Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Stopped Clock Is Right Alert

Today's contestant on "Even a Stopped Clock is Right Twice A Day": Huckleberry Graham on the GOP and immigration.

If Republicans don't wield their congressional majority next year to pass immigration reform legislation, a GOP takeover of the White House in 2016 will be "difficult, if not impossible," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said during a CNN interview released on Sunday. 
Graham, a Republican who has long-favored comprehensive immigration reform, said he believes the GOP has hurt itself with Hispanic voters due to its resistance to reforming the current system. And without a major change, Democrats will get another four years in the Oval Office, Graham told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union." 
"If we don't at least make a down payment on solving the problem and rationally dealing with the 11 million [illegal immigrants believed to be in the U.S.], if we become the party of self-deportation in 2015 and 2016, then the chance of winning the White House I think is almost non-existent," he said.

Yep.  And that's exactly what's going to happen, and why I'm not terribly worried about 2016. Republicans won't be able to help themselves.  (It's also the reason that Jeb Bush will never win the GOP nomination, by the way.)

Graham supports giving a pathway to citizenship to the so-called DREAMers -- undocumented immigrants who crossed into the U.S. illegally as children and have lived in the U.S. since. And in 2014, Graham showed the political viability of his position by successfully beating back a tough primary challenge in his conservative state by reaffirming -- rather than running away from -- his stance on immigration. 
"If the Republican Party cannot muster the political courage to deal with the DREAM Act children in a fair and balanced way after we secure our border, that says a a lot about the Republican Party's future regarding the Hispanic community," Graham said. "I don't believe most Americans would fault the Republican Party if we allowed children who have been here since they're babies to assimilate into society with a pathway to citizenship after we secure our borders." 
Graham was one of the most ardent supporters of a bipartisan immigration bill he helped negotiate in 2013 that passed the Senate but did not get a vote in the House. The bill would have bolstered border security and created a path to citizenship for millions -- many of whom are now getting temporary relief under Obama's executive action.

I doubt that Graham, if he proposed the exact same legislation again, would even get a vote.  The one thing I can guarantee you that won't happen in the next two years is the GOP passing comprehensive immigration legislation, and it'll cost them the White House in 2016.

Of course, they're okay with that as long as they continue to hold Congress, an overwhelming majority of state legislatures, and an overwhelming majority of Governor's mansions.  I don't see that changing much in 2016 either.


Jado said...

Feh. Don't blame the US government for the lack of metric. I remember the grate metric experiment in the late 70s - in an effort to get the US to use the metric system. And I remember the enthusiastic adoption of the US corporations, especially the one gas station that had gas at $1.09/gallon and also had it at $0.35/liter. They made a killing until the people realized they were paying $1.32 a gallon.

Corporations would LOVE to have another metric experiment. They made a fortune off American public ignorance last time, and also killed the metric popularity. We all saw it as a way for the US Corporations to gouge us, and they certainly rose to the occasion.

The system is fine; it's just that no one wants to be cheated (again) by scumbag gougers who will NEVER be indicted for fraud (or even suffer bad pr - it's all good if you are an American capitalist vampire)

RepubAnon said...

This illustrates the Prisoner's Dilemma clearly: no one pundit can ask hard questions because all the other pundits will promise to ask only softball questions. One wonders what would happen if a news show had 2 half-hour segments where one politician from each side got hardball grilling. If the ratings were good enough, the politicians would be lining up regardless of the hardball nature of the questions.

Doug Langley said...

Gee, that's funny. I seem to recall that one of the first interviews he did for the show was with President Obama. He sure did a lot of "barking" at the Prez - even whipping out a chart of what he felt were Obama's failings and demanding an explanation. Wasn't he afraid of hurting the poor guy's feelings and never getting him on the show again?

I'm guessing he just agrees with the conservatives' viewpoints and considers his regular guests as his close friends. You don't upset friends.

Related Posts with Thumbnails