Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
President Obama just gave one of the shortest and most succinct speeches of his political career, laying out his new immigration and deportation policy. The speech seemed heartfelt and personal. There were few digressions into side issues or personal stories. It clocked in at somewhere near 15 minutes, which is notably short for not just any Obama speech but for any modern politician's speech.
The Republican leadership in Congress is reportedly considering a brilliant idea. Now, normally when I start a column off with a line like that, my intent is to be as snarky and caustic as possible (especially when I use the word "brilliant"). Not this time, though -- this time I am offering nothing but praise for what could indeed be a great way for Republicans to solve their internal struggle about how to respond to President Obama's upcoming new policy on immigration. I say this because while the idea of rescission would certainly allow the Tea Partiers to stage a big political drama, it would also allow the adults in the Republican Party to move the possibility of shutting down the government completely off the table for almost a year into the future. At this point, that seems like a win-win proposition for all, and about the best of all the possible scenarios.
"President Obama is an illegal!"
No matter what the president soon announces on the subject of immigration reform, you probably won't hear that line being used against him. There's no real reason why it shouldn't, though, if you follow the logic of those opposed to what they call "amnesty." Instead of: "President Obama is acting illegally," or: "President Obama's actions are illegal," there's no reason -- again, using their logic -- why they shouldn't also be saying: "President Obama is an illegal!" And the reason has nothing to do with his birth certificate.
I don't want to deceive anyone by that headline, so allow me to explain its meaning up front. President Obama has the whole political universe holding its collective breath on when he's going to make his announcement of a change in immigration and deportation policy. News reports last week guessed that the announcement could come "as early as next week." Now that next week has become this week, everyone in Washington is expecting an announcement any moment.
What walks like a duck and quacks like a duck but seems to have serious mobility problems?
There is a very old tactic in American politics, used for decades after the Civil War, which is called "waving the bloody shirt." Without getting into the ugly details of Reconstruction (or the ugly details of the Democratic Party's own "Red Shirts," for that matter), the definition of "waving the bloody shirt" soon became akin to "using past injustices to divert attention from present-day issues." Holding a big grudge, in other words, and then milking it for all it is politically worth.
President Obama called the 2010 midterms a "shellacking." He demurred on providing a label for the 2014 midterms, but others sprang into the void. The most notable label so far (the one seemingly most repeated, at any rate) is that Democrats suffered an "ass-kicking" this past Tuesday night. At this point, I won't quibble over terms. Democrats got beat, and they got beat pretty badly.
This may come as a surprise to some, especially after Tuesday's election results, but President Obama actually had a rather good October in his job approval polling.
It's either the morning after, or the mourning after -- take your choice.
Last night, Democrats got well and truly shellacked once again in a midterm election. It was so bad, it's pretty hard for Democrats to even attempt to gild the lily or spot that elusive silver lining. Republicans are consumed with glee, which they've well earned this year.
With one week to go until the 2014 midterm elections, almost all of the punditocracy world is absolutely chomping at the bit for this cycle to already be over, so they can concentrate on the much-more-fun 2016 presidential election season. This is pretty obvious, with some media now swooning over Jeb Bush's possible candidacy and the Clintons out stumping for other Democrats (and being covered more in the news than the actual candidates).