determination is SOLELY AND COMPLETELY based on which will garner him the most votes in the coming election!!!

    Do you HONESTLY believe that load of felgercarb!!!?????

    SERIOUSLY!!!????

    Maybe you would be more comfortable in England of the early 1700s....

    What IS it about political partisans that they ignore REALITY in pursuit of ideological goals???

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi!!!

    Glad ta see yer still with us!! :D

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Unlike the Republican party I've no interest in pandering to low-information voters, employed or otherwise. Anyone who's failed to notice that this is the twenty-first century so just keeping people out of the country doesn't mean you don't still have to compete with them for jobs is not someone I'd go out of my way to appease.

    Democracy is messy. We have to tolerate the xenophobes, bigots, and stupid people. We just have to hope there aren't so many of them they do us irreparable harm.

    One reason I'm all for killing the beast that feeds them. So watching Republican heads explode over this is a guilty pleasure.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    If you want to see the classic republican version of this see the somewhat lax enforcement of antitrust laws during republican administrations...

    OK, let's take this as an example...

    Let's say President Bush was really REALLY in trouble during the 2004 election.. As in trouble as Obama is, in the here and now...

    So, Bush goes to the Rose Garden and announces that, as of this moment, the DOJ will cease prosecuting ALL anti-trust laws... Bush does this in hopes of seeing BILLIONS of dollars from the corporations flow into his campaign...

    Now, let me ask you.. Let me ask all of you..

    Would you be OK with this???

    Would ya'all say, "Oh well... The President is just exercising his discretionary authority... Ho hum, what's on TV tonight??"

    Would ya'all say, "There is nothing unusual or even slightly unconstitutional about what President Bush did. In a sane political environment it wouldn't even be controversial!"

    Would you???

    Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming ya'all would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with this.. I remember the reactions around here from the Citizens United ruling.. :D

    Ya'all.... AND the entire Left... would go absolutely BAT SHIT over something like that..

    So, tell me...

    How is what Obama did any different???

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Unlike the Republican party I've no interest in pandering to low-information voters, employed or otherwise. Anyone who's failed to notice that this is the twenty-first century so just keeping people out of the country doesn't mean you don't still have to compete with them for jobs is not someone I'd go out of my way to appease.

    Democracy is messy. We have to tolerate the xenophobes, bigots, and stupid people. We just have to hope there aren't so many of them they do us irreparable harm.

    One reason I'm all for killing the beast that feeds them. So watching Republican heads explode over this is a guilty pleasure.

    In other words, anyone who thinks differently than you is not worth even considering...

    You make a great liberal... :D

    And despite what you may think, that is NOT a compliment...

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    LewDan wrote:

    By the way Michale, in answer to your question (I'm going to assume it really was a question)--Yes.

    That's what prosecutorial discretion means. It what Justice department prosecutors have been doing, federal and state, have been doing since day one.

    And I repeat, the Republican position, which you are so enamored with, is a stupid one. We haven't the police, jails, courts, judges, time or MONEY to arrest and deport 12 million people just because they're lawbreakers.

    To everyone other than Republicans, going after the dangerous ones and those that really pose security threats makes more sense than going after children whose parents brought them here illegally instead. And then, of course, complaining about how government doesn't work because insane unworkable policies--Don't Work!

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Why would you think that Americans who are opposed to illegal immigrants are "xenophobes, bigots, and stupid people"??

    Ya know.. That seems pretty intolerant of you...

    You sound like the kind of person that you claim to despise...

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    OK, let me ask you THIS question..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama has altruistic motives in this latest power grab???

    Do you HONESTLY believe that he has done what he has done for the good of the country??

    Because, if you do... I have some swampland down south here I would LOVE to sell you!! :D

    Obama is pandering to his base for votes.. He is CREATING 2-3 million new votes for his campaign....

    And, in the process, pissing off tens of millions of American citizens who ALSO will vote..

    If you can't see this, you are WAY too drunk on the koolaid...

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK... Let me ask everyone this...

    Make 2-3 million immigrants legal..

    Make them legally compete with AMERICANS for very VERY few jobs....

    Give them all of America's benefits to increase the tax burden on AMERICANS....

    Do all that. Fine and dandy...

    BUT....

    But they don't get the right to vote...

    Good??? Everyone OK with that????

    I can hear the indignant sputtering indignant reaction...

    HELL NO!!!! They MUST have the right to vote!!!!!

    You see my point???

    "This is about the souls. That angel went and created 50 000 new souls for your war machine."
    -Atropos, SUPERNATURAL, My Heart Will Go On

    This is about the votes...

    Nothing more....

    You simply HAVE to realize that....

    Because I, more or less, know you... At least, I know for a fact that you are NOT that stoopid...

    Michale......

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right.. Done for the night...

    I hope I have given ya'all at least SOMETHING to think about... :D

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    fischerg153 wrote:

    Chris, I do owe you an apology. This is an intelligent well managed blog. The issues I have with this decision are:
    1) I don’t see how this is good for America right now with unemployment as high as it is. We are adding people not jobs.
    2) Why was this decision made now, and not 2 years ago? I am sure it was made because Obama is in trouble; wants to expand his base/get more votes, and make immigration a key political issue to distract everyone form the real issues; jobs, the economy, and the deficit.
    3) This decision was an “end around” bypassing the people who make our laws, the legislative branch. If not outright illegal, it is certainly outright arrogant. What’s next, will he decide that tall people need to pay a height tax.

  49. [49] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Okay, anybody wanna see a good tag line?

    "If there has ever been a president who has failed to give the middle class of America a fair shot, it is Barack Obama," the likely Republican presidential nominee told hundreds of people standing in the sunshine outside a farmhouse plastered with his bus tour's slogan, "Every Town Counts."http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2012/06/romney-obama-denying-middle-class-fair-shot/735626

  50. [50] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale:

    “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the Dream Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true,”
    -President Obama, 2011

    Why does this sound so familiar? Oh, right...

    As Barack Obama battled Hillary Rodham Clinton over health care during the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008, he was adamant about one thing: Americans, he insisted, should not be required to buy health insurance. “If things were that easy,” Mr. Obama told the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in February of that year, “I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/health/policy/insurance-mandate-may-be-health-bills-undoing.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    Anybody noticing a pattern here? Like, a pattern of deception, where he says whatever he needs to and then, once he's duped the masses into putting him into power, does whatever he wants to?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fischer,

    2) Why was this decision made now, and not 2 years ago? I am sure it was made because Obama is in trouble; wants to expand his base/get more votes, and make immigration a key political issue to distract everyone form the real issues; jobs, the economy, and the deficit.

    That's what probably irks me the most about this debacle...

    The pandering for votes is so blatantly obvious it's nauseating. And yet, Obama is STILL defended here...

    Like I asked above, what would the Left do if, in order to secure more campaign donations, President Bush had announced he was ordering his DOJ not to enforce anti-trust regulations against corporations.

    The Left would be screaming IMPEACHMENT before the echo of the presser faded...

    CB,

    Anybody noticing a pattern here? Like, a pattern of deception, where he says whatever he needs to and then, once he's duped the masses into putting him into power, does whatever he wants to?

    What is so infuriating to me is that the pattern is so blatantly obvious and yet, this guy is STILL fawned over and is STILL defended to the hilt...

    I just think of what the reaction from the Left would be if Bush had tried even a SMIDGEN of this crap...

    It would have made the Bush Bash Fest of the last administration seem downright pleasant by comparison..

    But, our time will come. President Romney (or the next GOP President) will undoubtedly avail themselves of the precedents that Obama has set. When he (or she) does, we can sit back, watch the Left go nuclearly apoplectic and grin like the cat with the proverbial canary and render a very heart-felt, yet humble, "Payback's a bitch, ain't it?"

    :D

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fischer,

    We are adding people not jobs.

    You get the award for the MOST apropos summation of the problem in the least amount of words..

    That is, in a nutshell, the exact problem...

    Kudos...

    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: I just think of what the reaction from the Left would be if Bush had tried even a SMIDGEN of this crap...

    There's never a shortage of hypocrisy and double standards coming out of the Left.

    Meanwhile, notice the timing on O's decision to ease up on deportation:

    President Obama’s decision to change his administration's deportation policies comes at a key time in the presidential campaign — just as Mitt Romney appeared to be narrowing the gap with the president in some swing states where Hispanic voters hold significant sway. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233037-obama-takes-action-on-deportations-as-romney-closes-gap-in-swing-states

    What amazes me is how brazenly he does it. It's like he doesn't even care if the press busts him for it. It's all about those poll numbers, and the rule of law be damned.

    Add the national security leaks, bolstering O's warrior image, and one has to wonder if there's anything his inner circle won't do to get him reelected. I mean, are there any boundaries?

  54. [54] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Chris: Anyone want to bet whether Obama's polls will go up in the next week, or down?

    They're headed south over at Rasmussen... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history ...but I never know what to make of O's numbers anyway. They're forever swinging all over the place, in the 40's. But I can't imagine this turning out to be a good thing for O, with 8.2% unemployed Americans now having to compete for jobs with illegals. Those unemployed folks can't possibly be pleased about that.

  55. [55] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Like you were saying, Michale...

    Obama immigration order: Does 'audacity of hope' mean unchecked presidential power?

    President Obama’s order deferring deportation of up to 800,000 young illegal immigrants shows a president dealing with a recalcitrant Congress by ignoring it. Is he reshaping the power of the presidency?http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0616/Obama-immigration-order-Does-audacity-of-hope-mean-unchecked-presidential-power

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    What amazes me is how brazenly he does it. It's like he doesn't even care if the press busts him for it. It's all about those poll numbers, and the rule of law be damned.

    The Press WON'T bust him for it..

    This is simply another blatant example of the MSM being in the bag for Obama..

    The ONLY places where Obama will be taken to task over this are the places that will slam Obama for not crossing his 'i's or dotting his 't's..

    The rest of the MSM will not take a chance on offending the Exalted One...

    Add the national security leaks, bolstering O's warrior image, and one has to wonder if there's anything his inner circle won't do to get him reelected. I mean, are there any boundaries?

    Yea, that's another strike against Obama. The stories could have ONLY come from Obama's inner circle. And people are dying and being jailed because of those leaks... Hell, Obama gave up HumInt Asset that didn't even BELONG to us!!!

    But, once again, you won't see any real stories on the MSM about this, because it puts the Obama Administration in a bad light.

    Hell, NBC aired it's *FIRST* Fast/Furious story!!!! THAT has been going on for a frak'in YEAR!!!! And NBC just mentioned it a couple days ago!!!

    Anyone who can't see that the MSM is in the bag for Obama is simply not acknowledging the facts...

    Michale.....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Obama’s order deferring deportation of up to 800,000 young illegal immigrants shows a president dealing with a recalcitrant Congress by ignoring it. Is he reshaping the power of the presidency?http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0616/Obama-immigration-order-Does-audacity-of-hope-mean-unchecked-presidential-power

    The number is closer to 3 million..

    The original DREAM Act only considered those under 18 or in college...

    Obama's illegal action includes ANYONE up to age 30 who came to this country as a child.. I wonder why Obama wasn't satisfied with just under 18 year olds?? Oh yea, that's right. They can't vote..

    As far as being free from criminal record, that is also false.. As long as the illegal doesn't have any violent crimes, they will be able to stay, even with a criminal record..

    So, Obama has ignored the law to create up to 3 million new voters..

    Won't that be the shitz when it STILL won't be enough..

    Obama is going to have to start throwing people who vote GOP in jail....

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I seem to recall that it was President Cheney ... err, Bush ... who took the view that Congress was too powerful and the President not powerful enough.

    This lead to some 750 executive signing orders during a time when Congress was giving the President everything he wanted.

    Democrats and Barack Obama have never taken the view that the role of the President was not powerful enough.

    Obama, by comparison, to Bush, has issued roughly 20 signing statements. He has also tried at every step of the way to work with Congress. This has lead to a majority in the House largely blocking any more attempts to improve the economy.

    As Chris mentioned, it's kind of funny listening to all the whining here about a few Obama actions when the precedent for a unitary government was ... ahem ... not set by President Obama.

    -David

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all keep saying that the unitary actions precedent was set by Bush.

    Yet... NO ONE can provide any examples...

    So, let's lay it out.

    Show me where President Bush unilaterally ordered a department of his administration to IGNORE the law so as to secure more votes for his election..

    I'll be around when ya'all can find such an example...

    I am guessing it will be the tenth of never.. :D

    David, you're a reasonable person. I know this..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama took this step for ANY OTHER REASON, other than to secure more votes for his re-election???

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama, by comparison, to Bush, has issued roughly 20 signing statements.

    Of course, Obama doesn't have to issue signing statments.

    He's the King.. Barack The First...

    All he has to do is say, "THIS LAW WILL BE IGNORED" and everyone falls all over themselves to preach and praise to his glory...

    No signing statements needed..

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    This lead to some 750 executive signing orders during a time when Congress was giving the President everything he wanted.

    That's what happens when you have Democrats siding with Al Qaeda against President Bush and this country..

    Bush's signing statements were in the service and defense of this country.

    Obama's actions are in defense and service of Obama, the country be damned...

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Show me where President Bush unilaterally ordered a department of his administration to IGNORE the law

    Ummm ... how about authorizing the use of illegal wiretaps for one.

    There were roughly 750 other executive orders issued by Bush as well.

    Now let me guess what you're going to say ... You're going to say but Bush didn't do any of this for political motives ... wah, wah, waaaaaaa ...

    I could argue that Bush started the War with Iraq, for example, for political motives. And we could go back and forth all day about what was in the head of Bush or what was in the head of Obama when they issued executive orders.

    They're politicians. It's very likely that they both did many things for political reasons.

    You seem to be arguing that Obama plays politics and somehow Bush was above politics. This is ridiculous.

    Politics isn't the important thing here. The important thing is the expansion of executive power .

    And what I do know is that Bush set the precedent for expansion of executive power during his administration and that, if anything, Obama has reverted to a previous precedent of sparingly using executive power.

    Compare 750 to 20. I'll do the math for you. Obama has issued 97.33% less signing statements than Bush.

    So tell me again ... who set the precedent for expanding executive power? And where were your complaints then?

    -David

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Bush's signing statements were in the service and defense of this country.

    Hahahaah. I knew it. When I hit submit it was already there and you beat me to it.

    Bush is noble and never played politics. Obama plays politics and couldn't care at all about the country.

    The most ridiculous argument ever.

    Of course Bush seems noble if you're a Republican. Of course Obama seems noble if you're a Democrat.

    The truth is that they're both politicians. Just as the truth is that Bush expanded executive power and Obama has curtailed it.

    Much as you may dislike this truth.

    -David

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I should also add that the truth is that they both felt like they were doing what is best for the country.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Let's put the actions of both Presidents in context...

    President Bush had Congressional Authorization (Including Democrats!!) for every action he took.

    President Obama did NOT have Congressional Authorization for ANY action he took. In fact, he has Congressional CONDEMNATION (Including Democrats!!) for the action he took.

    President Bush took the action he took for the safety and security of the country.

    President Obama took the action he took for the safety and security of Obama, at the EXPENSE of the country...

    President Bush's actions COST him millions of votes..

    President Obama's actions CREATED him millions of votes...

    Given these FACTS, it's clear who the man of integrity and honor is and who is the opportunistic weasel is..

    I should also add that the truth is that they both felt like they were doing what is best for the country.

    Really??

    Explain how creating 2-3 million more workers in an economy that is seeing record high unemployment is in the best interests of the country...

    I would LOVE to hear that explanation...

    Obama did what he did to create more voters that would vote Democrat..

    PERIOD..

    There is absolutely NOTHING altruistic, charitable or humanitarian about Obama's actions.

    He did it SOLELY to get votes...

    Michale......

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fisher said it perfectly above..

    Why is Obama creating workers when he SHOULD be creating jobs???

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to put President Bush's actions in the same context as Obama's actions, I have already done so in Comment #41...

    Didn't garner any response.. :D I wonder why...

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    akadjian wrote:

    President Bush had Congressional Authorization for every action he took.

    No ... he didn't.

    He did not have authorization for the wiretapping program. He had to seek it retroactively.

    And ... signing statements are often the executive attaching his interpretation of legislation. Without the approval of Congress.

    Sorry Michale ...

    Also, this attitude of yours that what you want is somehow good for the country and what other people want is not seems a bit holier than thou.

    I thought you hated when religious people did this. Yet you seem to be doing the same.

    I mean, what gives you the right to say you know what's best for the country? How come you get to make this determination?

    -David

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    He did not have authorization for the wiretapping program. He had to seek it retroactively.

    This is simply not factual...

    Bush did have the authorization, based on the AUMF granted after 9/11..

    Only after mealy-mouth Democrats pissed and moaned did Bush return to Congress and get further authorization.. But only to appease those who were taking Al Qaeda's side in things...

    But it is clear from the wording of the AUMF that Bush had the authority.. Even when Democrats whined and moaned, the STILL didn't revoke that authorization..

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

    It's against the rules.. :D

    Also, this attitude of yours that what you want is somehow good for the country and what other people want is not seems a bit holier than thou.

    What can I say.. Sometimes the bear gets me. Sometimes I get the bear..

    In this particular issue I AM in the right, morally, legally and ethically...

    I mean, what gives you the right to say you know what's best for the country? How come you get to make this determination?

    A little thing called "common sense"...

    Let me turn around that question..

    How could it POSSIBLY be "good" for this country to add 2-3 MILLION new workers, when AMERICAN CITIZENS are finding it tough to find jobs..

    HOW could it possibly be GOOD for this country to add 2-3 million people to a work force that hasn't been able to sustain AMERICANS since Obama took office???

    How could ANYTHING good possibly come from this??

    I mean, good for the country. Not good for Democrats. It's obvious what Democrats are getting out of this..

    Too bad American citizens have to be screwed over to do it..

    I thought ya'all were champions for the middle class??

    Can't you see how much worse things are going to be for that middle class???

    Michale.....

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In this particular issue I AM in the right, morally, legally and ethically...

    Sure Michale ... whatever you say ...

    HOW could it possibly be GOOD for this country to add 2-3 million people to a work force that hasn't been able to sustain AMERICANS since Obama took office?

    I hate to break it to you ... but these people are already here.

    -David

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
    http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

    Just in case it's been forgotten..

    Now, if you will..

    Please show me the Authorization from Congress that allows President Obama to ignore the law and grant amnesty to 2-3 million illegal immigrants??

    Oh wait. There is none...

    OK... So, let's listen to what President Obama himself said about that:

    "The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the Dream Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true"
    -President Obama

    Hmmmmmmm The laws on the books he talks about are STILL laws and are STILL on the books....

    So, I am confused...

    What changed between then and now???

    Oh wait.. I know what's changed..

    Romney is kicking Obama's ass in the polls and every method of attack by Team Obama falls flat and is criticized by Democrats as much as by Republicans..

    THAT's what changed...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK forget all the hysterics.. :D I call it passion, but whatever...

    Honestly....

    What GOOD for Americans could come from this??

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We get it, Michale ... this is a religious battle for you.

    As such, I see very little point in discussing further. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

    -David

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    I wish I had a small fraction of the patience you have demonstrated in this endlessly frustrating yet infinitely amusing thread.

    :-)

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    oops, I spoke too soon! :)

  76. [76] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    OK, I've only gotten down to about [47] but I have a point to make.

    What would you say if a president ignored US law and international law entirely, and refused to even consider prosecuting anyone for breaking it before, during, or after the fact?

    Second question (upping the ante, as it were). What would you say if two different presidents -- from different parties -- both ignored the same laws, and publicly stated they weren't even going to attempt to prosecute any violations?

    Zinger (you just knew there'd be one): the United States broke laws forbidding torture. Dubya and Obama both ignored this completely. Did you denounce their actions, or support them?

    Be honest, now.

    -CW

  77. [77] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    fischerg153 [48] -

    I refuse to accept your apology, for the simple reason that no apology is necessary.

    I really need to make it more obvious on the site that first-time comments are held for moderation, but I wasn't lying when I said "consider yourself lucky." Some folks comment on a Friday night and I don't approve them until Sunday afternoon. I'm just one guy, and I'm not at this site 24/7. But, having said that, I get just as annoyed when I comment on someone else's site and it seems to disappear into nothingness. So no apology is necessary at all.

    Since you're in a good mood and all, here are some tips: our commenting policy, a few tricks and "how-tos" about commenting itself, and one further piece of advice I don't think I included anywhere -- I know the comments aren't "threaded" here (indented), so we keep track by referencing the comment number. Thus I added a [48] at the top of this comment, to signify I'm answering your comment, number 48, above. Makes for easier discussions. Just a sort of quirk of the site, FYI.

    This is a unique site (some might say "bizarre" but we ignore them, for the most part). It is not exactly an echo chamber. There are lots of Lefties, lots of Righties, lots of folks in the middle, and lots of folks who just read everything and never comment.

    [To this last group, I would just say: "Start writing comments! It's fun! Try it! Jump on in, the water's fine!"]

    Over at HuffPost, which I use to suck in readers to this site, I like to say "I don't get the most comments here, but I sure do get the most intelligent ones," but as you can quickly spot, this is just part of the sucking-up process to entice them over here. Ahem.

    But while free-spirited, the commenting here is unbelievably (to me) high-level. This may be hard for you to believe, but I would be fairly certain of the following statement: Everyone who commented, above, on this article could sit down as a group, have a few beers, have a few laughs, tease each other about the other side's idiocy, and be great friends at the end of the evening.

    Anyone? Think that's a fair statement? I'd put heavy Quatloos on that one, personally.

    While the site has been active for over five years now, and while I have had to send a few warning emails to commenters now and then (right and left), I have NEVER had to ban a SINGLE commenter from this site. This perfect record is admirable, I think, but the admiration is from me for you guys... not egotism. We rip each other's thinking apart here, but we almost never hit below the belt.

    So having said all of that by way of introduction, allow me to answer the points you raised.

    (1) These people are here already. They are already (like it or not) in the labor market. Would you rather have a Latino genius kid be able to get a job in Silicon Valley, or force him to work under the table picking strawberries? Which do you think is better for America?

    (1a) Some of these people are (or want to be) in the uniform of the United States military. If they were all deported, who would take their place? Would you really begrudge a kid who lost a leg fighting for America a legal way to work here?

    (2) That is a fair criticism, and one I (glancingly) made in the article. Was Obama's move a political one? Heck yeah. Will it help him win the Latino vote? Smart money says "heck yeah." It the whole thing a crass political exercise? Well, not entirely. You are correct -- Obama could have done this awhile back. But if he had done so, wouldn't you still have complained (albeit on different points, perhaps)? Rubio's never going to write a bill -- he's made that obvious. Congress is never going to act, even if Rubio does produce a bill. Obama might be voted out of office. So if not now, when?

    (2b) Republicans (not sure that includes you, just a general statement, mind you) have made immigration a distracting wedge issue in American politics for decades. The recent cycle began with Pete Wilson in California (Prop 187? Prop 197? Something like that), where he ran a "Willie Horton" type ad back in the 1990s. Since that point, the GOP has used the issue as demonization, right up to the present day. That chicken is now coming home to roost. I actually applauded George W. Bush (it may have been the only time I did, at least that springs to mind) when he tackled the issue. The bill that went up before Congress was pathetic as an overall fix, but it was at least a big step in the right direction, coming from a Republican. Bush was brave to push it, and while I disagreed with roughly the other 99% of what he did as president, I thought he deserved credit for at least making the attempt -- before his own party in Congress killed the idea.

    Immigration is a distraction for some, in America. For others, it is a "real issue." Republicans have yet to fully appreciate that lesson.

    Side note (full disclosure): I am married to a US Citizen who was born a citizen of another country. I can tell you all sorts of stories about the INS. Just to lay that card on the table (search this site for "INS" and you'll see a few choice things I've had to say).

    (3) Lots of presidents do lots of "end arounds" on Congress. We haven't had an actual, Constitutional declaration of war since World War II. Does that make every war since then the act of a tyrant? The Constitution is very vague on the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has only occasionally made things clearer. Was Bush acting illegally when he refused to let his aides answer a congressional subpoena? Both parties play this game, and this tug of war looks mighty different to various members of both parties, depending on which end of Pennsylvania Avenue they happen to be looking from -- and whether they're the "ins" or the "outs" at the time.

    Presidential power is what you can get away with -- blunt, but true to a large extent. Google "Bush unitary executive" to see the Left howling about it while Dubya was president. Clinton and Obama have been attacked for it as well, although that particular phrase wasn't used. Co-equal branches of government produce an eternal tug-of-war, not a nice "balance" the way we were taught in school.

    Legally, Obama is using prosecutorial discretion. It's a valid executive power. Speeding your car is illegal. If we told all our traffic cops to make cracking down on speeding the number one priority, don't you think a lot of other (and worse) traffic crimes would increase as a result? That's "discretion." Or allocation of resources.

    You call it arrogant. Fair enough. I call it leadership -- unlike the poor excuse shown by Rubio, who couldn't even be bothered to write a bill in six months' time...

    -CW

  78. [78] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    That "never had to ban a SINGLE commenter" above should really read: "... even Michale, although he does try my patience quite regularly..."

    Heh. Michale, that one was for you. Heh heh.

    -CW

  79. [79] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [51] -

    What irks you most is the fact that it is going to be so effective at what you're decrying -- turning out the Latino vote.

    Guesses as to what the Latino vote split will be in November? Dubya hit the high mark of around 40%. I think Romney will be lucky to get 25%.

    :-)

    -CW

  80. [80] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 [54] -

    There's an article over at HuffPost (LONG article) that you're going to want to read, by Mark Blumenthal. Look under their "Pollster" heading.

    It's about how Gallup numbers are (this election cycle) off, skewed towards Republicans. This was a complaint a while back on Rasmussen (2008? I think), and was valid. Rasmussen seemed to take the criticism to heart, and their polling has been better ever since. We'll see whether Gallup follows suit or not, possibly after this election cycle is over.

    Anyway, it's an article you'll love. Check it out. I'll search out the link if you can't find it.

    -CW

  81. [81] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    David [58] -

    Oooo! Signing statements! I had forgotten about those... talk about extra-constitutional!

    Nice Cheney dig, too, I have to say.

    :-)

    -CW

  82. [82] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [59] -

    Signing statements (please point to where the Constitution allows for such...).

    Ignoring congressional subpoenas.

    Authorizing and refusing to even consider prosecuting torture.

    Oh, and what exactly did he fire all those US Attorneys for? Wasn't that a pretty big stink? Talk about interfering with the course of justice....

    And that's just for starters, off the top of my head. We could go back to Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre, if you'd really like to dig into history...

    :-)

    -CW

  83. [83] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [61] -

    BWAH hah hah hah HAH!

    Seriously, you kill me. You were making sense, precisely up to this point.

    "He's the King... Dubya The First..."

    If you were going for irony, you have achieved it hands-down. If you were trying to make a serious argument, man, you can do better than this. It is nakedly showing what you're complaining about in others: "when the president is OUR GUY, everything he does is right"...

    I'm still wiping my eyes from the tears of laughter this one engendered...

    -CW

  84. [84] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [65] -

    You are just making this too easy, friend.

    President Bush had Congressional Authorization (Including Democrats!!) for every action he took.

    Please show me where Congress approved of breaking laws and treaties they had passed on torture. Don't waste too much time, it doesn't exist.

    Please show me where Congress approved of the Executive Branch refusing subpoenas from Congress. Bush SPAT IN CONGRESS' FACE on this one.

    The entire concept of a "signing statement" is, once again, a big honkin' loogie in the face to Congress -- by definition. The president says "I will follow this law, but only pages 3-5 of it." Where, exactly, is that covered in the Constitution? Again, don't spend too much time on it.

    Congress passes a law. Bush spits in the face of the law. How is that "authorization" in any way, shape, or form?

    -CW

  85. [85] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    How, exactly, is Obama "creating" workers? You're the one who seems to have the God complex when it comes to Obama. Did he create them out of the dust? Or the clay?

    These people are ALREADY HERE. They weren't "created" by Obama, they're ALREADY HERE.

    How is what Obama did "creating voters" when it doesn't lead to a path to citizenship? Please explain that one, also, but using only facts and not wild suppositions about future legislation.

    -CW

  86. [86] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [69] -

    Actually, the FISA laws and the wiretapping laws -- laws ON THE BOOKS -- were ignored by the Bush administration. The AUMF simply does not apply to United States citizens, and never has. Bush told his Justice Department (and everyone else involved) to IGNORE the wiretapping laws on the books -- which is precisely what you are accusing Obama of doing now.

    Man, if this is all the arguments Republicans have got, I just keep thinking to myself how brilliant this move by Obama truly is.

    Has anyone heard a single Republican attacking the idea as "amnesty" or doing their usual nativist firebreathing? They seem to be reduced to making some sort of "process" argument. And "process" arguments never sway voters, for the most part.

    -CW

  87. [87] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [71] -

    Oh, thanks for the text. Please cite the section which says that this AUMF overturns the Bill of Rights (4th Amendment) or the FISA law or the wiretapping laws which are on the books.

    What's that? There are no sections which state any of that?

    Well, facts are tricky things, aren't they?

    And here I thought you revered the Constitution so much...

    heh.

    -CW

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    We get it, Michale ... this is a religious battle for you.

    As such, I see very little point in discussing further. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

    While it may take a while (at least a year) you will come to learn that I am right...

    When ya'all start pounding President Romney for all the things that you pounded Bush over, but ignored for Obama, ya'all will look back and say...

    "Sum beach!! Michale was right!!"

    :D

    CW,

    RE:(76)

    Everything you referred to is covered under the AUMF...

    "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines..."

    Now, is torturing terrorist for intel "necessary" and "appropriate"??

    Apparently Presidents Bush and Obama thought/think so.

    I agree. Probably the only area of agreement between myself and Obama.. :D

    Everyone who commented, above, on this article could sit down as a group, have a few beers, have a few laughs, tease each other about the other side's idiocy, and be great friends at the end of the evening.

    Anyone? Think that's a fair statement? I'd put heavy Quatloos on that one, personally.

    Truer words were never spoken.. :D

    (1) These people are here already. They are already (like it or not) in the labor market. Would you rather have a Latino genius kid be able to get a job in Silicon Valley, or force him to work under the table picking strawberries? Which do you think is better for America?

    Since this is heavy on the supposition, let me propose an alternate one..

    You have some 29yr old psychopath serial killer with a couple misdemeanor crimes who, under the LAW, if captured would be deported.

    Under Obama's amnesty, the red carpet is rolled out for him..

    He ends up killing 20 kids across 4 states...

    Which is better for America???

    For the record, my supposition is just as valid as your supposition... :D

    No Silicon Valley conglomerate has EVER been started by an illegal immigrant...

    That "never had to ban a SINGLE commenter" above should really read: "... even Michale, although he does try my patience quite regularly..."

    Heh. Michale, that one was for you. Heh heh.

    Danke... :D

    What irks you most is the fact that it is going to be so effective at what you're decrying -- turning out the Latino vote.

    Current polling shows Latinos swinging towards Romney.

    That's why Obama pulled this stunt now...

    Oh, and what exactly did he fire all those US Attorneys for?

    Probably for the same reason Obama fired all those US Attorneys.

    Please show me where Congress approved of breaking laws and treaties they had passed on torture. Don't waste too much time, it doesn't exist.

    "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines..."

    Now, is torturing terrorist for intel "necessary" and "appropriate"??

    Apparently Presidents Bush and Obama thought/think so.

    I agree. Probably the only area of agreement between myself and Obama.. :D

    These people are ALREADY HERE. They weren't "created" by Obama, they're ALREADY HERE.

    But they are not LEGALLY allowed to compete with American citizens for employment.

    NOW they are, thanx to Obama..

    Again, the question must be asked.. (Thanx Fisher :D)

    WHY is Obama creating Workers, but not Work!??

    Bush told his Justice Department (and everyone else involved) to IGNORE the wiretapping laws on the books --

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Oh, thanks for the text. Please cite the section which says that this AUMF overturns the Bill of Rights (4th Amendment) or the FISA law or the wiretapping laws which are on the books.

    "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines..."

    Now, is wiretapping for intel "necessary" and "appropriate"??

    Apparently Presidents Bush and Obama thought/think so.

    I agree. Probably the only area of agreement between myself and Obama.. :D

    As David indicated, there is unlikely any possibility of agreement on this issue..

    But, I would like to see if I could get TWO questions answered that have been ignored..

    1. Does anyone here HONESTLY and TRULY believe that Obama took this action for altruistic, compassionate and humanitarian means??

    This next one is going to be a bit more involved as I want to make it an EXACT analogous situation.

    For days and weeks, President Bush's 2004 campaign has been in trouble. Daily reports of how Kerry is totally dominating Bush on fund raising. Bush is getting pummeled because he can't raise money..

    One day, President Bush goes to the Rose Garden and announces that he is is using prosecutorial discretion and has instructed his DOJ not to prosecute corporations for anti-trust violations. It's obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that Bush is hoping that he will reap a financial/donation whirlwind by this action..

    2. Would ya'alls reaction to this action of Bush's be the same as it is to Obama's??

    Be honest...

    Finally, let me finish up with this..

    Obama's Harvard law professor says 'President MUST be defeated in 2012' (even though he's the man Barack used to have on speed dial)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160715/Obamas-Harvard-law-professor-Roberto-Unger-says-defeated-2012.html#ixzz1y8amRBzv

    Here's a man who has drunk more Obama kool-aid than all of ya'all put together.

    This is a man who knows Obama better than ANYONE else, except maybe Michelle...

    And HE is saying that Obama must be defeated..

    If ya'all look at things objectively, you simply CANNOT ignore the facts...

    Things are going really bad for Obama.. He has been pummeled from the Right, pummeled from the Left and pummeled from the Center. His campaign donations are being outclassed by Romney 10-1. Every attack he has made against Romney falls flat and is repudiated by DEMOCRATS.

    And, it's only going to get worse..

    How can ANYONE view this act as ANYTHING other than desperation??

    The funny thing is, these are the kinds of desperate acts that one usually sees in Sep or Oct...

    Not in MAY and JUNE!!!

    Obama is going to crash and burn..

    It's only a matter of time..

    Remember, you heard it hear first. :D

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding your TP #4

    Well, you know what? We've waited long enough. Congress is not going to act. If they had the slightest inclination to act, they would have done so before now.

    Ahem...

    Congress DID "act" on the DREAM legislation..

    It was voted on, on THREE DIFFERENT occasions..

    And it was voted DOWN *EACH AND EVERY TIME*...

    So, the claim that Congress hadn't acted on the DREAM legislation is nothing more than partisan bullshit...

    Congress DID act..

    Obama just didn't like the result..

    So he supplanted his OWN judgement, thereby thwarting the will of the people thru their elected representatives.

    And he did so for the purist pandering reason in the history of this country...

    He did it to create new voters.

    No amount of spin will change that these facts.

    Michale.....

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The President is out of touch. He is always trying to convince people that the economy is "doing fine", but he usually does it from the ninth hole."

    :D

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of what you think about Bush and his actions, whether or not they were legal or illegal, one simple fact remains.

    Bush did not do what he did for the purpose of securing more votes.

    In fact, what Bush did actually COST him, both in votes and in popularity...

    But President Bush felt that securing the country was more important than securing votes..

    Obama, on the other hand, wants to secure votes. He is DESPERATE to secure votes.. And he'll do what he thinks is best to secure those votes, without ANY other consideration..

    Even if he has to screw over every American citizen to do it...

    It's apparent..

    If it's a choice between getting more votes or helping the middle class, Obama (and apparently the Left) is going to throw the middle class under the bus....

    What does Obama care... The middle class "is doing fine".... :^/

    Michale.....

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, I would like to see if I could get TWO questions answered that have been ignored..

    And if I haven't worn ya'all out.. :D

    I would like an answer to THIS question..

    How EXACTLY could this possibly be "good" for Americans??

    Now, if you want to lay out the "silicon valley/genius" supposition, then you have to allow the "psychotic serial killer" supposition. For one is as logical and possible as the other... For every type of BEST CASE scenario, I could come up with an equally plausible WORST CASE scenario..

    So, let's just stick to just logical and rational extrapolations of how dumping 2-3 million new workers in an already over-stressed and ready to implode work force could possibly be GOOD for Americans??

    Michale.....

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But they are not LEGALLY allowed to compete with American citizens for employment.

    One last point. You argued that somehow this will hurt the middle class.

    This is also ridiculous. Why? Because the competitive edge that illegal immigrants enjoy is that companies can pay them next to nothing with no benefits.

    By bringing them into the fold ... this advantage goes away.

    And ... guess what? They start paying taxes! Suddenly they are paying into the system which before they were just using.

    And for the record, just a quick reminder about George W. Bush, who only had the country's best interests in mind ... (*choke* *gag* I think I just threw up a little in my mouth) and never did anything for political reasons ...

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/bushmission2.jpg

    1. Does anyone here HONESTLY and TRULY believe that Obama took this action for altruistic, compassionate and humanitarian means?

    You're missing the point. You're trying to say that somehow one politician is better than another politician. That somehow everything Bush did was for the benefit of the country and that he never did anything for political reasons. And Obama is the opposite.

    Where do you get off claiming that only you know what's best for the country?

    Quit being so elitist!!!

    They're both politicians. They both believe/believed they are doing what's best for the country. They also both do/did things to get re-elected.

    2. Would ya'alls reaction to this action of Bush's be the same as it is to Obama's?

    I believe we actually gave Bush credit for pushing to pass the DREAM act. Even though it never happened.

    And guess who also has no problem with what Obama did ... Mitt

    Despite the fact that his base hates this, Mitt doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Now Mitt came out w/ some mild (read "half ass") critique but it's very likely he would have pushed for something similar.

    -David

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    One last point. You argued that somehow this will hurt the middle class.

    This is also ridiculous. Why? Because the competitive edge that illegal immigrants enjoy is that companies can pay them next to nothing with no benefits.

    Exactly!! You prove my point for me..

    Up to now, the illegals have been relegated to menial jobs that the middle class doesn't want..

    But NOW.....

    Now that they are legal, they can compete with the middle class for THOSE kinds of jobs..

    THAT's the whole problem. Obama has dumped 2-3 million NEW workers in an area that has a huge HUGE surplus of workers already!!

    There is absolutely NO LOGIC to this...

    And THAT is somehow GOOD for this country??

    Please.. Someone. ANYONE.. Explain how this could possibly be???

    And for the record, just a quick reminder about George W. Bush, who only had the country's best interests in mind ... (*choke* *gag* I think I just threw up a little in my mouth) and never did anything for political reasons ...

    I never claimed that Bush "never" did anything for political reasons.

    But the examples that *YA'ALL* gave of Bush's actions were not done for political reasons.

    How could they be, when they cost Bush so much, political speaking???

    You're missing the point. You're trying to say that somehow one politician is better than another politician. That somehow everything Bush did was for the benefit of the country and that he never did anything for political reasons. And Obama is the opposite.

    Again, I never said that EVERYTHING Bush did was for the benefit of the country.

    I simply pointed out that, with the examples that YOU and CW gave me, THOSE were done for the benefit of the country with no political considerations whatsoever..

    In the PATH TO 9/11, "Bush" said in the aftermath of the attacks, "Politics will NOT be discussed whatsoever" or words to that effect..

    Now, whether that is true or not, I don't know. It sounds like something a writer would insert, for dramatic effect.

    BUT... But the fact is, I can SEE Bush saying that...

    It's also factual that I simply can NOT see Obama saying something even CLOSE to that...

    As far as missing the point, YOU are missing MY point..

    If Obama's actions were done to actually BENEFIT the country, I would accept that.. Even if they were wrong...

    WHY someone does something is almost as important as WHAT they do..

    So, if someone does the WRONG thing, but for the RIGHT reasons, that is a point in their favor...

    But the simple fact is Obama did the WRONG thing for the WRONG reason...

    Obama, in essence, spit in the face of every LEGAL immigrant in this country and said, "Fuck the American People and their representatives, Fuck the middle class and Fuck the unemployed! *I* need the votes!!!!"

    They're both politicians. They both believe/believed they are doing what's best for the country. They also both do/did things to get re-elected.

    Yes, they are BOTH politicians. Yet, not ALL of their acts are political...

    "Is a man better than the worst thing he has ever done?"
    -Michale

    I am sure that there are some acts that Obama has done that were NOT political, that didn't garner him ANY political clout, that he did solely and completely because they were the right thing to do.. PERIOD

    I can't think of one, but I am sure there is one or two out there..

    But, we know for a FACT that Bush did MANY things in the aftermath of 9/11 that cost him politically. Almost cost him re-election.

    But he did those things because it what was best for the country...

    Despite the fact that his base hates this, Mitt doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Now Mitt came out w/ some mild (read "half ass") critique but it's very likely he would have pushed for something similar.

    I have no doubt that Romney WILL push for something similar..

    But we're not talking about "pushing" for something.

    We're talking about UNILATERALLY and WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY whatsoever, declaring it...

    We're not talking about going thru Congress to create a new law or alter an existing law..

    We're talking about BEING the law...

    Ya'all would have had a conniption fit if Bush had ordered his DOJ not to prosecute corporations for anti-trust violations in order to secure re-election..

    Com'on.. You know THAT it's true. :D

    Obama did the exact same thing for the EXACT same reason..

    Michale.....

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for the record, just a quick reminder about George W. Bush, who only had the country's best interests in mind ... (*choke* *gag* I think I just threw up a little in my mouth)

    It's funny iddn't it?? :D

    Your reaction to Bush is exactly like my reaction to Obama. :D

    I guess the only difference is you (I am assuming) don't like Bush as a politician.

    I don't like Obama as a person.

    Michale....

  96. [96] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If Obama's actions were done to actually BENEFIT the country, I would accept that.. Even if they were wrong.

    It's how you're determining "benefit" ...

    It sure looks like you're saying "what I believe = benefits the country" anything else doesn't.

    BTW- Your argument has changed about a dozen times during these comments. This is indicative of someone who has made up their mind a priori of any facts and then searches for arguments to justify a predetermined position.

    I don't like Obama as a person.

    We know. That's what we keep saying.

    I guess the only difference is you (I am assuming) don't like Bush as a politician.

    I disagreed with what Bush did.

    What I'm saying is whether or not I like or dislike him doesn't matter. I can separate this from what he did.

    He took us into Iraq for all the wrong reasons. He wiretapped America, without telling anyone. He took his eye off the economy. He bailed out the banks to the tune of $700 billion plus. He very rarely made good decisions.

    All of his policies were focused on helping out large corporate special interests, not people.

    Romney wants to return to these same policies.

    I'm sure he's a very agreeable guy, but his policies are a complete return to everything which failed.

    -David

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    If anyone wants to get LIVE updates on SCOTUS rulings...

    http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

    They say no CrapCare ruling today and, it appears that SCOTUS only hands down their rulings on Mondays.

    If true, we have another week to go. :(

    Michale.....

    [Editor's note: changed "now CrapCare" to "no Crapcare" as I think that's what Michale was trying to say, here. --CW]

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's how you're determining "benefit" ...

    I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how dumping 2-3 million new workers into an already over stressed work force benefits anyone but Obama??

    BTW- Your argument has changed about a dozen times during these comments.

    For example....????

    This is indicative of someone who has made up their mind a priori of any facts and then searches for arguments to justify a predetermined position.

    Or it could be indicative of someone who has acquired new facts that add to the perverse nature of the act..

    You say Potato and I say Eskimo... :D

    We know. That's what we keep saying.

    And most of ya'all (not you) keep trying to attribute it to partisan ship.

    It has nothing to do with Right or Left and has everything to do with Obama being a liar, a coward and a politician. And a liar.. Did I mention that?? :D

    Romney wants to return to these same policies.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    I'm sure he's a very agreeable guy, but his policies are a complete return to everything which failed.

    As opposed to Obama's policies which have been such a resounding success, eh?? :D

    We don't KNOW how President Romney will do..

    We DO know how BAD President Obama has done...

    In this case, the Devil we DON'T know simply HAS to be better than the Devil we DO know..

    Michale.....

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But President Bush felt that securing the country was more important than securing votes...

    but apparently political payback was more important than either. ask valerie plame wilson about the bush administration's national security priorities.

    but that's neither here nor there. obama isn't unilaterally changing people's legal status, he's changing enforcement policy, which is well within the power of the executive branch (just as commuting scooter libby's sentence was well within the power of the executive branch). one might well argue that both actions tend to violate the spirit of the law, but as far as the letter of the law goes, there's nothing improper with an executive deciding to prioritize statutes as he sees fit.

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In this case, the Devil we DON'T know simply HAS to be better than the Devil we DO know..

    or WORSE! (or not, heck if i know.)

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ... guess what? They start paying taxes! Suddenly they are paying into the system which before they were just using.

    By definition, these people are criminals..

    What makes you think that, just because they are LEGAL now, that they are going to start being law-abiding???

    Michale.....

  102. [102] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Ahem, a quick recap ...

    1. "All the precedences that Obama has set will be used by that GOP President." - Michale

    Ahem ... the precedent of the expansion of the executive branch was set by President Bush. President Obama has actually reverted to previous precedent of not abusing the executive branch.

    2. "President Bush had Congressional Authorization (Including Democrats!!) for every action he took." - Michale

    Ummm ... no

    3. "HOW could it possibly be GOOD for this country to add 2-3 million people to a work force that hasn't been able to sustain AMERICANS since Obama took office?" - Michale

    These people are already here.

    4. "Can't you see how much worse things are going to be for that middle class?" - Michale

    These people are already here. Only now maybe they can pay taxes and compete fairly with American workers.

    5. "WHY is Obama creating Workers, but not Work!" - Michale

    Did we mention these people are already here?

    6. "I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how dumping 2-3 million new workers into an already over stressed work force benefits anyone but Obama?" - Michale

    These people are already here. In our country. The United States of America. This means they're already in our workforce. They compete because they get paid illegal immigrant wages with no benefits. Legitimize this and it is better for the American workforce.

    What's left at the end of this is "I don't like Obama" which is perfectly ok. It's just interesting that you're able to apply one set of criteria to one politician and a completely different set to another.

    Bush had the best interest of the country at heart and somehow Obama doesn't because ... well, you (and he) say so (BTW- it's really hilarious that you cited Bush's own testimony as evidence of his having the country's best interests at heart . What do you think Bush is going to say about his decisions? Of course he thought he was doing what's right. Just as we all do. Including Obama.)

    -David

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    or WORSE! (or not, heck if i know.)

    There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest or even intimate that Romney would be worse than Obama..

    Frankly, Kermit The Frog would likely not be worse than Obama...

    Ya'all gotta ask yourselves one question..

    Well, I wish ya'all would ask yourselves a lot more questions, this one is probably the best one to ask..

    If Romney is so bad for this country, why do polls show consistently that Obama and Romney are neck and neck with Romney actually GAINING ground in Swing states??

    I mean, according to ya'all, Obama is the Great Hope, the Savior Of Us All... Shouldn't he be wiping the floor with Romney???

    Hell, he shouldn't even have to CAMPAIGN because, after all, he is the annointed one who cannot be dared questioned by anyone, least he runs away!!

    So, why isn't Obama's popularity off the charts and why hasn't the speck of a man, this ignorant and shameless challenger been sent packing!??

    Is it because those of us who actually DECIDE these elections realize that, while Romney may be bad, Obama is much MUCH worse??

    Could that possibly be the case??

    It certainly fits the facts...

    Michale...

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Frankly, Kermit The Frog would likely not be worse than Obama...

    that's a completely unfair comparison! kermit the frog would be the best president since ike, if not lincoln himself.

    http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/15/10699381-stephen-colbert-gets-kermit-the-frog-to-leap-on-the-gop-primaries?lite

    why? because i'm an amphibian-american! do we all look alike to you?
    ~KTF

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. "All the precedences that Obama has set will be used by that GOP President." - Michale

    Now I know how frustrated ya'all get when I put words in YOUR mouths. :D

    I never claimed that it WILL happen. I have said that it LIKELY will happen and I (for one) will enjoy the spectacle of ya'all acting EXACTLY as I predicted ya'all will act.. :D

    Ahem ... the precedent of the expansion of the executive branch was set by President Bush. President Obama has actually reverted to previous precedent of not abusing the executive branch.

    As I have well established (without any successful refutation, I might add) there is absolutely NO precedence set whereas a previous president ignored the law to create new voters..

    I doubt you will find ANYONE in this country, aside from the kool-aid drinkers, who will say that Obama has not expanded the executive branch and ignored the checks and balances inherent in our Republic...

    These people are already here.

    Not legally. As such they cannot compete with the middle class for jobs..

    NOW, because of Obama, they can..

    HOW is that "good" for Americans?? NO ONE has been able to explain that...

    Did we mention these people are already here?

    Did I mention that simply being here does not legal workers them make??

    Are you deliberately ignoring this fact because you don't have a response??

    Or do you not understand the difference between "being" here and being here LEGALLY???

    These people are already here. In our country. The United States of America. This means they're already in our workforce. They compete because they get paid illegal immigrant wages with no benefits. Legitimize this and it is better for the American workforce.

    HOW!!???

    For the love of the gods, tell me HOW it is better for the workforce that has tens of millions MORE workers than there are jobs and Obama just adds 2-3 million MORE workers that COULD NOT compete for those jobs before Obama broke the law??!!???

    HOW could that POSSIBLY be BETTER!!???

    Let me restate the problem, because apparently we have a failure to communicate...

    Gonna have to get creative here...

    ONCE UPON A TIME...

    There was a community. In this community, there are 10,000 legal workers looking for jobs. Let's call them "MidClas".. You also had 4,000 illegal workers in this community.. We'll call them "IlIms".

    Now, the MidClas workers work at MidClas jobs.. The IlIm workers work at IlIm jobs. MidClas workers don't work in IlIm jobs and IlIms don't work at MidClas jobs...

    There are enough IlIms to fill all the IlIm jobs..

    But there are only 1000 MidClas jobs and 10,000 MidClas are vying for those jobs...

    Now, in comes a great savior. We'll call him PresOb.. PresOb comes to the community with great apolmb and fanfare and claims, "I AM THE SAVIOR. I AM THE ANSWER. I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA."

    OK, so MidClas people don't know what all that crap means. But they say, "Hay.. If PresOb says he can make us jobs, then hell, let's swear allegience to PresOb..."

    So, the MidClas swear allegience to PresOb...

    PresOb waives his magic wand and....

    VIOLA!!!!!!

    IlIms are NOW able to apply in MidClas jobs!

    PresOb is very pleased with himself and says, "There... NOW everything is better..."

    MidClas people are dumbfounded.. Some guy (let's call him MicLe) walks up to PresOb and says,

    "Yo... Dickhead?? HOW are things 'better'?? We had 10,000 workers competing for 1000 jobs. You just made it so now we have FOURTEEN THOUSAND workers competing for the SAME FRAKING 1000 jobs!!! On WHAT fraking planet would THIS be considered 'better'!!???"

    And everyone lived miserably ever after...

    THE END

    Does it make a bit more sense now??

    It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to conclude that, by adding 2-3 million MORE workers into a workforce that they were not part of before, a workforce that ALREADY exceeds the number of jobs by tens of millions....

    It's IMPOSSIBLE that such an act could be construed as "good" by ANY stretch of the definition.....

    (BTW- it's really hilarious that you cited Bush's own testimony as evidence of his having the country's best interests at heart . What do you think Bush is going to say about his decisions? Of course he thought he was doing what's right. Just as we all do. Including Obama.)

    Yer right. Both President Bush and President Obama will claim that the exampled actions were "right"...

    Funny thing though..

    The FACTS support Bush's claim..

    The FACTS don't support Obama's claim, as I have proven beyond any doubt..

    Michale.....

  106. [106] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If Romney is so bad for this country, why do polls show consistently that Obama and Romney are neck and neck with Romney actually GAINING ground in Swing states??

    the most likely reason is that polls are based on responses from human beings, who have on the whole been known to be a fairly ignorant species. if that weren't the case, president The Frog would be promoting his legislative agenda as we speak.

    "Because you're an idiot. No, no, don't look like that, practically everyone is."
    ~Sherlock

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    that's a completely unfair comparison! kermit the frog would be the best president since ike, if not lincoln himself.

    I stand corrected.. :D

    Michale.....

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    the most likely reason is that polls are based on responses from human beings, who have on the whole been known to be a fairly ignorant species.

    Funny....

    That reason wasn't mentioned when the whole of the electorate (myself included) got down to their knees and thanked the gods for Obama...

    Back then, we were applauded the world over for being enlightened... :D

    What a difference 4 years make.. :D

    Michale....

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note (since there is unlikely to be ANY agreement on the actions of King Barack The 1st)...

    How's Egypt working out???

    Seems we have the Muslim Brotherhood taking control of the country in conjunction with the military.

    If only we had someone here. Someone knowledgeable enough to predict that Egypt would go the way of Iran... Someone prescient about things.

    Wonder if such a person exists.. :D

    Michale.....

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That reason wasn't mentioned when the whole of the electorate (myself included) got down to their knees and thanked the gods for Obama...

    addendum: a fairly ignorant species, myself and all present company included.

    meet the new boss, same as the old boss
    ~pete townshend

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    the most likely reason is that polls are based on responses from human beings, who have on the whole been known to be a fairly ignorant species.

    Seriously, though..

    I would dispute this..

    Yea, sure.. One poll here, one poll there might be explained by ignorant electorate...

    But poll after poll after poll after poll after poll??

    Naw. The cross-section is too large for ignorance to be the sole cause..

    These many polls are saying something..

    Ya'all just don't like what they are saying..

    Apparently, neither does President Obama..

    Hence, the desperation....

    Michale.....

  112. [112] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Not legally. As such they cannot compete with the middle class for jobs..

    Let's say an employer needs 10 people for their business.

    The employer looks at the market and says, wow, I can get a great deal if I can fill as many of these positions as possible with illegal immigrants.

    I don't have to pay them benefits and they will work for practically nothing.

    This employer if acting purely according to the market (not all do, but many will look only at the bottom line) will fill as many of these positions as possible with illegal immigrants.

    Let's say the employer hires 4 Americans and 6 illegal immigrants. The employer would hire all illegal immigrants except that he/she can't fill all available skills from the illegal immigrant pool.

    Some of the positions may require education or skills that are more available from the American labor force.

    Once you eliminate the advantage that illegals have (no benefits/less pay), equivalently skilled American workers are suddenly on even footing.

    Employers don't have the incentive (less pay & no benefits) to choose illegals.

    What is being eliminated is the incentive to employers to hire illegally.

    -David

  113. [113] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. I like your MicLe character. Does he really begin sentences with "'Yo dickhead ..."?

  114. [114] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You misunderstand me. Its not that I think anyone who doesn't agree with me is not worth considering, its that basing Federal policy on how the stupid people think the world works is what is known as The Bush Years.

    But thanks anyway for the compliment. I never try to be a great liberal.--I just try to do the right thing and--it just happens!

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Your example works for farm work and low end jobs..

    Those are the jobs that illegal immigrants take and look for..

    NOW....

    Now, 2-3 million previously illegal workers will be able to look for jobs that middle class Americans normally fill...

    There is now more competition in middle class jobs that aren't prevalent enough for the existing workforce... How can adding 2-3 million ***NEW*** workers into the workforce be ANYTHING but a catastrophe???

    p.s. I like your MicLe character. Does he really begin sentences with "'Yo dickhead ..."?

    Get a few beers in me.... er... him and he'll say all sorts of crazy shit.. :D

    You can bet that if NRN ever comes to Florida, there will be some crazy CRAZY times! :D

    Michale....

    [Editor's Note: I seem to be in a within-the-comment editing mood today. For new readers to the site, Michale's last line was a positive one -- as in the Steve Martinesque "wild and crazy" usage. Michale, here, is predicting the vast quantities of beer that would no doubt be consumed should Netroots ever go to Florida... heh... -CW]

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    You misunderstand me. Its not that I think anyone who doesn't agree with me is not worth considering, its that basing Federal policy on how the stupid people think the world works is what is known as The Bush Years.

    The problem is your definition of "stupid people" appears to be anyone who disagrees with you...

    I never try to be a great liberal.--I just try to do the right thing and--it just happens!

    "Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. And let history make it's own judgement."
    -Zefram Cochrane, April, 2044

    :D

    Michale.....

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Let me put it another way..

    Do you think there is even a REMOTE possibility that you could accept a logical and intelligent argument from a person who thought Bush was a pretty good president and NOT think of them as "stupid"???

    Or is your idea of "disagreeing" with someone who is NOT stupid consists of disagreeing as to whether Bush is an idiot or a moron??

    :D

    Michale.....

  118. [118] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Chris: There's an article over at HuffPost (LONG article) that you're going to want to read, by Mark Blumenthal. Look under their "Pollster" heading.

    Thanks, C. That WAS a long article. I heard Chris Matthews make a comment a week or so ago about polling, in general, these days. He said he didn't trust them; that something was weird about this election cycle. I've been thinking the same, myself. The numbers feel "off," or inconsistent in that no matter what Obama does or says, his numbers don't seem to reflect it, positively or negatively. They just basically stay the same. We've talked about this.

    Strange but interesting question: Do you think "political correctness" may be playing a role, re: respondents' answers? I'm not sure pollsters are getter true-blue answers. Has that thought crossed your mind?

  119. [119] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Chris: Everyone who commented, above, on this article could sit down as a group, have a few beers, have a few laughs, tease each other about the other side's idiocy, and be great friends at the end of the evening.

    Totally agree with that.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    The numbers feel "off," or inconsistent in that no matter what Obama does or says, his numbers don't seem to reflect it, positively or negatively.

    I was saying the same thing a few days ago..

    If, after ALL the negative crap of the last couple weeks, Obama's numbers don't plummet, then there is SOMETHING inherently wrong with the Polls...

    Not that I have ever had much faith in polls to begin with..

    Sure, the POLL of POLLs has a bit more credibility, due to the sheer number and diversity of the polling range..

    But if THAT poll doesn't move, after all that has happened??

    Then something surely is rotten in Denmark...

    As an aside, anyone know where that saying, "Something is rotten in Denmark" came from??? :D

    Michale.....

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK... I have to clarify something which might mean I have been stepping on my wee-wee...

    Is there ANY evidence that would indicate that the 2-3 million illegals that Obama has just made legal would NOT be allowed to vote??

    I have read that these new legal workers will be handed voter registration forms along with their other paperwork. Of course that was likely facetious, but still.....

    If there is any indications that these new workers will NOT be allowed to vote, then one of my major beefs is rendered moot..

    Of course, there is STILL the issue of dumping 2-3 million workers into a pool that is already overflowing with workers. That IS still an issue that will cost Obama Independent/NPA votes...

    But if these JEEPs can't vote, then the impact might not be as bad as I thought.

    Sure, it's pandering to the existing Latino community and that is surely worthy of scorn...

    But if Obama is not pulling a Castiel, then I would have less of a problem with it..

    Michale.....

  122. [122] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    Polling seems to be in a flux state these days. It's taken them years to figure out how to blend in cell-phone-only folks, which they now at least attempt to do statistically. The whole Pollster article was on minorities-weighting, and it could be another thing that takes a few years to get right, we'll see. I just find it amusing that this time it's Gallup in the hot seat, whereas before it was Rasmussen. I think people on the left or right who discount any numbers as "that's a Rep/Dem polling organization" are usually wrong -- most pollsters are more committed to thier craft than that, I think. As evidence, Rasmussen adjusting their methodology so they went from worst pollster to best in one election cycle.

    Perhaps the stability in O's numbers is due to the way we've polarized politically as a nation -- to put it another way, there are simply fewer folks who are willing to give ANY politician the benefit of ANY doubt. Since they're the ones who swing back and forth, maybe even they have been set in concrete now. But that's just a guess. The stability is indeed remarkable -- I don't think any president has ever had such stable polling (have to check this).

    Another factor: both committed lefties and righties pay close attention to the 24-hr news cycle, so we see these minor bumps in the road as gigantic and consequential political mountains -- but the swing voters don't pay that close attention, for the most part, and miss a lot of the tit-for-tat on the cable teevee. This is one reason why polls before, oh, late August are almost meaningless -- because so few people are actually paying close attention to the race. Again, just a guess.

    Michale -

    Obama's doing fine in the swing states. Look for the start of the "Electoral Math" series here, very soon now, for more details.

    See my comments above to Chris1962 on polling. Something may not be wrong with the polls, something may be wrong with assuming everyone else watches cable teevee.

    The "something rotten in Denmark" is, I believe, from Shakespeare's "Hamlet". [Boy, I'm going to look pretty foolish if I get that one wrong without bothering to Google it.]

    As for your last comment, you are (I think) getting your DREAMs mixed up. The original bipartisan DREAM Act bill put the affected young folks "on a path to citizenship." That path, mind you, is likely at least 3-5 years long, from my knowledge of immigration. It could even be longer -- a LOT longer.

    This bill failed, when the Republican co-sponsors in the Senate (Hatch? I forget the names) voted against it. It did get 55 votes, but not enough to defeat a filibuster.

    What Rubio proposed doing (without actually writing a bill, because he was politically too chicken to do so) was to change the idea. Instead of a "path to citizenship" the only thing they'd be given would be legal residence and work permit. In other words, Republicans were fine with the basic idea, as long as none of these kids ever got the chance to vote in an American election. Ever.

    This is precisely what Obama did. Except Obama isn't even offering legal residency, just not getting deported. And work papers. But no hope of citizenship at all. And it only affects 800,000-1,000,000, don't know where you're getting your figures from.

    Oh, the other change was that in the original DREAM Act, I think you had to either go into the military or college, whereas in Rubio's non-existent plan and Obama's action, high school graduation or a GED is all that is required.

    But nobody's getting any sort of automatic citizenship whatsoever. Even if there were, it wouldn't happen for years and years. So take a deep breath, sit down, and realize that the right wing has been lying to you.

    Heh. Couldn't resist that last one.

    :-)

    -CW

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW...

    OK... That does render part (but ONLY part) of my argument moot..

    However, in my defense, I *DID* state above (#46) that I wouldn't have as much problem with this issue if the 2-3 million JEEPs didn't get the right to vote..

    Someone could have taken a LOT of wind out of my sails if they had said that these JEEPs won't, in fact, get the the right to vote..

    But you can bet that many in the Hispanic Community are all gaa gaa over Obama, so it STILL is pandering..

    But, since Obama is not pulling a Castiel, then that part of my argument is fini...

    Obama's doing fine in the swing states. Look for the start of the "Electoral Math" series here, very soon now, for more details.

    I think you better check your sites.. I posted a link a few days ago that showed MANY states that WEREN'T Swing States now ARE Swing States and many Swing States that were Swing States are now Romney States...

    The winds of change are a blowin' and they are not the Hope/Change BS that fooled everyone in 2008...

    Michale.....

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Oh.. And just for the record, it's not kids that are getting the exemption..

    It's anyone up to the age of 30... That's where the 2-3 million number comes from...

    And that's the PRIME age group that will take jobs away from American citizens...

    That's why it's so bad that Obama is dumping that many new workers into a group that is already over-stressed with workers. TENS of MILLIONS of American citizens vying for jobs that simply aren't available..

    And now, Obama has dumped 2 to 3 million MORE workers into that group..

    How can that be ANYTHING but bad???

    Michale..

  125. [125] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Those are the jobs that illegal immigrants take and look for..

    I don't know as this has anything to do with legal or illegal though.

    I think it has everything to do with education and skills.

    For example, if high tech computer companies could find illegal immigrants with the necessary skills and be able to pay them less with no benefits, I think they would.

    Wait a second ... they do exactly that except they're not here in America. They're in India and China :)

    For all we know, many illegal immigrants may be in middle class jobs already here. People w/ the available skills and education. What we hear about tends to be the lower skilled positions.

    I think you bring up a good point about the level of jobs currently taken by illegal immigrants. I just don't think that legalizing them would mean they would be immediately able to compete for middle class jobs.

    Down the road, perhaps. But you also have to understand that if they were paid better, you would start to see a positive feedback loop where they spent more. Demand would increase. And ... much of what we've talked about in previous threads ... demand stimulation ... would occur. This would mean creation of new jobs.

    -David

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww right.. Season Premiere of FALLING SKIES on..

    I am done for the night.. :D

    Michale.....

  127. [127] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Cool-looking aliens, but I don't know why they're firing bullets. Shouldn't they have some kind of a death ray?

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    For example, if high tech computer companies could find illegal immigrants with the necessary skills and be able to pay them less with no benefits, I think they would.

    That's a pretty big if...

    Of the 2-3 million illegals that will be made legal, how many do you think will have high tech skills?

    A dozen?? Couple dozen??

    Probably less...

    I think you bring up a good point about the level of jobs currently taken by illegal immigrants. I just don't think that legalizing them would mean they would be immediately able to compete for middle class jobs.

    Not immediately, no.. But surely within the year...

    Is it smart to dump 2-3 million NEW workers into the work force in the middle of this crappy economy w/ unemployment so high??

    Granted I don't know diddley about economics, but even *I* can see that such a move is moronic..

    But you also have to understand that if they were paid better, you would start to see a positive feedback loop where they spent more. Demand would increase. And ... much of what we've talked about in previous threads ... demand stimulation ... would occur. This would mean creation of new jobs.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    What illegals do now is send most, if not all, of the money they earn out of the country to relatives..

    If they get higher paying jobs, they won't pay taxes. They won't put their money back into OUR economy.

    They'll simply send MORE money out of the country. To help some OTHER country's economy...

    No matter how you slice it, this is a bad BAD thing for American citizens..

    CB,

    Cool-looking aliens, but I don't know why they're firing bullets. Shouldn't they have some kind of a death ray?

    Yea, the skitters are pretty unique amongst EBEs... :D

    As far as a "death ray" goes, this seems to be the trend with today's sci-fi..

    Even aliens as alien as the skitters have technological and hierarchical structures that are readily recognizable as having human based counterparts...

    Sci Fi these days seems to mirror human standards a LOT more than past Sci Fi classics..

    Take Battlestar Galactica for example..

    Shit, take a way the space ships and replace them with Navy ships and you would have practically the SAME story...

    I am not real sure how I feel about that.. Although the shows are enjoyable, it feels like cheating..

    Like the lazy person's sci fi...

    On the other hand, it DOES bring more people into the fold of sci fi. I am amazed that many of the shows that I like that are obvious sci fi shows (Fallen Skies, Continuum, Tera Nova etc etc) my wife likes as well...

    It's kinda like the Star Trek reboot. Yea, it might bring more fans into the Sci Fi/Trek universe..

    But is it STILL really SciFi??? Is it STILL really Trek??

    That is my boggle... :D

    Michale.....

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, we didn't get to Falling Skies last night.. My son had suggested a show called SUITS. We like Legal Shows (Fairly Legal, Drop Dead Diva etc etc (Yea, I watch a LIFETIME network show. Sue me.. :D)) so we gave it a shot and watched the first episode. It was pretty good, so we watched a few more instead of getting to Falling Skies..

    So, no spoilers please... :D

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just got hit with a GREAT idea..

    OK, let's make 2-3 million illegal immigrants legal..

    Hell, let's go all the way and make ALL illegal immigrants legal...

    Three stipulations..

    1. They are not eligible to vote.

    2. Their pay is docked at 30% ABOVE the normal taxes taken out. This will recover from these people the back taxes they owe.

    3. They cannot take a job until the unemployment rate is 5% or lower

    Under those conditions, I would support the making illegal immigrants legal..

    Helluva idea, eh!?? I should be POTUS!! :D

    Michale.....

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/obamabows-550x446.jpg

    That's our POTUS!!

    Never met a world leader he couldn't NOT bow down too...

    :^/

    Michale.....

  132. [132] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    David's had his shot so now I'll take a flyer... You've apparently settled on the impact on unemployment and the economy as the only defensible objection, or at least the most defensible one, but your so called concerns are meritless because you don't show how enforcing the law the Republican way would be better. And if we take the requirement to enforce the law as a given then its not whether Obama's action has draw-backs its whether his action has more draw-backs than the Republican way that matters.

    I keep calling the Republican position stupid. Specifically this is what I mean:

    The Economy/Unemployment The illegals are already here. They are, presumably, already employed. Obama does nothing that would exacerbate unemployment.

    The Republican approach, deporting 10-12 million consumers, legal or not, would result in less consumer demand fewer jobs and greater unemployment.

    The, "but the jobs they have now Americans don't want argument", is having your cake and eating it too. Using the law to create a class of serfs isn't immigration control, its exploitation. Obama does nothing that would exploit illegal immigrants, your brilliant solution and the Republican approach of demanding all illegals be deported before addressing immigration reform does.

    The bulk of taxes paid by residents are sales and service taxes, not income taxes (since Republicans never want to raise taxes (that is never overtly raise "taxes", they're always up for higher, usage fees, "sin" taxes, licensing fees, and any other tax that can be called by another name,) illegal immigrants consume and therefore pay those taxes the same as everyone else. The fallacy that illegals are just deadbeats is simply not true.

    As I've said before, just because you keep people out of the country doesn't mean you don't have to compete against them for jobs, it just means you don't get the benefit of their labors in tax support. Giving illegals Green Cards means they'd pay income taxes too. So Obama's way increases the tax base and consumer demand reducing the deficit and creating jobs. The Republican way reduces the tax base and consumer demand increasing the deficit, killing jobs, and retarding job creation.

    Security/Law Enforcement: We haven't the resources or funds to deport 10-12 million, particularly with our current economy. Doing so, even if it were possible, would throw us into another economic depression—That's the Republican way. President Obama's way would not. Since doing things the Republican way is simply and demonstrably not possible Obama's way actually promotes our immigration control policy as much as possible, the Republican way does not.

    Obama's way most effectively and efficiently executes the law. Deportations are up under his administration. Shifting priorities on which illegals to target first doesn't reduce the number being deported. The Republican way of wasting resources detaining anyone who looks like they might be illegal greatly wastes time and money and reduces the number of actual illegals deported.

    Targeting law-breakers who knowingly broke the law instead of children who's guardians broke the law is more of a deterrent to law-breaking and far more just than targeting illegals who are themselves the victims of law-breakers. Obama's way enhances respect for, and compliance with the law. The Republican way, demonstrably, does not.

    Obama's approach is actually possible, the Republican way is, again demonstrably—Not.

    Family Values: Again, the children are arguably victims of the law-breakers we seek to prosecute. I, frankly, find the determination to hold them responsible for the actions of their guardians do to the desire of those guardians to improve their kid's lives by bringing them here and the determination of Republicans not to reward those law-breakers by letting their kid's lives improve here, despicable. Where's the concern for the welfare of children Republicans claim is so important to them?

    Socialism: There is nothing more socialist than expecting the government to get you a job by keeping other qualified workers from applying. Whatever happened to the Tea party conviction that if you're unemployed its no ones fault but your own, touted ad nauseum to justify cutting social programs? If the poor and unemployed are just drugged-up grifters too lazy to work because "the jobs are out there" why the uproar over illegals supposedly taking Americans' jobs preventing "true" Americans from working?

    Stupidity: Jobs magically exist when you want to gut saftey-net programs for the poor and disappear when you want to justify immigration crack-downs?!

    Though the blatant hypocrisy and lack of any ethical or moral compass Republicans consistently demonstrate never ceases to amaze the simple fact is that people who actually believe that mutually exclusive Republican claims are indeed all true are stupid. As is basing Federal policy on the fallacy that those claims have merit.

    We all get that you don't like President Obama and are loath to credit him with anything positive but being reduced to claiming that targeting violent offenders over nonviolent ones is unconstitutional and not appropriate prosecutorial discretion should give even you pause. Your arguments are usually better than that.

    And so what if Obama's politicking and pandering? Politicians are elected for the purpose of pandering to us its their job! The pandering we complain about is pandering that in reality hurts us, like the republican approach to immigration, we expect our representatives to represent our interests not just do (or claim they'll do) what we think we want or have been misled to believe is best for us. Politicians who do whats demanded of them knowing it will ultimately hurt us because they're more concerned with promoting their own wealth and power than representing our interests are panderers to be deplored that isn't what President Obama's done. Don't hate Obama becasue he's good at being a politician. He's President of the United States of America presumably only good politicians need apply. We only elect politicians to the office we don't deify saints to it.

    BTW I actually respect your opinions and enjoy your arguments (mostly) in spite of the fact you think Bush was a good President. So I don't automatically assume anyone who doesn't loath Bush is stupid—some are just misguided.

    –Lew

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    BTW I actually respect your opinions and enjoy your arguments (mostly) in spite of the fact you think Bush was a good President. So I don't automatically assume anyone who doesn't loath Bush is stupid—some are just misguided.

    I am actually speechless.. I had no idea..

    Thank you.. Sincerely....

    The Economy/Unemployment The illegals are already here. They are, presumably, already employed. Obama does nothing that would exacerbate unemployment.

    I said I was "speechless"... I didn't say I was "post-less" :D

    That seems to be the common theme around here...

    "They are already here"...

    Forgive the crudeness of the analogy, but it's the best one I could come up with and it's, not all together fair or explicitly accurate..

    But it does convey the proper concept...

    Most every house has cockroaches in it... Does that mean the family should lay out food for them because, after all "they are already here"...

    Like I said, it sounds mean.. But consider it..

    Illegals are a drain on our resources, just like cockroaches are a drain on a homeowner's resources..

    Do you honestly think that all of these criminals will, by virtue of being made "legal" all of the sudden start paying taxes and being productive members of society??

    Based on what?? Hope???

    The "already here" argument doesn't pass the 'smell' test. Bank robbers and child molesters are "already here"... Should we legalize those as well??

    Security/Law Enforcement: We haven't the resources or funds to deport 10-12 million, particularly with our current economy.

    This is the "it's too hard to enforce so let's make it legal" argument. As a former LEO, this argument completely and 1000% rubs me the wrong way...

    Where does it end??

    Drug laws are too hard to enforce.. Let's just make drugs legal...

    Illegal immigration?? Too hard to enforce. Let's just make them legal..

    Bank robbers?? Ya know what? It's just TOO damn hard to catch bank robbers.. Let's make bank robberies without injuries.... Well, that law just won't be enforced...

    Treason?? Damn hard to catch spies.. We'll just turn a blind eye....

    Where's the concern for the welfare of children Republicans claim is so important to them?

    Using this reasoning, we should bleed for ALL the children, the world over....

    Besides, it's not like we're sending them to jail or sending them to Rura Penthe.... They are simply being sent to their home country...

    How is that "holding them responsible"??? And we're not even talking about ACTUAL children, as there are mechanisms in place to protect the REAL children. If there isn't, then there should be.. But that has nothing to do with Obama's decree...

    We are discussing (at least *I* am discussing) the 18-30 year olds. They are the biggest drain on this economy....

    Socialism: There is nothing more socialist than expecting the government to get you a job by keeping other qualified workers from applying.

    No one is expecting the government to get ANYONE a job... An American citizen, however, DOES have the right to expect that their government, the government that ***THEY*** pay taxes too, would not ignore the law and allow UNQUALIFIED people access to American Jobs...

    Why do ya'all have such a problem with looking out for Americans first and the rest of the world after???

    WHY is that such a big problem, such an EVIL concept???

    We all get that you don't like President Obama and are loath to credit him with anything positive but being reduced to claiming that targeting violent offenders over nonviolent ones is unconstitutional and not appropriate prosecutorial discretion should give even you pause. Your arguments are usually better than that.

    But that's not what Obama said.. If he HAD said that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I might even applaud him for it..

    No.. He said we are going to IGNORE the nonviolent ones. Give them Amnesty... Period...

    It's like saying "We're going to ignore the Bank Robbers that don't hurt anyone. Give them amnesty.. Because, after all, it's too hard to capture them and it's just a waste of money"...

    Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it...

    And so what if Obama's politicking and pandering? Politicians are elected for the purpose of pandering to us its their job!

    But, Obama said he wasn't that kind of politician...

    Do you mean.. He LIED!???

    Hmmmmm Strange.. The Left went ballistic whenever Bush "lied".. And his weren't even actually lies...

    So, why does Obama get a pass??

    Don't hate Obama becasue he's good at being a politician.

    That's exactly why I hate Obama.. In my book a politician is slightly below a slug and slightly above a child molester....

    ESPECIALLY since Obama told me that he WASN'T a politician..

    THAT pissed me off.. And even though I am loathe to admit it, I will (and have) acknowledge when he does something good. It's rare so I am not put out too much..

    But in THIS particular case, Obama did the wrong thing..

    And, even worse, he did the WRONG thing for the WRONG reasons..

    But, if you like, I'll file this away for when President Romney panders to an interest group and ya'all go frakin' ballistic.. :D

    I'll simply say, ever so sweetly, "How can you hate him for pandering?? It's what politicians do, after all."

    Having said all of the afore, I am still appreciative of your final comment...

    I also respect your perspective and your point of view.. It does keep me on my toes.. Especially since so much of what you say is logical and rational, albeit misguided by partisan considerations and ideology... :D

    But hay, it's what makes us all interesting....

    Have a beer... On me... :D

    Michale.....

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting note for those who think that the MSM is not in the bag for Obama.

    Once again, NBC edited footage to make it look like Romney said/did something that he didn't..

    This is the THIRD time in a month or two that NBC has edited footage/audio to portray it was something it wasn't to further an Left Wing agenda..

    One time?? Mistake...

    Two times?? Coincidence..

    Three times?? Intent is established..

    Michale.....

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put it another way..

    If it were a crime for a News Organization to have an ideological agenda and I was the investigator, I would have enough evidence to put the NBC away for a gazillion years... :D

    Michale.....

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news:

    Attorney general asks White House to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/attorney-general-asks-white-house-to-exert-executive-privilege-over-fast-and-furious-documents/2012/06/20/gJQABd4EqV_story.html

    What is Holder so afraid of???

    Hope everyone is making room under the bus for Holder..

    Like I said.... He'll be gone by Sep..

    Michale...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    What was I just saying about Obama being more of a dictator than a President???

    Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents
    http://news.yahoo.com/justice-dept-says-president-exerted-executive-privilege-over-140250605.html;_ylt=A2KLOzLe2uFP1W0AlUTQtDMD

    So much for transparency, eh??? :^/

    There is only ONE REASON why Obama would exert Executive Privilege over these documents.

    Because he is implicated in knowing the full story of FAST AND FURIOUS...

    It's the only logical answer..

    Michale.....

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Obama's Administration is "the most transparent and open Administration in history"...????

    REALLY!!!?????

    No one would know this by their record...

    Michale.....

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Executive Priviledge is not a good reason to with hold information from Congress."
    -Senator Barack Obama, 2007

    Once again, Obama's words are coming home to roost...

    Michale.....

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOLY CRAP!!!!

    BREAKING NEWS!!!! THIS JUST IN!!!!

    It's unbelievable!!!!!

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/sheila-jackson-lee-blames-bush-for-fast-and-furious/article/2500137

    DEMOCRATS BLAME BUSH FOR FAST AND FURIOUS!!!

    Who woulda thunked it....

    {/sarcasm}

    Michale.....

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth. Our son, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation. For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. The documents sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee. Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious.
    -Family Of Slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

    This administration is truly without shame...

    Michale.....

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOLDER HELD IN CONTEMPT

    Well, that about sums up how *I* feel about Holder..

    As a former LEO (is there really such a thing??) I find the Attorney General contemptible...

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]