Getting In On The Action
by digby
I think this tells you everything you want to know about where the Confederate rump is heading:
And he’s the “moderate” in the race. This is the guy he’s running against:
He’s a big proponent of the allegedly non-social conservative tea party too.
.
President Huckleberry Lays Down The Law
by digby
He is the change we’ve been waiting for:
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided that he would bump climate-and-energy legislation behind immigration reform as his next priority, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was apoplectic. Graham, along with Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), had spent months drafting a climate/energy bill, and was prepared to introduce it Monday, when, enraged by Reid’s plan, he backed out.
Earlier today, Reid appeared to reverse course, saying climate/energy would be the next logical issue to address, followed only afterward by immigration reform. So everything’s groovy, right?
Far from it. Tonight, Graham told me that he will filibuster his own climate change bill, unless Reid drops all plans to turn to immigration this Congress
There you have it. Or, to paraphrase James Baker, “fuck the Latinos. They don’t vote for us anyway.”
And I will bet you that he’ll vote against the climate change bill in the end.
.
Watering Pots
by digby
Here’s a shocking development …
Senate Republicans offered counter-proposals on financial regulation reform on Tuesday that seek to water down portions of a massive Democratic bill that has been under development for months.
The Democrats should stand tough and walk away from this one if they have to. I’ll be very interested to see if they have the nerve.
There is precedent for letting the Republicans roll around in their own manure while the Democrats come out smelling like roses. They ought to give it a try.
Update: I’m hearing that smart people think forcing the Republicans to continuously vote no on financial reform and refusing to accept their “shitty deal” makes the Democrats look weak.
If this is true then the Democrats should just abdicate their 59 seat majority and let the Republicans write all the legislation from the beginning. This is all just a supreme waste of time.
The good news is that both parties would be able to say they voted for a Republican financial reform bill, so that’s good. We wouldn’t want the Democrats to have any advantage in what may be shaping up to be a mid-term slaughter. That wouldn’t be fair.
.
Shitty Deal
by digby
Shorter Goldman hearings:
Courtesy Huffington Post
.
Empty Vessels
by digby
Women are just slightly dumb animals who need to be drawn a picture and lectured to like a four year old before they can understand what they are doing. That goes without saying. But giving doctors immunity from liability for failing to tell their patients about fetal birth defects? That seems just a tad much to me. Sure the dumb bitches can’t be allowed to make their own decisions about taking on a lifetime of care or consider implications for their own health and well being. What the silly little twits don’t know won’t hurt them, right? But you’d think that the important members of society like insurance companies and employers would have a stake in something like this.
The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion. Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims. The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion. Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt rape and incest victims and was an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy. He painted the other measure as immoral. “It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient,” Mr. Henry said. The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently. On Monday, the House voted overwhelmingly to override the vetoes, and the Senate followed suit at 10:42 a.m. Tuesday, making the two measures law. […]
Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.
I’m sure there’s lots more “abortion reduction” common ground like this we can find if we look hard enough.
.
Predisposed To Intolerance
by digby
Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t think there’s been much attention paid to these survey results from the University of Washington about the tea partiers’ attitudes toward race, equality and liberty. It’s not surprising in the least, but it is interesting to see it spelled out this clearly:
Led by Prof. Christopher Parker, the 2010 Multi-state Survey of Race & Politics examines what Americans think about the issues of race, public policy, national politics, and President Obama, one year after the inauguration of the first African American president. The survey is drawn from a probability sample of 1006 cases, stratified by state. The Multi-State Survey of Race and Politics included seven states, six of which were battleground states in 2008. It includes Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio as the battleground states. For its diversity and its status as an uncontested state, California was also included for comparative purposes. The study, conducted by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Washington, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent and was in the field February 8 – March 15, 2010. Tea Party views on Equality, Liberty and Obama [ New Results posted here ] Is America Now A Post-Racial Society? [ Full Table of Results here ] Many believed that the election of Barack Obama brought to a close the long, painful, and ugly history of race and racism in the United States. But as the incident with Henry Louis Gates last summer, and the more recent outbursts of the Tea Party activists suggest, racial divisions remain. Which is closer to the truth? A recent survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, finds that America is definitely not beyond race. For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.
Analysis of the data In what follows, we explore the ways in which support for the tea party movement affects Americans’ attitudes toward groups and views on important issues. Towards that end, we begin with how support for the tea party informs their view of marginalized groups in American society. Next, we assess how support for the tea party movement informs citizens’ views on liberty, equality, and perceptions of the president. To facilitate comparisons across a range of support for the tea party movement, we divide support for the tea party into four discrete groups. Respondents were required to answer a question that asked whether or not they “strongly approved” or “somewhat approved” of the tea party, or whether or not one “somewhat approved” or “strongly disapproved” the tea party. True believers, for us, were those who strongly approved the movement (N = 117). True skeptics are those who strongly disapprove the party (N = 66). Middle of the roaders are those that either somewhat disapprove or somewhat approve (N = 171). We also include the group who claim to have never heard of the tea party movement, and so had no opinion the movement (N = 157). The last two columns include the overall average for whites, and the difference between strong supporters of the tea party who we call “true believers” and those who are in the middle, those whose answer included a “somewhat” of some kind. We believe this a reasonable benchmark group.We begin with an assessment of how support for the tea party affects views of marginalized groups in America. As the results indicate, supporting the tea party (or refusal to do so) appears to color how people see blacks, immigrants, and gay rights (table of results: click here). In each case, across the range of support for the tea party movement, including those who had never heard of it, the true believers register relatively intolerant views. Of the nine (9) questions examined, there were only two instances in which the distance separating true believers from middle-of-the-roaders fell below 10 percentage points. On whether or not “…blacks have gotten les than they deserve,” the difference was 9 points, where true believers were more likely to disagree, and on whether “…you favor…laws to protect homosexuals against job discrimination,” where 4 points separated true believers from middle-of-the-roaders. The greatest differences emerge with questions tapping blacks, like other racial minorities, should work their way up “without any special favors,” and whether or not “gay or lesbian couples should be allowed to legally adopt.” In the first instance, true believers outpace those in the middle by 21 percentage points. In the second instance, support for gay rights, the gap separating the middle from true believers is 20 points, where the middle was more sympathetic. Overall, the average distance separating respective levels of tea party support, across various marginalized groups, after rounding, is 17% for blacks, 12% for immigrants, and 13% for gay rights, respectively. Rather large differences also emerge upon consideration of liberty, equality, and perceptions of president Obama’s character traits. On questions that tap issues of liberty, the gap between true believers and those in the middle is greatest on the question of whether or not the “government can detain people as long as they wish without trial,” where true believers support the proposition by 25 points over those in the middle. The difference narrows to 8 points when people were asked to consider whether or not people with political beliefs at variance with the much of the country are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Overall, for this set of questions, the mean difference is 19 points, where “true believers’” preferences appear to run counter to liberty, at least relative to those in the middle (table of results: click here) Similar results obtain for egalitarianism, where strong supporters of the movement appear less inclined toward equality. Consider the proposition where the distance between groups is greatest. When asked to opine on whether or not “we’d have many fewer problems in this country” if people more treated more equally, only 31% of true believers agreed, versus 55% of those in the middle, reflecting a 24 percentage-point difference. The smallest difference, a 17 points, emerges when respondents were asked whether or not “our society should do whatever is necessary to ensure equal opportunity in this country,” where 81% of those in the middle agree, versus 64% of true believers. Overall, the mean difference is approximately 22 points. Finally, at least for this round of analysis, we turn to the way in which support for the tea party informs how people perceive the president. At its most narrow, 21 points separate true believers from those who dwell in the middle, where 65% of the latter see the president as a strong leader versus 44% of the former group. The gap reaches its widest point on the issue of whether or not the president is moral: 64% of those in the middle agree that he is moral versus only 32% of true believers. Overall, the mean difference between the groups, in the way in which both perceive the president, is approximately 26 points
My beliefs about the tea party’s intolerance has come in part from intuition, so it’s good to see some data supporting my personal observations. I spent a good part of my life around racists and I know it when I see it. They have changed over all those years, of course. When I was a kid it was completely normal for people to use the “N”-word in casual conversation. It was also completely normal to smoke cigarettes around babies. Things have changed. But that doesn’t mean there is no racism and nobody smokes anymore. One of the main things that’s changed is that we don’t stand by silently if someone blows smoke in a baby’s face — and neither do we stand by silently when racism rears its ugly head in our politics.
I think it was delusional to believe that the election of the first black president wasn’t going to result in a primal scream from the racist rump of the American polity. We can pretend that this is about something less noxious and be compassionate because they are poor deluded people who don’t know any better. But the fact is that these are all well-fed, decently educated, privileged white Americans who have no respectable reason to redirect their resentments about a changing world onto racial minorities, immigrants, gays and women who behave in ways they don’t approve of. I actually have enough respect for them to take them seriously and treat them as adults not small children or innocent animals. They have agency. There’s no good reason not to hold them responsible for their words and actions.
For instance, here’s a news story about the North South Carolina Republican primary debates:
[I]t was when the candidates were asked about a recently approved Arizona law to crack down on illegal immigration that they plowed new ground.There was agreement that greater enforcement of state and federal laws would help solve the problem, but Bauer also blamed welfare. Workers, he suggested, are content to sit at home rather than fill jobs taken by illegal immigrants, typically in agriculture, construction or service.”The real problem is the work force,” Bauer said, speaking of a state with 12.2 percent unemployment, the sixth-highest jobless rate in the country. “The problem is we have a give-away system that is so strong that people would rather sit home and do nothing than do these jobs. Laziness is not a disability. There are a lot of people that are flat-out lazy and they are using up the goods and services in this state.
Compare that with those tea party survey results and see if you can figure out what he’s talking about.
.
Strange
by digby
To any progressives who are flirting with the idea of backing libertarian candidates as a protest vote against the Democrats, here’s an interesting editorial from the Louisville Courier-Journal about the Republican Senate primary between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson.
Here’s the passage about Paul:
Dr. Paul’s father, Ron Paul, is a well-known congressman from Texas who has run for president twice — in 1988 as a Libertarian and in 2008 as a Republican. But with Rand Paul, it’s not merely a matter of “like father, like son.” Dr. Paul, 48, is an independent thinker, whose articulate, good-humored approach to politics has caught many in the Grand Old Party by surprise.
Dr. Paul’s maverick streak is a challenge of sorts to the pooh-bah of Kentucky Republicans, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who at least behind the scenes is backing Mr. Grayson. The secretary of state is positioning himself to be a loyal foot soldier in Mr. McConnell’s destructive, dishonest effort to undermine virtually every initiative from the Obama administration.
The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.
He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn’t think it should be legislated.
His perspectives — like Mr. Grayson’s — are repellent to those who believe in a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. Indeed, Dr. Paul wouldn’t even permit exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He says the mother and the unborn zygote have equal rights.
It’s an unusual kind of “liberty” and “property” that says a woman doesn’t own her own body, but that’s where libertarians Ron and Rand Paul stand on the issue. If that, or the fact that they believe that (men’s) property rights trump human rights is something with which you agree, well then I’m sure they say some things that sound pretty good.
These are certainly people you’d think Democrats could work with in congress on certain issues. In the same way that a far right Republican will discover that he wants the government to fund research for Parkinson’s when his mother comes down with it, libertarians will sometimes make common cause with Democrats on discrete civil liberties issues and foreign wars. But other than that, there’s a very good reason why they almost always align themselves with the Republican party — after all, they agree with them on the most important issue to both of them. Taxes, of course.
Legislative strange bedfellows are common in DC. Indeed, alliances made up of people who find each other useful even if they have completely different aims is a natural part of negotiating political deals — and politicians often suffer from lack of trust because of it. But I honestly don’t think movement politics can be coherent or successful if it adopts such a utilitarian philosophy. People identify with political movements (as opposed to single issue advocacy) out of broad shared values and world view. They aren’t all that well suited to legislative sausage making or convoluted political gamesmanship. It’s dissonant and ends up confusing people. Sometimes strange political bedfellows are just too strange.
.
Witches
by digby
Both the White House and billionaire conservative Peter G. Peterson are holding “fiscal responsibility” summits dominated by calls to cut our most vital safety-net programs. We are countering this with our Virtual Summit on progressive approaches to reducing the federal deficit while protecting our social contract with our elderly, poor, disabled and unemployed.
You can watch the president’s deficit summit right now.
But read this depressing article at Huffington Post first. I think this says it all:
“The frame of the debate is between those who think the witches have
taken over the entire community and the whole lot of them should be
burned and those who think there are only a few witches and burning
just a few of them would be enough to appease the demons,” said James
Galbraith, the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government at the
University of Texas. “There are a few of us operating safely removed
from the bonfires who maintain there is no such thing as witchcraft.”
Sadly, somebody said the other day that David Axelrod was madly waving polling results around the White House that said people really want to kill some witches.
So much for that reality based community thing.
.
Elizabeth Bumiller, Royal Stenographer and Messenger
by tristero
This is another post where I try to look rather closely at the way something is being said. Here, the topic is pretty serious – the communication of important data within the Pentagon – but that topic, while addressed, is not my main focus. Rather, it is the way that topic is reported that concerns me, and concerns me a lot. Obviously, my reasoning and conclusions are speculative, but I don’t think they’re entirely unfounded.
Those of us who have been enduring Elizabeth Bumiller’s reporting for the New York Times over the course of far too many years have marveled at how someone so lazy, so incurious, and so biased could hold onto her job. I think I can offer a partial explanation. She’s a messenger, not a reporter.
Still, rarely has her sloth been on such prominent display as it is here, an article about the Pentagon’s dangerous obsession with elaborate PowerPoint presentations in lieu of serious analysis and genuine comprehension. But, appearances aside, this article wasn’t written for you or me, instead… well… Go ahead. Read it. I’ll wait.
Don’t see what I’m talking about? Of course you don’t. After all, you’re not a reporter who’s supposed to be doing an article on the problems with Powerpoint presentations, or who accidentally happens to know something very important about the subject. You’re simply someone who relies upon the media to, you know, inform you. So it’s quite understandable that you wouldn’t realize that the problem with Bumiller’s article is what is glaringly not mentioned. That omission would make this an appallingly bad piece of reporting… if Bumiller’s intention was actually to inform the ordinary reader about the nature of the problem.
In fact, if you were a reporter, rather than a royal stenographer and self-appointed Messenger to the Mighty, and you were doing an article on problems with PowerPoint presentations in the military, you would be obligated to mention Edward Tufte’s famous essay, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint which brilliantly described how thoroughly misleading and counterproductive these cheesy slideshows can be.
Who is Edward Tufte? Again, it’s not your job, Ms/Mr Ordinary Reader, to know who he is. It should be a reporter’s job to find out, however, but apparently Bumiller never did. Tufte is, barely arguably, the foremost authority on the visual presentation of complex data in the United States. Data like the stuff displayed in a military PowerPoint slideshow. Since the publication of his first masterpiece, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Tufte has become well known as THE expert on how to create effective visual presentations, either in print form or live. Here’s a link to an excerpt from his work, where he discusses the problems that were hidden in plain sight in a PowerPoint presentation during a space shuttle disaster, a presentation which gave NASA the misleading impression that the problem wasn’t that serious.
In short, if you are actually writing an article about the problems with PowerPoint presentations, it absolutely behooves you to contact Edward Tufte (who incidentally recently received a presidential appointment). But Bumiller didn’t bother, and for good reason, I think: her article is not really about the problems with PowerPoint. It is an expression of the whims of the miltary’s leaders .
Let’s analyze what Bumiller actually did do to write her article. It wasn’t much. She looked at, maybe read, a couple of articles in military journals and looked at a website. She also read a short section of Fiasco. And she interviewed the following people:
Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster
Capt. Crispin Burke
Thomas X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel
That is, apparently, all she did (and got a nice clipping – front page, above the fold, for her efforts). While there is a blizzard of apparent facts, there is virtually no attribution for many of them. For example, Bumiller writes,
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates reviews printed-out PowerPoint slides at his morning staff meeting, although he insists on getting them the night before so he can read ahead and cut back the briefing time.
How does she know? She doesn’t say. I read this as implying she spoke to Gates, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say she probably didn’t, that she got this tidbit from one of the fellows above. Why? Because I don’t think a reporter wastes a Defense Secretary’s time by making a special effort to interview him about when he reviews his PowerPoint slides. Or rather, she calls him up specially and asks about something that minor exactly once.
There are also problems with the following excerpt. As I read it, Bumilller makes the quote appear as if it came from a formal interview, but again, it is all but certain that someone told her about it, or that it was a casually dropped aside while she was taking dictation – I’m sorry – reporting on some other story she was discussing with Petraeus:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and says that sitting through some PowerPoint briefings is “just agony,” nonetheless likes the program for the display of maps and statistics showing trends. He has also conducted more than a few PowerPoint presentations himself.
Another curious feature of the article is that the attribution of a considerable amount of information is hidden from public view. Instead, we get euphemisms like “Senior officers say…”
So what are we to make of what Bumiller wrote? First of all it’s “he said/she said” with absolutely no focus or interest in trying to grapple with what the actual problems with PowerPoint presentations in the military might be, or what should be done to fix them. (A few apparently bewildering slides does not a case make.)* In short, it is stenography: Bumiller simply wrote down what she was told, looked up a couple things and thereby got herself a prominently placed clipping.
But if it is stenography – and it surely is – it’s stenography with a particular message. Somebody powerful – Gates? Petraeus Both? Others? – is really fed up with sitting through all the stupid fucking PowerPoint presentations and wants it reined in. Rather than exercise direct authority issuing memos (at least not yet, it’s too trivial, unless your initials are DR, and he’s history) he called in Elizabeth and – not directly, of course – told her what to write and who to contact. And so she did.
And that’s all she did. She didn’t do a single thing to verify beyond an article or two, which she didn’t do more than mention, that there really was a problem. She simply told us what the Big Guys think, and that’s all.
What’s the problem with that? Well, here’s one. Since Bumiller is not reporting, but merely doing the bidding of the powerful leaders in the military (if not the Defense Secretary) we are not provided enough facts to be fully informed as to whether there really are serious problems with PowerPoint. All we are told is that powerful people think there are. We’re not even given any access to sources that would enable us to make up our own minds.
As it happens, there are very good reasons to cut back on the incredible amount of time wasted preparing slides, and to be alarmed at the misleading, insipid presentations. But what would happen if the Powers That Be were wrong, or deliberately trying to mislead or promote misinformation? You’d never know that was going on from Bumiller’s style of reporting. She clearly doesn’t think that is her job. (I wonder: why did the name “Judith Miller” just pop into my head? Weird…)
I’m sure that, ever since the first newspapers, powerful people have been using them in order to send messages of this sort to others. But there was a time when newspapers, including the Times and the Post, would not only pass on those messages but sometimes provide context, sometimes dissent. Not always, surely, but enough so that, for instance, a criminal president – Nixon – was forced to resign.
I suppose to some extent it still happens, a little. But whenever it does, suddenly there are more Millers and Bumillers running around, taking dictation, writing articles where the Royals talk to other Royals in code, and the rest of us are left looking at entrails for signs about what is really going on.
And that is doubleplus ungood.
—
*Yes, that Afghanistan slide looks awful, but if it were in a long paper, and if it were properly annotated, it might actually make sense (although probably Tufte would have a lot of objections, even then). Clearly, the biggest mistake was to project something that deeply complex and think you’ve explained anything.
Mavericks Need Not Apply
by digby
Jesus H. Christ. The spin has completely taken hold that poor little Huckleberry Graham got stabbed in the back because mean old Harry Reid decided to switch the immigration and climate change bills to save his own skin and it’s just so terribly terribly partisan. Poor Huck had been way out there on a limb working so darned hard to pass climate change and now he’s stuck with this icky immigration bill that he ordered the president to start working on just a month ago.
Ezra Klein says that Huckleberry has a right to be angry because he was promised that immigration would come after climate, and maybe he does. But why should I or any other Democrat give a damn? It’s not like he’s someone who has shown much integrity in the past. If he feels screwed, maybe it will be an object lesson to him.
And anyway, I supposed to believe that the party of “drill, baby, drill” was going to vote for this climate change bill before the election? They can’t even bring themselves to be bipartisan on financial reform, the one issue people expect at least a few of them to finally cross over on due to the fact that everyone in America is pissed beyond words that the arrogant Wall Streeters just can’t seem to show even the tiniest bit of humility in the face of their near destruction of the global economy. We’re supposed to believe that Graham could get a handful of the recalcitrant Republicans to come over on the “job destroying, climate hoax” bill this year? I’m not sure they can even get the usual conservadems.
I think Graham has learned that the designated maverick chair in the GOP is no longer available. The teabaggers have made it clear that they won’t stand for it. He has a doddering old pal who is in a lot of trouble and the lessons of that can’t be lost on him.
Here’s Frank Sharry from America’s Voices:
Here’s my theory: Senator Graham wanted to do immigration reform, but it became clear this spring that his friend, Senator John McCain, was in a fight for his political life. In a state where the Republican Party has become consumed by nativism, McCain is in a close primary battle against anti-immigrant fire-breather J.D. Hayworth. With the primary scheduled for late August, Graham does not want to subject his friend to a ‘tough vote’ this summer.
So he decided to blame the President, slow walk the immigration bill, and gear up on climate change. Now that the ‘perfect crime’ isn’t working out the way he wanted, Graham is threatening to take his marbles and go home – refusing to work with Democrats on either issue.
Meanwhile, Senators McCain and Kyl, both of whom fought for comprehensive immigration reform in the past, are threatening to filibuster a bill if it is brought forward. They, too, seem determined to head off an immigration reform debate, even though their state is ground zero for the issue. Senator McCain went so far as to embrace the Arizona state law that is eerily similar to a 2005 Congressional bill he once denounced as “anti-Hispanic.”
So, let’s review. The President and Democratic leaders do what Senator Graham asks of them. They embrace a bipartisan framework drafted by Graham and similar to bills championed by McCain and Kyl in the past. All of this is being done in the name of securing additional Republican support and preparing for a legislative debate… and now, Senator Graham accuses the Democrats of playing politics with the immigration?
Tell me again, Senator, who exactly is engaged in a ‘cynical political ploy?
From what I’m reading and seeing from the MSM kewl kidz, they are all being deafened by the hoarse whispers of both Democratic and Republicans staffers insisting that nobody wants to take up immigration. I don’t know that they are going to have an option. Arizona just threw this issue to the top of the agenda whether these short-sighted, unprincipled politicians like it or not. If the Democrats don’t step up, they will end up giving Latinos a good reason to believe that since there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, they might as well give the GOP another look. Very, very dumb.
.
