Rush never sleeps

I suspect this (via) means comprehensive immigration reform is dead as Dillinger:

Sean Hannity, a reliable bellwether on the right, has been on a similar journey since the fall. He announced the day after President Obama’s re-election that he had “evolved” on immigration reform and now supported a “path to citizenship” in order to improve relations with Hispanic voters. Hannity has now flipped hard against the Senate’s bill.

“Not only do I doubt the current legislation will solve the immigration problem,” he wrote in a June column, “but it also won’t help the GOP in future elections.”

Hannity and Hume didn’t arrive at their latest destination by accident. They’re just the latest figures on the right to embrace the compelling new message that’s whipping Republicans against immigration reform while still promising a better tomorrow for the GOP’s presidential candidates.

I suspect Chuck Schumer is right that there will be big pro-immigration reform demonstrations this summer. During those demonstrations, some protesters will undoubtedly do something to an American flag, perhaps accidentally, and Rush will spend a few weeks talking about brown people peeing on the American flag (or burning it or whatever).

It’s all ballot box poison for Republicans, most likely, but you’ve got to feed the monkey.

Update. Apparently, I’m getting senile, I thought that Rush Limbaugh’s first name was “Russ” when I first wrote this post.






134 replies
  1. 1
    c u n d gulag says:

    Doug,
    Even if the protesters hug the flag, and/or kneel before it, Conservatives will say, “IT’S NOT THEIR FLAG to hug, and kneel before. IT’S OURS!!!

  2. 2
    Biff Longbotham says:

    I’m heating up the oil for making a big batch of popcorn!

  3. 3
    MattF says:

    As everyone knows, straight, white, elderly, Southern, Christian men are a majority in this country, and will always be.

  4. 4
    dmsilev says:

    If the 2012 election was a wakeup call for Republicans to address their relationship to Latino voters, the 2013 immigration debate is starting to resemble a chloroform-soaked rag.

    Heh.

  5. 5
    dan says:

    Who’s Russ?

  6. 6
    Corner Stone says:

    The only reason you hear a freakin peep out of GOP Senators on this is because they haven’t figured out yet how to completely gerrymander an entire state.

  7. 7

    “Not only do I doubt the current legislation will solve the immigration problem,” he wrote in a June column, “but it also won’t help the GOP in future elections.”

    Well, they do have the whole voter suppression tactics to fall back on now. If that works out for them, they won’t have to worry about how Latinos feel.

    And honestly, I would hazard that many of them no longer care if they can win the Presidency, as long as they have 5 nominal seats on SCOTUS and are gerrymandered into the House, they can focus on state elections and enact their policies at the state level, while engaging in gridlock to make the Federal government ineffectual and unable to stop the state level f***ery that will go on.

  8. 8
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @DougJ

    Russ? You mean Rush?

  9. 9

    It’s all ballot box poison for Republicans, most likely, but you’ve got to feed the monkey.

    The Iron Law of Institutions holds that “the people who hold power in institutions are guided principally by preserving power within the institution, rather than the success of the institution itself.”

    And all Republican politicians and commentators have short-term incentives that diverge from the party’s long-term interests.

    Christine O’Donnell defeated her relatively sane rival for the GOP Senate nomination, Mike Castle, 30,561 votes to 27,021. Delaware has 880,000 people. Indiana had a slightly higher proportion of people turn out to choose Mourdock over Lugar. Bruce Bartlett was ejected in 2006 for stressing the importance of the deficit; David Frum was fired in 2010 for opposing the Affordable Care Act without apocalyptic rhetoric.

    No one in the GOP is capable of looking out for the GOP’s long-term interests, let alone America’s.

  10. 10
    Suffern ACE says:

    I’m pretty certain that the immigration reform protestors aren’t the type who would think that mistreating a flag will get them anywhere. No, what will be pointed out is that there will be other flags present. That will be proof that those immigrants aren’t interested in assimilating and probably don’t even speak English at home.

  11. 11
    Bobby Thomson says:

    Immigration reform was never alive and therefore cannot die (to paraphrase the Greyjoys).

  12. 12
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @Comrade Dread: This. Dems constantly fuck themselves by focusing on the national and ignoring the local.

  13. 13
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    Prety much this. They’re doing this because they know they can afford to. They’ve pretty much locked in de factor GOP control of every-fucking-thing.

  14. 14
    Kay says:

    I don’t think this fake-debate had anything to do with immigration, really, so I agree with the post. It was always about GOP political prospects.
    They had this brief debate about “reaching out” versus “doubling down” (on the white vote) and there were a couple of stragglers, but now they’re all in line. Double down.
    I still don’t really buy the “rile up the white vote” strategy, but it has clearly carried the day. I don’t know why they think 2 million additional white voters is enough – the (allegedly) “missing voters of 2012” that they’ve all latched onto to explain the loss.
    Maybe they’re looking at a distribution in specific states?

  15. 15
    srv says:

    Proceed, flip-floppers.

  16. 16
    Doug Milhous J says:

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    Yeah, I did mean Rush. Fixed it. Thanks

  17. 17
    Suffern ACE says:

    As one of the big three issues from the summer of 2010 that led to the massacre of the Democratic Party nationally, why do you think that running the “Immigrants are running wild and beheading folks in the desert” won’t be effective this time? I would assume that Muslim Mosques, ACA and wild Mexicans would kill the Dems this time around, too.

  18. 18
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Doug Milhous J: I thought this was some oblique reference to Zombie Russert.

  19. 19

    During those demonstrations, some protesters will undoubtedly do something to an American flag

    It won’t be them doing anything to an American flag; it will be somebody carrying the flag of the country they came from rather than the American flag. It’s happened before, and it caused a right-wing freakout when it did.

  20. 20
    Goblue72 says:

    @Comrade Dread: exactly. GOP controls half of the federal govt. They control the House and SCOTUS, vs the good guys controlling the Senate & Presidency. Stalemate.

    At state level it’s even worse, with GOP running the tables.

    They are winning. We aren’t.

  21. 21
    PurpleGirl says:

    @Suffern ACE: This is true. The media will focus on how many Mexican and other Central/South American flags will be in the crowds. Also, too, maybe Irish flags. It may not be realized on a national basis but there are problems with Irish immigration. (The neighborhood I live in has historically had a large number of Irish immigrants and in the 1980s and 90s there was a influx again. With Ireland’s fiscal problems, many who want to return can’t afford too and it’s harder to live here with the anti-undocumented tactics.)

  22. 22

    @Kay:

    I still don’t really buy the “rile up the white vote” strategy, but it has clearly carried the day.

    I think the other side of the coin is suppressing the non-white vote, but they would much rather talk in code.

  23. 23
    Linda Featheringill says:

    Doug:

    Update. Apparently, I’m getting senile, I thought that Rush Limbaugh’s first name was “Russ” when I first wrote this post.

    Old White Man Syndrome. :-)

  24. 24
    Face says:

    During those demonstrations, some protesters will undoubtedly do something nothing whatsover to an American flag, perhaps accidentally, and Rush will spend a few weeks talking about brown people peeing on the American flag

    Ya see, they dont have to do anything wrong at all, and that wont stop the stories Rush spews. I’m sure a conservative will not get not-beaten up, not verbally not-accosted, and Latinos will not call for not-their-own-country, but when’s that ever stopped that Fat Tub of Shit from saying otherwise?

  25. 25

    Good thing we live in a post-racial America or this would seriously look like some of that ol’ voter suppression tactics that I mentioned above.

    The GOP chairman of the state Senate rules committee, Sen. Tom Apodaca, said he would move quickly to pass a voter ID law that Republicans say would bolster the integrity of the balloting process. GOP leaders also began engineering an end to the state’s early voting, Sunday voting and same-day registration provisions, all popular with black voters. Civil rights groups say the moves are designed to restrict poll access by blacks, who vote reliably Democratic.

    You don’t need to outreach to folks if you can just make it a real pain in the behind to vote and redistrict them all into a small handful of districts.

  26. 26
    Keith says:

    IIRC, Limbaugh’s family calls him “Russ”. Read that in a profile of him a couple of years ago.

  27. 27
    IowaOldLady says:

    When background checks went down, I figured immigration reform was a lost cause. The horrifying state abortion laws caught me off guard, but the defeat of immigration reform is what I expect.

    Rebranding fail.

  28. 28

    @PurpleGirl:

    Also, too, maybe Irish flags

    Which will be completely ignored because skin color.

  29. 29
    Xenos says:

    Texas. Push hard on Texas. If they are on defense in Texas they are less likely to notice a groundswell against them in the midwest states.

    Politico (which has gone with a paywall – wtf?) is not putting up articles about Democratic panic if Hillary does not win. They seem unaware the the Dems have a bench full of attractive candidates with centrist credentials, while the GOP is crazy arseholes all the way down to the Podunk dogcatcher.

    The GOP has a strong defensive position, but they are fragile as hell, with demographic trends strongly against them. Fight them where they are strong, and the swing states will follow. The key is, no matter what, fight and be seen fighting.

  30. 30
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    Those who don’t remember history are doomed to watch others get hurt.

    After reconstruction, black actually started enjoying some freedoms up until the early 1900s, when people like Woodrow Wilson rolled back a number of gains and instituted rules that resegregated blacks. We’re starting to follow that arc right now – gutting the VRA allowing states like Texas to make it hard for Latinos and the poor to vote, imposition of rules against abortion.

    We will have to do everything we can, such as retaking the states that Democrats normally win – Ohio, PA – and making Texas competitive, in order to fix this. And support protests like the ones in Austin.

  31. 31
    Ash Can says:

    @Kay:

    I don’t think this fake-debate had anything to do with immigration… It was always about GOP political prospects.

    Bingo. For a while there, Hannity saw that he had to hedge his bets. Then, when it was clear that Rubio had tanked and no one was listening to Prince Rebus, he knew he could revert to his true beliefs.

  32. 32

    @Kay:

    I still don’t really buy the “rile up the white vote” strategy, but it has clearly carried the day. I don’t know why they think 2 million additional white voters is enough – the (allegedly) “missing voters of 2012″ that they’ve all latched onto to explain the loss.

    Its because they live in the past along with Robert Samuelson.

  33. 33
    raven says:

    Check this out

    Border Patrol Body Slam,

    “The members of the Border Patrol tag team are not actual Border Patrol agents. They follow in a long tradition of villains, or heels as they are known in wrestling lingo. The cold war produced Nikolai Volkoff.”

    and don’t miss the comments

  34. 34
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    that Republicans say would bolster the integrity of the balloting process.

    That is, insure that fraudulent votes for Democrats (are there any other kind, really?) are eliminated and therefore the “integrity” of the voting process (to produce only Rethuglicans in elective office) would be bolstered.

    Am I missing anything there?

  35. 35
    Jay C says:

    @Bobby Thomson:

    Immigration reform was never alive and therefore cannot die

    Sad to have to say, but probably the truth. The unfortunate reality seems to be that the status quo: i.e. a large undocumented immigrant population providing a cheap, and easily threatened labor force – and one which can’t vote – is too much in too many peoples’ best interest to maintain. And for the GOP, which, despite all the media blather, seems to have doubled down on remodeling itself into the White Peoples’ Party, there is little electoral downside* in opposing Obama’s reforms. Any more than there was in opposing GW Bush’s in 2006. Even if tying themselves ever-more-closely to fundamentally nativist/racist policy may hurt them in the long run, why should they care about the “long run”? “Long-term” considerations seem to be only until the next election….

    * which highlights, for me, one of the most absolutely infuriating and frustrating factors in contemporary politics: there NEVER sees to be ANY “electoral downside” for ANY Republicans EVER – no matter how extreme or corrupt or unpopular their policies and/or programs are. None whatsoever.

  36. 36
    Yatsuno says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Concerned moustache is concerned. We must respect his fee-fees on this delicate matter!

  37. 37

    I would love to know what Sean Hannity thinks “the immigration problem” is. I’m quite sure it’s not what anyone else thinks it is.

  38. 38
    cvstoner says:

    The only immigration reform that the Republicans are likely to get behind is indentured servitude, and that only because slavery is no longer in vogue.

  39. 39
    Yatsuno says:

    @Southern Beale: I’m thinking it’s letting in all those icky browns from down south as opposed to good white European stock like in the good old days. But Hannity needs to let his freak flag fly more and say so publicly.

  40. 40

    @raven:

    I was at the Dollar store the other day (great place to pick up stuff to use in my classes on the cheap). I was really surprised to see a game called “Border Patrol.” With action figures and gates and walls and everything that you set up . … sorta like Barbie’s Dream House for the redneck set, I guess?

    I’m pretty sure I’d lose half my ESL students if I had them play Border Patrol. LOL

  41. 41
    catclub says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Me too. I thought that.

    And zombie Broders.

  42. 42
    raven says:

    @Southern Beale: We have a Dollar General that is a grocery store too! Cross-cultural fo sho.

  43. 43
    Redshirt says:

    I think I’ve got it! Republicans will allow plenty of Hispanic immigration in order to supply cheap labor to their corporate overlords, while simultaneously ensuring they (and other undesirables) can’t vote. Win-win!

  44. 44
    catclub says:

    @Jay C: “there NEVER sees to be ANY “electoral downside””
    [seems]

    well, except for losing in a landslide in 2008 and losing again in 2012 for the presidency.
    These could eventually have an impact.

  45. 45
    Yatsuno says:

    @raven: The dollar store near me had steak advertised for sale. Somehow I just couldn’t bring myself to avail of that offer.

  46. 46

    @cvstoner:
    I’ve got it! We can invite the nice brown people into the country to work, but to make sure they don’t try to overstay their work permits, we’ll keep them in big labor camps. Just to prove our dedication to human rights and the equality of all people, we’ll put big signs at the entrance of every camp that say “Work = Freedom”.

  47. 47
    Teddy's Person says:

    @Jay C:

    * which highlights, for me, one of the most absolutely infuriating and frustrating factors in contemporary politics: there NEVER sees to be ANY “electoral downside” for ANY Republicans EVER – no matter how extreme or corrupt or unpopular their policies and/or programs are. None whatsoever.

    This. I would go further than their policies and/or programs. They can say anything about anyone and, not only get away with it, but have a chunk of the population buying their bs (with the help of media stenographers, of course).

  48. 48
    Amir Khalid says:

    It sounds like the Republican party are deluding themselves yet again. On the page at the link is a list of top stories on MSNBC; the top story on the list reports that white people are no longer the majority in California.

    You obviously can’t bank on winning more and more of the white voters if they are a shrinking proportion of the general voting public. And you doom yourself if you hope to do it by pandering to bigotry with younger white voters who see themselves as having shed their elders’ prejudices.

    Am I wrong, or too optimistic, in seeing lemmings heading off a cliff here?

  49. 49
    The Red Pen says:

    Apparently, I’m getting senile, I thought that Rush Limbaugh’s first name was “Russ” when I first wrote this post.

    It is Russ. It’s just that he slurs when he’s on oxy.

  50. 50
    danimal says:

    @Ash Can: :Hannity has true beliefs? I doubt it, unless you consider “I peddle the conservative crap du jour in order to make a sh!tload of money” a true belief.

    Hannity would call for wage and price controls if they became the Republican party line.

  51. 51

    @Teddy’s Person:

    They can say anything about anyone and, not only get away with it, but have a chunk of the population buying their bs (with the help of media stenographers, of course).

    Well, it was a famous Republican who is credited with the saying that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. They just need to pay a little bit more attention to the part where he said that you can’t fool all the people all of the time.

  52. 52
    danimal says:

    The national GOP scored an own goal on the immigration issue. If they didn’t intend to do comprehensive immigration reform, the smarter play would have been to ignore the issue and posture at the border. They wanted reform, but they could not sell it to the base. Now we are seeing a not-so-tactical retreat. But this effort was so visible, they probably gave away any chance of being competitive in the Asian and Hispanic communitites for a decade.

  53. 53
    Cacti says:

    @Keith:

    IIRC, Limbaugh’s family calls him “Russ”. Read that in a profile of him a couple of years ago.

    I remember from Al Franken’s book that he also went by Rusty in his youth.

  54. 54
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    Am I wrong, or too optimistic, in seeing lemmings heading off a cliff here?

    Not wrong, maybe a bit premature. There are states where the demographic shift will have little or no effect. In other states the shift will take a generation of more to make itself felt. While these changes are taking place it behooves the Democratic party to start making whatever inroads it can at the state level. As long as state leges are free to gerrymander and enact voter suppression laws we can elect whomever we want as president and that president will face the same obstacles from the House that Obama now faces.

  55. 55
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @cvstoner:

    The only immigration reform that the Republicans are likely to get behind is indentured servitude

    AKA the H1B Visa program.

    That’s one of the main reasons the bill passed by the margin it did in the Senate: they expanded it.

  56. 56
    EdTheRed says:

    Had a caine filled Kool with my man Russ Rush
    Saw my teeth fall in the sink when I started to brush

  57. 57
    Kay says:

    @Roger Moore:

    I think the other side of the coin is suppressing the non-white vote, but they would much rather talk in code.

    I don’t think that’s going to work. Not because there will be some mass uprising of outrage where “Americans” reject these tactics (although media got much, much better on basic awareness) but because it’s so granular, so personal. It’s really a personal affront. First, there’s the crazy accusations of cheating directed not to election officials but to voters. Second, people encounter this personally. It’s a pain in the ass, and conservatives at the state level are incompetent and they can’t administer these complicated rules properly.
    It forces Democrats to do what I want them to do anyway, which is hire more people who make 35k a year and work in states and fewer people who make 350k a year and work in DC. Voter education is perfectly compatible with a ground campaign. It requires a ground campaign. Also, and I can say this from personal experience, people really like you if you’re protecting their right to vote, rather than accusing them of fraud. They prefer a not-accusing-you-of-a-felony approach, one on one :)

  58. 58
    AHH onna Droid says:

    @Yatsuno: Good call. DG meats & dairy are gross. Go to local bodega, pick up skirt steak (fajitas), onions, peppers, ground chile and cassia, Mexican tortillas (in refrigerator-keep frozen or eat quick, no preservatives) and crema mexicana. You can get tomatoes elsewhere.

  59. 59
    AHH onna Droid says:

    e.@danimal: LOLNixon.

  60. 60
    Jay C says:

    @catclub:

    Yes, but those Presidential losses aren’t the whole story in national politics: Republicans may not have the White House, but they still effectively control both Houses of Congress; have planted four ideologues/extremists on the Supreme Court, and have managed to cement apparently unshakeable GOP majorities in a depressingly large number of State Legislatures. And, to repeat myself, all the while promulgating a legislative agenda generally unpopular with the public as a whole, while at the same blocking most initiatives that are. The PPACA seems to be the only significant non-social exception….

    ETA: @Teddy’s Person: What you said: the Republican-normative slant of most “mainstream” media does the country no favors….

  61. 61
    Groucho48 says:

    By the time Schumer had given Senate Republicans everything they wanted, the bill wasn’t worth passing, anyway. 47 billion down the drain in exchange for maybe a handful of immigrants maybe becoming citizens in a decade or so.

  62. 62
    Joel says:

    @Goblue72: Despite the division of power, the presidency is still the most important, because the president is CINC.

  63. 63

    @cvstoner: Are you against employment based green cards also?
    H1Bs are used not just by the IT industry, mainly because the Employment Based Immigration category for Permanent Residency is a thicket which is difficult to navigate in a short period of time.

    ETA: So if a University wants to hire a well known researcher, hiring him on an H1-B first makes sense, while an application for Permanent Residency can be made. Even in cases where no Labor Certification is needed it would take at least a few months to a year for the entire process to play out.

  64. 64
    raven says:

    @Yatsuno: Ah, ours isn’t the only one, I didn’t know.

  65. 65
    The Other Chuck says:

    @Cacti:

    I remember from Al Franken’s book that he also went by Rusty in his youth.

    His middle name must have been “Trombone”

  66. 66
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @catclub: And winning — or ‘winning’ — the in 2000 and 2004 by a combined margin of less than the population of metro Atlanta.

    The GOP is in real trouble…. everywhere but in the state houses.

  67. 67
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Roger Moore:

    The unfortunate thing that was left unsaid was that you don’t NEED to fool all of the people all of the time. You just need to fool ENOUGH of the people (or at least the RIGHT people) ENOUGH of the time that it you get what you want anyway.

    Old Honest Abe didn’t have to deal with the Fox-ization of politics.

  68. 68
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Joel:

    No one’s saying it isn’t important, but at the rate we’re going, claiming the White House is a holding pattern at best.

  69. 69

    @cvstoner: Are you against employment based green cards also?
    H1Bs are used not just by the IT industry, they are used by almost any industry/organization that needs to hire a foreign national, mainly because the Employment Based Immigration category for Permanent Residency is a thicket which is difficult to navigate in a short period of time.

    ETA: So if a University wants to hire a well known researcher, hiring her on an H1-B first makes sense, while an application for Permanent Residency can be made. Even in cases where no Labor Certification is needed it would take at least a few months to a year for the entire process to play out.

  70. 70
    gnomedad says:

    I thought that Rush Limbaugh’s first name was “Russ” when I first wrote this post.

    I kind of envy that level of disengagement.

  71. 71
    patroclus says:

    I don’t think the immigration reform bill is dead just because Hannity reverted to form and is now opposing it. Boehner has promised a bill before the end of the year, so the real test is whether he can/will deliver and whether he’ll break the Hastert rule to do it. There is no current immigration problem because net migration is effectively flat – the problem is the 11 million or so that are already here, including all the dreamers, who are here regardless of immigration laws because they came here with their parents and are being forced to live in the shadows too. This is a real national problem and a segment of the Republicans are aware of it. If you watch Fox, you will notice that there are a lot of pro-reform ads running and they’re sponsored by the rich wing of the Republicans. This isn’t over and until a bill is enacted, it won’t be.

    I’m surprised that this blog is so negative – the 68 votes in the Senate gave the bill some momentum and the outcome is still uncertain; not a fait accompli.

  72. 72

    @gnomedad: Russ, Rush, small difference. I have no idea what his given name is either.

  73. 73
    Joel says:

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: Well, *not* getting embroiled in needless wars is something that I value. I would like more, obviously, but I’ll take what I get.

  74. 74

    @patroclus: I agree and whatever happens, it is a net negative for GOP.
    Option 1:
    If it goes down in flames with inflammatory rhetoric from the usual suspects in the right wing media and Congress, GOP will pay a price among minorities and immigrants, Latino and otherwise.
    Option 2:
    If it passes, GOP will be in trouble with its base.

    Either way it is bad news for the GOP and they know it.

  75. 75
    Yatsuno says:

    @patroclus:

    so the real test is whether he can/will deliver and whether he’ll break the Hastert rule to do it.

    Nancy already knows she’s gonna have to bail out Boehner on this. The question will be what she’ll expect in return, or if she’ll just shiv him and file a discharge petition and do it all behind his back. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear she’s vote counting already.

  76. 76
    patroclus says:

    @Groucho48: What the Republicans wanted was some sort of a “trigger” which would have delayed the effect of the bill until some third party “certified” that the Mexican border was secured – Leahy (who is managing the bill) and Durbin (the assistant majority leader and sponsor of the Dream Act) did not give them that. Instead, they just larded the bill with billions for border security and this was vocally lauded by not only the Gang of 8 but by Corker as well. The idea that the bill is not worth passing is ludicrous – all Dems in the Senate voted for it as well as more than a dozen Republicans. If, similarly, 1/4 of the Republican Conference in the House votes for it, it’ll pass easily there (if allowed a vote).

  77. 77
    catclub says:

    @patroclus: About 1/4 of the republican senators voted for it.
    That does not translate to 1/4 of House GOP reps being willing to vote for it.

    If you got every democrat, you would only need about 1/10 of GOP reps, but would Boehner bring a bill to floor that 9/10’s of the House GOP was going to vote against? I am Not seeing it.

  78. 78
    patroclus says:

    @Yatsuno: I think the calculus is slightly different – the question for Pelosi is how much she’ll agree to lard onto to the bill in order for Boehner to attract enough Republicans so that he will be willing to either take up the Senate bill or move House bills separately. To use the farm bill as an analogy, will there be a Southerland-style amendment or other poison pill that will chase Dems away? How much gibberish or other crap will Pelosi accept? If all it really amounts to is more money for border security, that’s a price that, in my view, is well worth it. The Texas-Mexico border is really really long and there’s no need for a gigantic fence (and maintaining it would be cost prohibitive), but if building one will get citizenship and other rights for the dreamers and their abuelitas, that might be worth it too.

  79. 79
    Keith says:

    @Cacti: That’s what it was…”Rusty”. You’re absolutely right.

  80. 80
    PeakVT says:

    @patroclus: We’re negative because so many of the House Repukes are either crazy or scared of primaries from the crazies.

  81. 81

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
    IOW, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, and that should be enough to keep you in power.

  82. 82
    Berial says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Taking what Jay C said and adding it to schrodinger’s cat you’ll notice that the REAL power of the GOP is when they do NOTHING AT ALL. They can talk all they want but when they actually do something it can and does get used against them. It’s kind of why this stalemate sucks so bad for Democrats. Doing nothing is what the GOP does best.

  83. 83
    Yatsuno says:

    @patroclus:

    the question for Pelosi is how much she’ll agree to lard onto to the bill in order for Boehner to attract enough Republicans so that he will be willing to either take up the Senate bill or move House bills separately.

    The Oompa-Loompa barely has control of his caucus. The poison pills will come and they will be numerous, mostly because the teatards are demanding no more browns period full stop end of story. Plus if they want all this pork Nancy should throw in a tax increase on the rich or closing a loophole for budgetary considerations. They’ll run screaming to Dancin’ Dave about how unserious she is. Get yer popcorn ready, this is gonna be a hoot.

  84. 84

    @Yatsuno: This is going to make the Death Panel summer look like a picnic.

  85. 85
    johnny aquitard says:

    @Roger Moore: Except Republicans believe in “You can fool enough of the people enough of the time”.

    It’s actually worked quite well for them over the past 30 years.

  86. 86
    Yatsuno says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Remember when Bible Spice was strutting all over the place winking and shooting starbursts and screeching “DEATH PANELS!!!” all over creation? Good times. Good. Times. The immigration hysteria will be even juicier.

  87. 87
    patroclus says:

    @catclub: You’re right – it would take only about 30 or so Republicans to get to a majority, but Boehner is going to want a lot more in order to honor his promise. So, he’s gonna try to lard up the bill/bills with stuff that might attract more and my view is that the calculus will be whether Pelosi/Hoyer/Obama can accept the changes. A conference committee could strip some of that out, so what I’m hoping for is about 50-60 Republicans on the initial House-passed bill and about 30 or so on the conference report.

    It’ll be a tough slog and the outcome is obviously still uncertain and this Congress appears incapable of doing just about anything, but I would never have expected 68 votes in the Senate either. The actual issues (the dreamers; the scofflaws, the shadows, the employers, the low wages, the unfairness etc…) are just so compelling that I am much more confident than Doug is. And, if nothing happens, the issues aren’t going away; they’re only getting worse.

    Hannity is not the key; Boehner and the actual issues are.

  88. 88
    danimal says:

    If the GOP can’t win the presidency due to demographic suicidal tendencies and the SCOTUS justices aren’t immortal, the fortunes of the parties will change dramatically in the next few years.

  89. 89
    danimal says:

    @Yatsuno: Yats–the GOP tends to return to tactics that worked the last time, so you’re right that they’ll give it the ol’ college try. But I’ll be surprised if they are able to generate the same kind of passion that they did in 2010. The real driver of that anxiety, economic anxiety due to the Great Recession (/Depression), is much more subdued this time around.

  90. 90
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @danimal: All we need to do is find Scalia’s horcruxes.

    ETA: Though I suspect Thomas is one.

  91. 91

    @Yatsuno: I just that nobody gets hurt and things don’t get ugly.

  92. 92
    Anoniminous says:

    @Cacti:

    @Keith:

    IIRC, Limbaugh’s family calls him “Russ”. Read that in a profile of him a couple of years ago.

    I remember from Al Franken’s book that he also went by Rusty in his youth.

    They had to come-up with something. “Fuckhead” was already taken.

  93. 93
    patroclus says:

    @Yatsuno: I agree – and the question will be are there enough Ileana Ros-Lehtinens and Diaz-Balarts in the Republian Conference to vote the poison pills down or that would still support the bill after they’re stripped in a House-Senate conference report. I believe that a narrow majority of the House supports “an” immigration reform bill, but will they support the one before them? And will Boehner allow the House to work its will?

    Sam Rayburn would have found a way.

  94. 94
    Mike in NC says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Yup. You can rile up the wingnuts over gays, guns, or abortion, but nothing makes them totally lose their shit faster than the subject of immigration.

    Fox News has convinced these loons that “Machete” was a documentary, not a spoof.

  95. 95
    negative 1 says:

    It’s an agency problem! To wit: what is good for the GOP brand, comprehensively, is bad for its members at the moment. Most of them in the house are safe from democratic challenges in gerrymandered districts, and only have to worry about primary challenges. How can they guarantee themselves a primary challenge? By supporting immigration reform in a district full of racists! The GOP has nothing of value to offer them, so it dies on the vine. Hannity isn’t doing advance media, he’s spinning a disaster.

  96. 96
    mdblanche says:

    @Yatsuno: I’d just shiv him with a discharge position. It would be fun to watch, it would cut the Republicans out of any further opportunities to amend or derail the bill, it would absolutely minimize what little credit the Republicans would get for its passage while leaving their base feeling betrayed, and it’s not like the Grim Weeper has anything better to offer or any ability to deliver it in the first place.

  97. 97
    Trollhattan says:

    @PurpleGirl:

    It gets worser: gayer than gay leprechaun cereal-floggers.

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2.....m-amirite/

    See, we should have taken the Irish threat more seriously, now There. Is. No. Stopping. Teh. Ghey. Hordes. (I wonder what Russ’s offshore rentboy collection thinks of all this?)

  98. 98

    @Kay:
    What I’m worried about with voter suppression is more about selective pain in voting than outright denial. They’ll remove convenience things like early voting and then under-support precincts that they think will vote against them. There will be too few voting machines, inexperienced poll workers, people making nuisance challenges, and anything else they can think of to make voting as inconvenient as possible. The more they can make voting seem like a burden, the more likely people are to take themselves out of the picture.

  99. 99
    catclub says:

    @Berial: Well put. Signing anything with Obama has turned out relatively bad for them (e.g. various budget agreements, sequester was their best one). Passing bills to outlaw Obamacare is their only passion.

  100. 100

    @negative 1:

    It’s an agency problem!

    That’s exactly it. And it’s why Pelosi is such a good leader, because she’s better than anyone I can think of at getting everyone in line.

    But it’s also a construct of where the GOP is right now. You can’t take a party that has turned up the ‘states rights’ volume to 11, and expect them to care about any aspect of federalism, even if it pertains only to their own survival as a party at the national election. We’ve seen this play out several times before in our history and it usually comes with pretty devastating consequences to the party in question – either the party gets completely wiped out, or they lose power to such a large degree that it takes a generation or two to get it back.

  101. 101

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    ETA: Though I suspect Thomas is one.

    Two birds, one stone.

  102. 102
    catclub says:

    @mdblanche: This is a ‘who will bell the cat’ issue for those GOP reps who might want a discharge petition. The shivs will come out for them. Either in the House or back at their home districts. Club for Growth may need to be renamed Club for Garotte

  103. 103
    JustRuss says:

    Update. Apparently, I’m getting senile, I thought that Rush Limbaugh’s first name was “Russ” when I first wrote this post

    Oh. Hell. No.

    “…it also won’t help the GOP in future elections.”

    Am I crazy, or didn’t Hannity recently claim he isn’t a Republican?

  104. 104
    mdblanche says:

    @danimal: Yep. The GOP message since the election has been “Dear Latinos, we hear you. We know we’ve had our differences… but we don’t care. We hate you and hope you go away. Jódense.” Some people on here think we’re losing. I’m wondering just how many plants we have in the RNC. And remember, as long as Republicans stay unelectable at the presidential and Senate levels Nino is just one photo of Anthony Kennedy wearing short shorts at the San Francisco gay pride parade-induced heart attack away from bringing the GOP’s holding action crashing down.

    @catclub: Any passage of immigration reform is going to have a problem like that. Surely there must still be two dozen or so Republican congressmen capable of long term thinking? Maybe we could borrow a lantern from Diogenes?

  105. 105

    @mdblanche:

    Surely there must still be two dozen or so Republican congressmen capable of long term thinking?

    Well, sure, but how does it help them to advance the cause of the party while they themselves get voted out of office? The RNC and NRCC could work to protect them, but so far that offer doesn’t appear to have been extended. I don’t think the NRCC sees it as a problem. The RNC does, but are they willing to put their money behind this effort? Maybe.

  106. 106
    Alex S. says:

    I just realized there is a Fox News Latino….

  107. 107
    NickT says:

    @Yatsuno:

    John Boehner: over-promoted shit-sweeper in the dead white elephant house.

  108. 108
    NickT says:

    @Alex S.:

    Yes, they call him Marco Rubio.

  109. 109
    Suffern ACE says:

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: yes. We need to win every presidential election until what? 2032? That could be a problem.

  110. 110
    catclub says:

    @mdblanche: “Surely there must still be two dozen or so Republican congressmen capable of long term thinking?”

    Past the next election? That long term? I am not sure there are two dozen democrats who think that long term (and act accordingly).

  111. 111
    ruemara says:

    @Joel: No. Case in point, see everything that’s gone down on the state level along with the range of obstruction at the Federal level. All seats are important and the hyperfocus on the Presidential seat has been a detriment.

  112. 112
    JWL says:

    “..I thought that Rush Limbaugh’s first name was “Russ” when I first wrote this post”.

    My mother, an unrequited New Dealer who first voted in 1944, who still has most of her marbles, always refers to the Missouri Hall of Famer as Rush Limbo (as in “how low can you go”?). She’s not going for a laugh doing it, but it always makes me chuckle.

  113. 113
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @Ash Can:

    Hannity saw that he had to hedge his bets. Then, when it was clear that Rubio had tanked and no one was listening to Prince Rebus, he knew he could revert to his true beliefs.

    Plus, as has been noted upthread, since the Supreme Court’s crappy VRA decision, the GOP can proceed full-steam with voter suppression. Why try to convince Hispanic voters to vote for you when you can just prevent them from voting at all?

  114. 114
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @raven:

    I read a similar article in (It think) the dead-tree version of The Atlantic a month or so ago. They gave one of the heel wrestlers the last name of Brewer and the kayfabe story that he’s Jan Brewer’s son. Automatic heel heat right there.

  115. 115
    raven says:

    @Bubblegum Tate: The video is fun.

  116. 116
    Forum Transmitted Disease says:

    I just realized there is a Fox News Latino….

    @Alex S.: And the difference between Fox for Anglos and Fox for Latinos is like the difference between Andrew Breitbart and Walter Cronkite. Fox Latino is – at the moment – one of the better news outlets out there.

  117. 117
    burnspbesq says:

    OT: it sure looks like the shit is about to hit the fan in Egypt.

    http://my.earthlink.net/articl.....1b2dc4560a

  118. 118
    burnspbesq says:

    Amazing that we’ve gotten to almost 120 comments without this.

    Hey hey, my my,
    Right-wing troll will never die.

  119. 119

    @ruemara:

    Case in point, see everything that’s gone down on the state level along with the range of obstruction at the Federal level. All seats are important and the hyperfocus on the Presidential seat has been a detriment.

    Well, many blue states have gotten bluer. It’s not that we aren’t winning, it’s that the nation is increasingly polarized at the state level. While some states are restricting abortion, California has been expanding it (to more people than the states restricting it, so far, though Texas would change that). While they’ve been loosening gun regulations, NY and CA and other states have been tightening them – again to more people.

    With that kind of polarization will come the inevitable process of reconciling these laws at the federal level, and presidential control (and influence of the judiciary by extension) along with control of the Senate becomes key. If we can maintain that, the damage the states can do wanes. I mean, the damage done by the expiration of the assault weapons ban at the federal level requires winning 50 states to replicate – or winning again at the national level. It’s shitty for the people living in those states that lurch ever harder right against a nation steadily drifting left, but that’s unpreventable. Dems aren’t about to win Alabama or Utah any time soon.

  120. 120

    FWIW, National Review and its Corner of right wing crazy has always been against immigration reform. Mark Krikorian one of the FPers on that blog, is a part of CIS, Center of immigration studies, which is against all immigration, even foreign born spouses of citizens.

  121. 121
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @👽 Martin: Which is why Texas is now in the news: It’s large cities and the Rio Grande area went for Obama while the rest of the state when for Romney. The whites here really know they have a clock to beat: Apartheid or we have to represent all Texans.

  122. 122
    Kay says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Is that true, though? The worst attempt at supression I have seen since 2000 was Pennsylvania 2012, and it was just the kind of shit you mentioned: that ridiculous law that was challenged, then making it as difficult as possible to understand or comply with the law, then finally this fuzzy, ambigious final directive : show ID but you don’t really need it.
    My daughter actually had trouble with a change of address in PA and voter reg and I was suggesting ways to resolve it. It was that bad. It took 2 of us. Still, with all that, voters persevered. I thought it was goingvto be a disaster. I was more worried about PA than any other state in 2012. They literally pulled every trick out.
    It’s really labor intensive. You need someone in every county. So it’s doable, and the pay-off is huge. There’s long term gain from being the Voting Rights Party.

  123. 123
    Chris says:

    @👽 Martin:

    Cliched as it is to say, the last time we were this polarized, we ended up fighting a war over it. I don’t think that’s on the horizon, but how do you deal with this kind of polarization in this kind of system without ending up with a completely paralyzed and dysfunctional government (e.g. what we have now)?

  124. 124
    The Other Chuck says:

    @JWL: Show her this song (song itself starts at about 1:25)

  125. 125
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @Comrade Dread: If they nominate Rand Paul or Santorum as their presidential candidate in 2016, you’re right about them not caring about winning Presidential elections. Too bad for McCain and Romney that they didn’t know that (and all the rich dudes who wasted millions on their campaigns).

  126. 126
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @Amir Khalid: Agree with you and wonder if the Republicans are going to continue into the future with all their anti-gay bigotry. Young people are pro-marriage equality and do not share the homophobia of the older generation.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....s/2479541/

  127. 127
    Kay says:

    @Roger Moore:

    My point is, it’s a great thing to be the voting rights party. Not in some contrarian sense of “there’s a silver lining because Democrats force Republicans to put these laws in by not reaching out to white Republicans” but in a practical, competent sense.
    “They don’t want you to vote. We do. Here’s how”
    They’re incompetent at administering these laws because the laws weren’t written with voters in mind. Since we’re contacting voters anyway, it should just be part of every campaign.
    Holder is great on voting rights. Most aggressive Dem AG in my memory. But courts are just one piece, and we already know the SCOTUS is completely useless and in fact a hindrance.
    I just think it’s great politics AND it’s the right thing to do. There’s plenty of money floating around Dem campaigns. Run 3 fewer tv ads and put tgat towards voter ed. in states that AREN’T swing states.

  128. 128
    NickT says:

    @Kay:

    “Democrats are the party of freedom and respect for you and your family. We help you to vote when Republicans want to take away your fundamental rights as a citizen and a person”.

    Rinse and repeat.

  129. 129

    @Kay:

    It’s really labor intensive.

    What I’m worried about is that the kind of effort you’re describing is only practical once in a while. You can probably convince people to lose a day’s pay standing around in line for a presidential election, but I’m worried that you won’t be able to get that kind of effort for a primary or even an off-year election for congress or state legislature.

    On the bright side, maybe I’m being too pessimistic and we won’t have to do it every year. If the Republicans are really depending on voter suppression to have a chance, it implies that the Democrats only have to overcome voter suppression to win. Once the Democrats have control of the state government, they can undo all the voter suppression tricks and that should be enough to keep them winning. At the very least, it should be enough to keep them winning enough to block the worst the Republicans have to offer in the way of voter suppression.

  130. 130
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @Bobby Thomson: I think that’s Luke’s job.

  131. 131
    Jebediah says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Mark Krikorian one of the FPers on that blog, is a part of CIS, Center of immigration studies, which is against all immigration, even foreign born spouses of citizens.

    Because Krikorian’s family, of course, came over on the Mayflower.

  132. 132
    fuckwit says:

    @Comrade Dread: DING DING DING!! They were waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on VRA. Now that it’s a free-for-all to deny Latinos the right to vote, they just don’t give a shit anymore about those votes.

    It’s the perfect catch-22: you need to be able to vote in order to change the voting laws so that you can vote. If you can’t vote, you can’t change the laws, and that means you can never vote.

    As for civil disobedience, expect it to be massive, organized, very peaceful, very respectful, but loaded with the kind of sheer numbers that will scare the living shit out of the 1%.

    I can’t stand it when middle-class white hippies protest; it looks like a big block party, creative signs, a celebration, Joan Baez singing songs, all that crap. Not at all powerful or impressive. This is why the Iraq war happened, and Occupy got thumped.

    But when Latinos protest, they do it RIGHT. They look like a fucking army, all wearing identical shirts, identical signs, marching in unison, etc. Even though they are very peaceful, respectful, and disciplined, that discipline just tweezes the 1% right in the lizard brain. It says, DO NOT FUCK WITH US.

  133. 133
    Groucho48 says:

    @patroclus:

    My understanding is that there are still triggers in the bill. A certain amount of pork has to be spent on specific things

    There is also quite a string of requirements for immigrants to follow along the 13 year pathway to citizenship.

    And, all that stuff is only going to get worse if we have to convince a certain number of Republicans in the House to vote for a House version of the Senate bill. I’ll bet the pathway is made even harder.

  134. 134
    lefthanded compliment says:

    Hey, hey, my, my,
    Right-wing rage will never die.
    It’s better to burn out
    Than it is to Rush,
    Hey, hey, my, my.

Comments are closed.