Zandar's Thought Of The Day

If you feel your military personnel advocacy group has to put out a public statement declaring that you do not condone the overthrow of the United States government and that you recognize the President as your Commander-in-Chief, you should probably look into contacting one of the nation's many fine public relations consultants to manage your group's image in a more responsible manner.

Furthermore, you should probably not add "and just because we have volunteered to serve our country in a camouflage uniform we do not strip away our rights as Americans to express our opinion on the polices of the current or future administrations" to the paragraph when you're trying to explain that you're not considering armed treason.

Good luck with finding representation.  (Perhaps the PR consultant in question should consider it a sufficiently challenging occupational obstacle to be overcome.)

Three Words I Wasn't Aware Existed

"Mexican Nuclear Material".  As in the highly enriched fissile uranium stuff.  Mexico has it.  Luckily, seeing as how that might be a problem, Obama, at his nuclear non-proliferation summit this week, has talked Mexican President Felipe Calderon into turning the uranium back into lower-grade stuff used for reactors instead.  The deal effectively gets rid of the material.

In a statement at the Nuclear Security Summit convened by President Obama, the White House said the highly enriched uranium fuel at the reactor would be converted to low enriched uranium, which would eliminate all highly enriched uranium in Mexico.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will oversee the project, according to the statement.

In the statement, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the agreement contributes to reducing the risk of nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium being sold illegally and possibly ending up in the hands of terrorists.

The agreement follows announcements Monday by Ukraine saying it would get rid of its highly enriched uranium and Canada saying it will send highly enriched uranium from an Ontario power plant to the United States to be converted into another form.

Now granted, there's still tons of highly enriched uranium out there and you just don't need much of that to make a nuclear weapon   The good news is President Obama is making solid gains at getting rid of that material in a responsible way (instead of say, invading Mexico.)

Nice to see Obama on the ball on this matter.

A Man, A Plan, Teabagistan

Evan McMorris-Santoro's piece in TPM today on Jason Levin is fascinating, not only because Levin's plan is to bring down the Tea Party movement by providing the critical humor mass to cause the movement to collapse in on itself like a singularity of self-parody, but that the winger blogs on the right are actually helping him do it through their breathless overreaction.

The scheme reads like a sequel to "Being John Malkovich": Levin's group of protesters plan to get in the heads of tea partiers at the Tax Day Tea Parties nationwide Thursday and manipulate them right out of relevance. They'll dress like tea partiers, talk like tea partiers and carry signs like tea partiers. In fact, according to Levin they'll be completely indistinguishable from tea partiers, except for one thing -- they won't be out-crazied by anyone.


"Our goal is that whenever a tea partier says 'Barack Obama was not born in America,' we're going be right right there next to them saying, 'yeah, in fact he wasn't born on Earth! He's an alien!" Levin explained. He said that by making the tea parties sound like a gathering of crazy people -- his group's goal -- the movement will lose its power.

Levin said he got the idea from a counter-protest to the infamous Westboro Baptist Church group held outside Twitter headquarters in January. Levin said the Westboro group broke up after counter-protesters showed up holding signs "even crazier" than the ones held by the Westboro group. "They realized they couldn't get their message out, so they just left" Levin said.

On the Crash The Tea Party website, managed by Levin, he explains how the plan will work. "Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party to exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.)"

The brilliant part is the wingers are piddling all over themselves in the effort to portray Levin as the Dark Lord of the Sith or something.  They're doing most of Levin's work for him, in a movement born of paranoia and hyperbole, Levin has become the ultimate mole.  Steve M. documents The Stupid:

Um, are you getting the idea that this is just an adult class clown having a good laugh at the teabaggers' expense?

The blogosphere fans of the teabaggers aren't. Their teeth are still clenched in self-righteous rage. They still think this guy is an existential threat to them. Gateway Pundit writes:

Beware- Leftist radicals are planning on attacking and smearing the tea party patriots this week.

Michelle Malkin posted a must-read report on the tactics and history of these leftist thugs who are out to destroy the tea party movement. Take a minute to get informed. These crazy thugs will stop at nothing to destroy those who stand in the way of their radical socialist agenda. Remember your camera. It may be your best weapon.

The Michelle Malkin post links to the very Free Republic thread and other pages that reveal that Jason Levin is a harmless joker. She knows he's having a good laugh. So does Mr. G. Pundit. And still these people are girding their loins.

Malkin, even as she links to the Twitter page on which Levin thanks her for the publicity (alongside evil socialist tweets such as "Student vs. Staff Volleyball (all day) + Payday + Springbreak = A day full of WIN!" and a link to a masturbation-themed clip from Weeds), refers to Levin as one of many "publicity-seeking malefactors" and "left-wing leeches." She invokes "saboteurs" and "smear merchants," clearly putting him in that category.

Bob "Confederate Yankee" Owens goes even further at Pajamas Media:

The crashtheteaparty.org website exists for one reason and one reason only: to stifle the voices of those with whom they disagree and to render mute a rising chorus of dissatisfaction with a government that is acting in ways that deeply distress a growing majority. It is a censorship plot. It is an attempt to stoke anger and distrust, and it is as insidious and distasteful to the hearts of free men as any book-burning or pogrom.

Eeek! Eeek! Levin's a dangerous menace! 

These clowns are literally falling all over themselves in a concerted effort that's resulting in making themselves look like idiots in order to try to stop a concerted effort to make them look like idiots.  Levin doesn't even have to show up on Thursday.  He's already won.  The snarkological damage has been enormous.

If it wasn't for the fact that these goofballs might actually end up in Congress, I'd be laughing my head off right now.  But Jason Levin gets all the credit in the world for this impressive social jujitsu.  Just the threat of him showing up making Tea Party crazies look like nutcases will practically guarantee the prophecies of unintentional comedy will come to pass.

Thursday's going to be amazing, folks.  Stay tuned.

In Which Zandar Actually Agrees With Tim Geithner

Timmy takes to the WaPo today to explain how he's going to stop the next meltdown.  Curiously, the article doesn't begin with "I shall immediately resign due to the fact I helped make this mess worse!" but it does actually offer some quasi-decent advice on what Congress needs to do: set up an independent agency to monitor banks, and give regulators the power to shut down Too Big To Fail banks when then go bad.  Even better -- and I can't believe I'm saying this -- Geithner actually wants derivatives regulated.

Thankfully, signs of bipartisan support for action seem to be emerging in Washington, including for an independent consumer financial protection agency.

That is welcome news. The best way to protect American families who take out a mortgage or a car loan or who save to put their kids through college is through an independent, accountable agency that can set and enforce clear rules of the road across the financial marketplace.

But consumer and investor protection, while critical to reform, are only one part. As the Senate bill moves to the floor, we must all fight loopholes that would weaken it and push to make sure the government has real authority to help end the problem of "too big to fail."

To prevent large financial firms from ever posing a threat to the economy, the Senate bill gives the government authority to impose stronger requirements on capital and liquidity. It limits banks from owning, investing, or sponsoring hedge funds, private equity funds or proprietary trading operations for their own profit unrelated to serving their customers. And it prevents excess concentration of liabilities in our financial system.

All of that means major global financial institutions -- whether they look like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup or AIG -- will be required to operate with less leverage and less risk-taking.

Crucially, if a major firm does mismanage itself into failure, the Senate bill gives the government the authority to wind down the firm with no exposure to the taxpayer. No more bailouts. Instead, we will have a bankruptcy-like regime where equityholders will be wiped out and the assets will be sold.

These are important steps, but they are not enough. Ending "too big to fail" also requires building stronger shock absorbers throughout the system so it can better withstand the next financial storm. To do that, the Senate bill closes loopholes and opportunities for arbitrage, and it brings key markets, such as those for derivatives, out of the shadows.

Transparency will lower costs for users of derivatives, such as industrial or agriculture companies, allowing them to more effectively manage their risk. It will enable regulators to more effectively monitor risks of all significant derivatives players and financial institutions, and prevent fraud, manipulation and abuse. And by bringing standardized derivatives into central clearing houses and trading facilities, the Senate bill would reduce the risk that the derivatives market will again threaten the entire financial system. 

I mean...this is something of a shock to see the guy who I've been riding as a Wall Street insider since Obama announced he was his pick for Treasury actually come out and publicly advocate for basically everything I've said that we've needed in order to start fixing this problem.

My next question is "What's the catch, Timmy?"  Independent regulatory oversight?  Resolution authority on megabanks?  Derivatives regulation and transparency?  The devil's all in the details there.  Geithner is absolutely correct when he says these need to be done right.  I'm thinking they will not be, and the consequences will be disastrous.

Still, credit where credit is due, and it only took 15 months, too.  Let's see these ideas become real legislation with teeth, Mr. Secretary.  But at least you're finally on the right track.

It's A Small Business World After All

The latest numbers on small business hiring aren't good, but it's worth looking at why.

The National Federation of Independent Business said its monthly index of small business optimism fell 1.2 points in March to 86.8 and below 90 for the 18th consecutive month.

"The March reading is very low and headed in the wrong direction," said Bill Dunkelberg, NFIB's chief economist.

"Something isn't sitting well with small business owners.

Poor sales and uncertainty continue to overwhelm any other good news about the economy." Small businesses normally account for the bulk of new jobs, making them an important part of the recovery.

The problem is small businesses are consumption-driven businesses.  They rarely manufacture anything that's not available from a large corporate store, so in general people pay a little extra for their location's convenience or their service level, or for the quality of the product.  You pay a little more for the local ice-cream shop's homemade milkshakes, or the boutique's jeans because you don't have to drive downtown, or the restaurant's fish special because it's the best fish plate in town, or for the extra knowledge of the PC repair shop's fix-it guy.

But in a recession, price is king.  Paying a "little extra" becomes far less important on the scale of things, and paying less becomes far more important.  That favors larger businesses who can provide goods and services in bulk, and do so with less overhead.  Small businesses are the most vulnerable to recessions because they are small.  When times are good, they can adjust rapidly and grow.  but when times are bad, they have to cut back sharply.  When we're all looking to cut back on costs, it's the local small business that get hurt first.

But industry groups are quick to blame taxes and health care legislation as the problem.  The solution: tax incentives for small businesses already in health care legislation and a raft of small business tax incentives for hiring that President Obama wants, the Republicans are of course against.

Dunkelberg blames that in part on uncertainty about Washington's policies, particularly those related to taxes and health care.

"There is no legislation that has passed or that is promised that is encouraging to small business owners and the news about the fiscal crisis and the need for more taxes is hardly encouraging," the trade group said.

Trade groups like the NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce have been against Obama from the beginning, even when he's putting forth Republican-tested, conservative ideas like tax incentives targeted at hiring.  The real problem is the fact that when your economy loses 8 million jobs, the billions lost from purchasing power means small businesses just don't have the sales to hire, taxes or no taxes.

The real problem is the fact the economy got skunked by Too Big To Fail.  Those small enough to fail are now doing so.   And that happened before Obama even won the election.

Paging Dr. Smith, You Are Needed In Year 2025

The Wall Street Journal lets us know once again there's going to be a shortage of doctors over the next 15 years unless we train more of them.  The Wingers are quick to blame health care reform, but as usual, the messy facts elude them.  Luckily, the WSJ does point out the salient information that this shortage was destined to happen thanks to Republicans a dozen years ago:

But medical colleges and hospitals warn that these efforts will hit a big bottleneck: There is a shortage of medical resident positions. The residency is the minimum three-year period when medical-school graduates train in hospitals and clinics.

There are about 110,000 resident positions in the U.S., according to the AAMC. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on Medicare funding to pay for these slots. In 1997, Congress imposed a cap on funding for medical residencies, which hospitals say has increasingly hurt their ability to expand the number of positions.

Medicare pays $9.1 billion a year to teaching hospitals, which goes toward resident salaries and direct teaching costs, as well as the higher operating costs associated with teaching hospitals, which tend to see the sickest and most costly patients.

Doctors' groups and medical schools had hoped that the new health-care law, passed in March, would increase the number of funded residency slots, but such a provision didn't make it into the final bill.

"It will probably take 10 years to even make a dent into the number of doctors that we need out there," said Atul Grover, the AAMC's chief advocacy officer.

In other words, we've had this shortage coming since the 105th Congress, one created thirteen years ago.  You know, one where the Republican Party was in charge of the House and Senate, that whole Trent Lott/Newt Gingrich thing going there.  Republicans kind of failed to restore medical residency funding too.

Sadly, that measure was cut out of the health care reform bill too.  So yes, given a chance to correct the Republican party's mistake, the Dems blew that one.  But the source of the shortage belongs to the boys with the power of the purse in 1997, and that was the Republican party, who decided a little off the top from Medicare then would be fine for America later.

A Big Fight In Big Sky Country

Add Montana's Attorney General, Democrat Steve Bullock, to the list of AG's who think suing the federal government over Obamacare is a waste of time.  TPM's Christina Bellantoni:

Bullock, elected in November 2008 along with President Obama, said there is "no credible constitutional claim" to the lawsuits, which seem driven by politics. "The lawsuit also presents serious standing and ripeness issues, given that it appears to be filed based more on the timing of the November 2010 elections than the date in 2014 when individuals and states might first be subject to the act's requirements," Bullock wrote in the letter, which you can read here.

"Montana's decision not to join these lawsuits leaves these critical questions of national policy in the hands of "We the people and our elected representatives, where these decisions belong," he added.

Needless to say, Montana Republicans are furious, among them Montana's House minority leader, Scott Sales.

Sales told me in an interview this morning he does believe the Republicans are poised to make major gains in the fall legislative elections, even though he is term limited and will be leaving state office. He was speaker of the House with a 51-50 majority, but when the legislature split 50-50 in 2009, the control went to the party which holds the governorship.

Sales thinks the bill is unconstitutional and will put "a huge burden" on states due to Medicare expansion and disagreed with Bullock's claim. "He accuses us of playing politics - that seems seems a little political to me," Sales said.

That's a convenient claim:  pointing out that this is partisan politics is of course, partisan politics.  It doesn't change the fact that it's Republican-led states suing over this bill and Republican AG's doing the suing (with the exception of Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is of course a Republican.)

This is all one giant fundraiser/GOTV effort on the part of the Republicans for 2010 and they know it.  It doesn't matter if the lawsuit's doomed if it helps them get control of Congress in November so they can simply defund and shutdown the Obama government.  I'm glad there are AGs willing to call them out on it, but it's all political theater anyway.

Washington Mutual-ly Assured Destruction

Senate hearings on the collapse of Washington Mutual, the largest bank failure in American history, get underway today.  The reasons behind the breakdown?  One, really.  Greed.

The panel is holding the first of four hearings Tuesday on the role high risk mortgages played in the financial crisis.

"Using a toxic mix of high risk lending, lax controls and destructive compensation practices, Washington Mutual flooded the market with shoddy loans and securities that went bad," the subcomittee's Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich), said in a statement.

Levin said his subcommittee looked at the Seattle-based thrift as a case study.

He described it as the story of a 100 year old traditional lender that turned away from safer lending practices to pursue the higher profits reaped from selling high risk mortgages to Wall Street firms.

As it did, the thrift failed repeatedly to bring the hammer down on fraudulent practices rampant in some of its most profitable mortgage centers.

Starting in 2003 WaMu began increasing the production of subprime loans.

And it gets worse, of course. WaMu needed more subprime loans to feed the beast, so when it couldn't get homeowners to buy them, they took more...creative...solutions.

One way WaMu pursued this market was through its subprime lender, Long Beach Mortgage Corporation. In 2006, WaMu securitized $29 billion of the subprime loans purchased by the California-based business, up from the $4.5 billion in 2003.

From 2000 to 2007, the thrift securitized a total of $77 billion of these mortgages even though WaMu shut down securitization at Long Beach for three months in 2003 because of concerns about the poor quality of these loans.

A followup report dated Jan. 13, 2004 by the FDIC and Washington state banking regulators reviewed 4,000 of the warehoused Long Beach loans and found only 950 or 25% were saleable, 800 were unsaleable and the remaining 3,245 contained defiencies "requiring remediation prior to sale." 

Senior management, including the head of the bank's home lending business, Dave Schneider were aware of these deficiencies then and emails dated as late at September of 2007 show management was aware the loans being sold for securitization were deficient, yet they didn't shut the operation down.

Hey, it's securitized.  The loans behind these mortgages are complete junk, but nobody's going to check as long as home prices don't fall in California or anything, right?

Oops.  Yeah.  That might be a problem.  Oh, and that whole "Senior management aware of deficiencies on loans being sold" thing?  That's called securities fraud.

Folks, never forget that in the end, a bunch of people got greedy, a bunch of people got busted, and in the end it ripped trillions of dollars and millions of jobs out of our economy as a result.  Because people got greedy, sloppy, and stupid.  The most human of failings.

States' Rights, States' Wrongs

Nebraska and Oklahoma may be bitter Big XII college sports rivals, but they're currently competing in another arena: trying to see which state's idiotic teabagger legislation can get shot down by Federal courts first.  First up, the Cornhusker State and its attack on women:

Nebraska could become the first state to require doctors to screen women for possible mental and physical problems before performing abortions under a bill that received final approval from the nonpartisan Legislature on Monday.

Republican Gov. Dave Heineman's office said Monday he will sign the bill Tuesday, along with another groundbreaking abortion measure lawmakers are expected to pass then. That bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks based on the assertion that fetuses feel pain.

Both bills are likely to be challenged in court. Abortion rights activists describe the measure passed Monday as a drastic shift in abortion policy that would block abortions by scaring doctors who might perform them. They say the second bill is aimed at blocking late-term abortions in one of the few states where there's a doctor willing to perform them.

Yeah, requiring a doctor to give a woman a complete physical and psych eval before an abortion?  That won't raise the cost of health care, convince doctors to stop performing the procedure, or overwhelm women trying to make that decision.  Who's paying for the screening?  What things are doctors looking for?  The bill isn't clear, and if the doctor performing the procedure doesn't screen for every single risk factor, they can be sued for malpractice.  Nebraska in other words is trying to make getting an abortion nearly impossible.  It's like poll taxes in the South all over again.  You can get the procedure done if you jump through all the hoops, but don't you dare miss one, once that 20 weeks mark hits, you're out of luck.

A nice gesture from the "Keep the government out of my health care and my doctor's decisions!" crowd.

Ahh, but Oklahoma has its own entry in this little contest, seems the Sooner State wants to be known as the Tenther State.

Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates. Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

Oh, I know how a state militia can block federal mandates.  They can shoot anyone who tries to enforce them.  What else are you going to do with an armed militia?  You already have the National Guard, but apparently that's not enough.  Oklahoma needs a way to fight back against the Federal government should it choose to do so, an armed force that's not under Federal control.

Just to clarify, Oklahoma is talking about raising its own army.  Maybe a bunch of other states will decide to do that too.  It's not like a group of states with their own armies who said "We're tired of rolling over for the federal government" ever caused problems in America's history, now did it.

Oh wait.  That whole "Lincoln" thing.  Right.

Honestly I'm not sure which one of these is worse.  Nebraska's abortion restriction bill is set to become law, although it will be challenged almost immediately in the courts.  It's still twisted, misogynist, and nasty.  But Oklahoma's tenther militia is far more dangerous should people actually create one...and it could spread to other states as well.  Not even Clinton drew states considering their own militias to stop federal laws they didn't like.  This is Obama Derangement Syndrome on a whole new level, folks.

I keep telling you it's going to get worse, and lo and behold I keep being right.

StupidiNews!

• Toyota's latest woes: a Consumer Reports warning that its Lexus GX 460 SUV runs the risk of rolling over.
• More and more military personnel are leaving the Republican party and becoming independents.
• The Senate finally ended a Republican objection filibuster to extending unemployment benefits.
• Earnings season is on us again, starting with Alcoa's earnings miss, bringing down commodity prices.
• Microsoft's social networking based smartphone, the KIN, launches this week as Redmond takes on Apple and Google.

Last Call

So basically Bill Kristol thinks Elena Kagan would be a great choice for the Supreme Court, so Republicans have to vote against her anyway.

WALLACE: Bill, your thoughts about because there -- it's not only a choice for the president as to whether he wants to pick a more liberal candidate who would create more of a political dust-up. What about for Republicans and their decision as to how much of a fight they want to make of it? Obviously, to some degree, it depends on who the president chooses.
KRISTOL: Not that much, because I think, for example, Kagan would be a very respectable choice. But nonetheless, I think most Republicans would oppose her and, honestly, should oppose her, with respect and with deference to her, you know, impressive academic credentials, because she will be a reliable liberal vote, and I think Republicans should want to have a serious debate on the Constitution.

Three thoughts going through my head here.

One, Bill Kristol is a twit.

Two, Glenn Greenwald's been telling anyone who'll listen than Elena Kagan will not be as reliable a liberal vote as everyone seems to think she will be, and he may be on to something here judging by Kristol's reaction.

Three, if Kristol's right, then Republicans are going to vote against whomever Obama nominates anyway.  Might as well nominate somebody good since you're going to get a fight anyhow (see Ezra Klein).

We'll see.

In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

Jim Cramer asks:

Are we due for a double-dip recession?

Since his answer is "no", and Jim Cramer basically hasn't been right about a single friggin' thing since back in the days of ought six, I'd start panicking riiiiiight about.....now.

PS, Jim:  The recession's not over in the first place, so really it's less of a double-dip than it is a continuation of the trend downward.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Michael Vick, NFL quarterback, served prison time for contributing to exploitation of dogs, came back to the game, still largely hated by people.  This is justice, as an uppity sports person found out he was not above the law.

Ben Roethlisberger, NFL quarterback, no charges filed for contributing to the exploitation of a human being, still in the game, largely loved by people.  This is also justice, as a beloved role model and community figure escaped harm from those trying to attack him for his fame.

Somebody explain this to me.

I Do Not Believe That Word Means What You Think It Means

In this case, what the wingers believes constitutes "mainstream" as far as the Tea Party goes.  Demographically, they are mainstream.  Socially?  No way in hell.  Tom Schaller at Five Thirty Eight:

Last week, the ongoing debate over what we know about the tea partiers took a new turn, with scores of conservative commentators like The LA Times' Andrew Malcolm and Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds assuring us that a new Gallup poll proves the TPers are not a "fringe" or "racist" group.

But the Gallup results only confirm that tea partiers are "mainstream" in their demographics, when what really matters are their attitudes. Results released Friday of a new multi-state poll of white voters conducted by the University of Washington's Christopher Parker paint a more complicated picture. The survey asked white respondents about their attitudes toward the tea party movement--and their attitudes toward non-whites, immigrants and homosexuals.

The charts contained herein show the disparity between whites who strongly approve and disapprove of the tea party movement. In a few cases -- attitudes toward Latinos, for instance -- the differences were small. But only in a few cases: tea party sympathizers believe blacks are less intelligent, hardworking and trustworthy. They appear to be particularly wary of immigrants. And they don't much care for gays, either. (Although note that two-thirds of them support gays in the military, an issue on which policy has long lagged public sentiment.)

Again, this is a comparison of white attitudes, not differences between whites and non-whites. Which means that avid white tea party sympathizers do not even hold mainstream attitudes among whites. If we included the attitudes of non-whites, the views of white tea party sympathizers would be even more aberrant.

Christopher Parker compared the social beliefs towards African-Americans, Latinos, and homosexuals of two groups, whites who strongly support the Tea Party movement, and whites who strongly oppose it.  The differences are staggering and very informative.  In some cases those differences are minimal, 54% of TP supporters believe Latinos are "hard-working" and 58% of those opposed to the TP believe the same.


But in some cases these social differences are yawning chasms. 59% of TP supporters believe immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens, while only 24% of those opposed to the TP believe that.  Only 36% of TP supporters think gays should be able to adopt, as opposed to 87% of those who are strongly against the Tea Party movement.  As Schaller points out time and again, people who strongly support the Tea Party show a very intolerant, hostile, and cynical view of minorities, gays, and immigrants in this country.


So no, I would not qualify those views as "mainstream".  I'd in fact call them pretty fringe.

Divide And Conquer Tactics

Ezra Klein has the right of this.  The time to launch into immigration reform and to update the DREAM Act is now.  It's a winner for Dems and a loser for the GOP.

As Ron Brownstein frequently points out, Obama won fewer than 40 percent of working-class whites in 2008. Congressional Democrats may well do even worse this year. But it's hard to believe they can do that much worse, or that they can do much to change their standing among this group. It's also not clear that immigration is a big motivator for these voters: The GOP tried to use it in 2006 against the Democrats, and the effort pretty much fell flat on its face.

Actually, it did worse than that: It drove Latino voters toward the Democrats. Obama won 67 percent of Hispanics in 2008 -- a much better showing than Democrat made in 2004. The fear in 2010, however, is that Hispanics won't show up to vote. If Democrats actually pursue immigration reform, their participation becomes likelier. And if Republicans -- or tea partyers, or conservative talk radio -- overreact to the prospect of immigration reform, their participation becomes virtually assured.

That last bit also suggests another reason Democrats might want to see immigration on the agenda: It's got the possibility to tear the Republican coalition apart. Beltway Republicans are very, very concerned about losing Latino voters, and so they try to be careful on the issue. Remember that the last effort at immigration reform came while Bush was in the White House.

But grass-roots conservatives tend to be very, very opposed to immigration reform. Remember that it was conservatives -- led by talk radio -- who killed the immigration reform effort. So what do Republican politicians do when their base goes into anti-immigration overdrive but their consultants beg them to tread carefully? It looks like Harry Reid, for one, would like to find out.

Want to prove that the tea party fanatics run the GOP now?  Reintroduce the DREAM Act.  Start with John McCain.  Watch how many Republicans turn completely on the Latino community at the behest of their most virulent fringe.  Watch as the small business wing and the social purity wing fight each other for dominance.  And keep explaining this is the same bill the Republicans themselves put forth in 2006.

You want to cut off the putative Republican wave in 2010?  You want to close the enthusiasm gap, unite the Dems, get out mid-term voters and knock the GOP on its ass?  You're being handed the answer.  Harry Reid says he has 56 votes for it now.

Start finding the other four.  I bet it happens.  Let's go, Dems.