I had this really awesome excuse but the dog ate it

When you talk to wingnuts or wingnut-roaders like McArdle someone will inevitably make the argument that they just cannot trust Obama. The loving feeling just isn’t there. Nobody points to an actual thing that makes Obama especially treacherous relative any other person who weighted down the chair behind the Resolute desk. It seems like enough to say Obama has some intangible can’t-put-my-finger-on-it you-know-what-I-mean other-iness. Does anyone ever take that seriously? It seems like an issue between a guy and his therapist.

As most of you know by now Boehner can’t or won’t pass an immigration bill because, as he says, his wingnut caucus will roast him alive (WARNING WASHINGTON TIMES) something to do with Obama and trust. This should play fine with his primary voters who know exactly what a guy means when he says that he just has a hard time trusting one of those people like Obama, wink nudge don’t make me say it out loud.

On the other hand pretty much everyone else understands exactly why John Boehner (a) cannot advance immigration reform and (b) cannot shut up about it. Said a prescient fellow back in 2007,

Wonkery aside, the delicious politics of this bill strike me more than anything else. Like most people who support the Democrats I don’t have much passion one way or the other. Having to speak Spanish to get a decent wet burrito doesn’t bother me, I like cinco de Mayo and it strikes me as vaguely fair that our policy should help families stay together. America survived the Irish invasion, the Italian invasion, the Nordic/Germanic invasion, the slavic invasion, the (involuntary) African invasion and the Chinese invasion so it seems ludicrously insecure to think that one more will kill us. Whichever way they went on the issue the worst heat most Democrats are likely to face will come from David Broder.

But lord, what a tough spot for Republicans. At its heart the GOP has two basic camps* – business conservatives who bankroll the party and the social conservatives/theocons who staff it. In that light one could say the towering achievement of Bush’s term as POTUS was that he defied the centrifugal forces of majority power and held the GOP’s unlikely coalition together as firmly and as long as he did. If so, his towering failure will undoubtedly be his adamant support of this immigration bill.

I have tried for days to think of something that could wedge the social cons apart from the business cons than immigration but I just can’t do it. The Chamber of Commerce loves our current system because one can pay illegals practically nothing and they will thank you for it. In their view any fix to the current system has to keep bringing in large numbers of people with poor language skills (can’t have them reading those OSHA flyers on the wall) and a weak bargaining position, e.g. guest workers. Otherwise Americans had better get ready to start paying more for hotel beds, restaurant meals and packed meats.

The key problem is that the thing that the business cons need more than anything is exactly what the social cons desperately want to end. This issue has no conceivable middle ground because the social cons want less of precisely the same thing that business cons need more of. The historical calm between these two camps lasted and could only last as long as party leaders had the good sense to keep the issue off the front burner altogether. Any move to change the status quo would necessarily set off contrary demands that could easily spiral into open warfare.

To summarize, Karl Rove saw a demographic apocalypse coming for the national GOP. Being the proactive sort he tried to get ahead of it and from this effort he earned nothing but a sour reputation with social conservatives. In the seven years since that event the Chamber O’ Commerce has pushed their own pet Republicans to work with Dems on immigration reform and the wingnut suicide caucus killed it every time. I wish I could remember how many times this has happened but my job and random shit on the internet have ruined my attention span. So I am turning to you guys for help. Can you all help me document every stupid excuse that leading Republicans have given for spiking immigration reform? I can remember Obamacare, Obama being mean to them in the State of the Union, the Obamacare rollout problems and, uh, a bunch of others but names and dates escape me. With your help I would like to build a pretty timeline like Steve Benen does. He may already have done it but I am too lazy working. Thanks.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






77 replies
  1. 1
    catclub says:

    You know, they could pass a law now, so that it will be there when they do get a trustworthy President.
    It would look like an achievement, and they would get some credit for it. Too bad they cannot think that far ahead.

    Ha, ha.

  2. 2
    aimai says:

    I think the accusation that they “can’t trust Obama” is particularly rich and malodorous given the fact that Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, and that No-Lips turtle looking fellow in the Senate have literally, not figuratively, broken every agreement they ever negotiated with the President or Reid/Pelosi. Not only have they reneged, over and over again, on actual agreements but they have struck bargains and been unable to fulfill their side of it (the votes) and they have struck bargains (like the recent Budget agreement) and then gone right out the front door and slanged off on the entire process and refused to fund their own bills. I am old enough to remember when Senators, at least, more or less enjoyed having a reputation of being “men of their word.” The idea of being as good as your word has basically been driven from the building by hordes of screaming tea partiers.

  3. 3
    bryan says:

    I would like to ask someone who the last president was that they “trusted.” Carter? Ford? Because it is so easy to just point and laugh if they actually try to name another president who proved more worthy of trust than our current one.

  4. 4
    dmsilev says:

    @bryan: Reagan. I mean, the answer is _always_ Reagan.

  5. 5
    Shortstop says:

    “Can’t put my finger on why I don’t trust Obama” = “He’s black and I’m either blind to my own racism or have learned I can’t say this in public any more.”

  6. 6
    Monty says:

    But but Karl Rove has THE MATH.

    True, that’s from 2006. But does math have an expiration date?

  7. 7
    bryan says:

    @dmsilev: Of course it is. Then listen and laugh as they tie themselves in knots justifying Iran Contra. (Or any of a number of things which I was too young to know much about.) I’m not saying that you would convince anyone, just that I would enjoy a good laugh at their expense.

  8. 8
    PurpleGirl says:

    President Obama is one of those people. Forget that half of his genes come from a white, Midwestern woman and he was raised for a time by his white grandparents. Even if he self-identifies more with his father’s half (or the African-American side), the fact is that there is Midwestern in there. But all they can SEE is his blah side. And they believe all the stereotypes and legends and stories about blahs. The Rethugs keep having to find another way of phrasing why they don’t/won’t accept a blah person as president.

  9. 9
    Belafon says:

    I would help, but I’m gonna click on that link when I get home and probably be further distracted by things on the internet. As if Balloon Juice wasn’t enough of a distraction.

  10. 10
    Berial says:

    I’ve never understood the Chamber of Commerce positions on, well, pretty much anything. Aren’t most ‘members’ small businesses and small businessmen? Then why does the Chamber only support people that tilt the board so that the small guys are at a distinct disadvantage to the big guys? How does the legislation the Chamber pushes actually help all those small businessmen? If you are running a small furniture store in Smallville, Missouri or Tinytown, Mississippi the Chamber is doing everything it can to kill your business, yet they all are members in good standing.

  11. 11
    cleek says:

    the ‘trust’ thing sprouted from the notion that Obama is constantly breaking the law with his executive orders and whatnots.

    for example, when he delayed the mandate for some even though Congress didn’t give him permission to, he was using his tyrannical powers to do whatever he wanted. once that meme had soaked in, wingnuts started saying they can’t trust him to obey any law – he’ll just executive-order his way around it! tyranny! and now, their distrust of their imaginary Obama prevents them from passing new laws because they can’t trust him to obey future laws, either.

    malignancy growing on malignancy.

  12. 12
    Belafon says:

    @cleek: Which, once again, is an example of perception not matching reality. There’s a chart here showing number of executive orders per year by president. Even in this chart, Obama has the fewest number of executive orders. The use of them has been declining, where you can see that the smallest usage has been the last five presidents.

  13. 13
    bryan says:

    @Belafon: That article needs a few more pictures so I can see for myself what the big deal is.

  14. 14
    Shortstop says:

    @cleek: That may be their stated reason now, but the “I don’t trust him and I’m not sure why” thing started during the 2008 campaign and hasn’t stopped since. They keep misrepresenting the evidence — such as the number of executive orders — to support their mistrust, not the other way around.

  15. 15
    kindness says:

    The number one reason the wingnutz won’t help with immigration reform – immigrants primarily aren’t white. Sadly if Nancy Pelosi said it out loud Fox & the rest of the MSM would have a field day blaming everything on Democrats.

  16. 16
    Tim F. says:

    @Berial: Yep, you misunderstand the CoC. The biggest members pay the biggest dues, so it is effectively dominated by a small number of firms who place their representatives on the board that makes all the decisions. CEOs of the largest industries tend to lean GOP so the CoC does as well. Mom and pop can suck it as far as they care.

  17. 17
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Berial: A question for the ages.

    No, not all small businesses are members and in some areas local Chambers have gone rogue. But overall they depend on small business members to drink the koolaid (and hooboy, is it ever) of limited gov’t (=what’s good for the big banks is good for America) and provide the face of the Chamber when in fact they are controlled and funded by banks.

    They are Main St’s fifth column, destroying them on behalf of Wall St from the inside.

    But nobody said the grasping and vicious could not also be dumb.

  18. 18
    Cassidy says:

    OT: Friend of a friend doing science for their Masters. It’s a short survey on gender and race.

  19. 19
    Berial says:

    @Tim F.: I agree with you about what is actually happening within the CoC, what I don’t get is why all those small fry STAY with it.

  20. 20
    Steve M. says:

    any fix to the current system has to keep bringing in large numbers of people with poor language skills (can’t have them reading those OSHA flyers on the wall)

    Somewhat off-topic, but go here to find out how corporations are working the courts to get those government-mandated bulletin-board notices removed as violations of corporations’ “free speech rights.”

  21. 21

    Is anyone really surprised at this development? If the GOP takes up immigration reform it will split the party and show even the people who don’t pay attention to politics the ugliness that GOP represents.

  22. 22
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @PurpleGirl: The one drop rule explains everything.

  23. 23
    Tim F. says:

    @Berial: Not everyone does. Even some big fish have left in disgust. But the ones who stay still get some benefit from the organization, and even considering the political insanity business owners still need someone to lobby for them. It is the same dilemma that the NRA forces on gun owners, just not quite as extreme.

  24. 24
    rda909 says:

    @PurpleGirl: “Even if he self-identifies more with his father’s half (or the African-American side), the fact is that there is Midwestern in there.”

    Oh my goodness. Spoken like a true “progressive.” You might want to re-examine your views on “race.”

  25. 25
    Paul in KY says:

    No bikini barristas yet in KY. We have tittie bars of all different kinds, but no bikini barristas (sigh).

    Pacific Northwest gets all the cool things (kicking ground)…

  26. 26
    Paul in KY says:

    @aimai: Always projection with that gang.

  27. 27
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Steve M.: Hmmmm… Which brings to mind this question: Are corporations in the constitution? I’ve looked and can’t seem to find them there. Maybe there is a secret 10ath Amendment.

  28. 28
    Cervantes says:

    @cleek:

    the ‘trust’ thing sprouted from the notion that Obama is constantly breaking the law with his executive orders and whatnots.

    I wouldn’t say that. There are two parts to “the ‘trust’ thing.” One is specifics and the other is more like an aura. Their goal is to create and magnify the aura by using, or rather, abusing, specifics. Take the use of executive orders as an example: Obama is using fewer of them, as you know, and as Boehner himself knows, and yet Boehner can still get up on his hind legs and say this sort of thing:

    And frankly one of the biggest obstacle we face is trust. The American people and including many of my members don’t trust that the reform we’re talking about will be implemented as it was intended to be. The President seemed to change the health care law on a whim whenever he likes. Now he’s running around the country telling everyone that he’s going to keep acting on his own. He keeps talking about his phone and his pen. And he’s feeding more distrust about whether he’s committed to the rule of law.

    If I may borrow from the poet … the louder Boehner talks of trust, the faster we should count our spoons.

  29. 29
    Jay C says:

    That guy who wrote the blogpost seven years ago (Jeez, has it been THAT long?) really was prescient: even more so because the politics of “immigration reform” really haven’t changed that much: immigration reform doesn’t get done by Congress, since too much of the money Congress needs to grift off of campaign with comes from sources with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. QED.

    But as far as excuses go, “Amnesty Outrage” is usually the reliable fallback position: naturally, something like that would HAVE to occur, to alter the status of all those millions of previously-illegals: but a huffy, sputtering deference to The Law* is the typical last-ditch defense again enacting any meaningful reforms.

    *The Law, of course, also forbids employers from hiring undocumented workers, but never mind that little detail….

  30. 30
    Berial says:

    @Tim F.: I guess you are correct, but it still seems they should just form a ‘Small Business Coalition’ or something instead of staying with the Chamber.

    I mean, the CoC can probably state that, “We get 2 dollars of value to our business on average for every 1 we invest in lobbying”, and that may even be a ‘true’ statement, but what they ACTUALLY mean is ‘The Big Banks get 5$ for every $1 invested and you small fry end up losing $4 for every $1 you invest so PAY MORE its good for our your business!’.

  31. 31
    accidentalfission says:

    The Washington Times? Who reads the Washington Times besides Antonin Scalia?

    Apparently, no one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....es#Funding

  32. 32

    When people think of immigration reform they think of the undocumented immigrants but there are thousands of people who are already in the US on temporary work visas who are currently languishing in the green card purgatory. They pay taxes and FICA etc.
    Just as Obamacare decoupled health insurance from employment to truly reform immigration one needs to decouple immigration status from employment too, and have a system where an immigrant can petition on his or her own behalf. An option unavailable to most on temporary employment visas.

  33. 33

    @Shortstop:
    Usually the same thing. They’ve been embarrassed by getting caught saying racist things, learned to avoid saying the most obvious tells, convinced themselves that they’re not racist because they avoid those tells, and feel a gut level anger that they can’t speak freely.

  34. 34
    Paul in KY says:

    @Cassidy: I took survey. Some tough questions in there.

  35. 35
    bemused says:

    @Berial:

    Years ago we owned a small business in a itty bitty town and a rep from the state’s chamber of commerce came a-visiting. He did not get a fawning reception from us, basically what in the world were they doing for small business owners, squat. I think the poor guy was stunned. I think maybe one or two other business owners in the town may have given him the same reception but business owners can live in their very own small bubbles and the more conservative ones believed in the supposed trickle down benefit from paying dues to an org that catered to the big guys. I don’t think that is quite as true anymore as big box stores have taken business away from small hardware stores, etc and some small independent business owners have figured out that the US CoC and many state CoC’s aren’t really on their side.

  36. 36
    Cervantes says:

    The Chamber of Commerce loves our current system because one can pay illegals practically nothing and they will thank you for it. In their view any fix to the current system has to keep bringing in large numbers of people with poor language skills (can’t have them reading those OSHA flyers on the wall) and a weak bargaining position, e.g. guest workers.

    Engels and Marx called it a “reserve army of labor,” necessary for capitalism to succeed. If only some enterprising Chamber of Commerce type could explain this to the rubes …

  37. 37
    Bokonon says:

    Immigration reform is a distraction … from Benghazi!!

    Congress needs to focus on first things first.

  38. 38
    catclub says:

    @Paul in KY: I was disappointed in the link. two cups, one bra.

  39. 39

    Regarding the undocumented/out of status immigrants it telling that most of the conservative ire is focused on those who do back breaking work for a pittance but none on the people/corporations that hire and exploit them.

  40. 40
    GregB says:

    @Bokonon:

    Beat me to it. Though the proper spelling of BENGHAZ!I uses all caps.

  41. 41
    catclub says:

    @Bokonon: Daily show watcher.

  42. 42
    Berial says:

    @bemused: Thanks! Your’s the kind of story I would expect to be hearing more of these days, but they never seem to appear. I just keep hearing all these small town guys lining up in lockstep with the guys that are destroying them. Maybe, there’s starting to be some serious pushback.

  43. 43

    @Berial: I am sure it happens but since it does not fit the MSM narrative, it does not get reported. Just like we keep hearing about Reagan Democrats but never about Obama Republicans, i.e., people like blog host Cole and many of my friends.

  44. 44
    catclub says:

    Tim F , I don’t think the commenters here are doing their assigned homework or making a chronology
    of excuses… But like they say: Dumb looks are still free.

  45. 45
    Gene108 says:

    I think the GOP should pass the laws their base wants passed on immigration.

    1. All illegals will be arrested, fined and face a minimum 10 year prison term in a Federal penitentiary before deportation.

    2. All legal immigration will be stopped. All legal immigrants will self-deport.

    3. Naturalized US Citizens will have some sort of second class citizenship status.

    4. Children born in the US to immigrant parents will also have a second class citizenship status, unless they become good Christian Republicans.

  46. 46
    bemused says:

    @Berial:

    I know I’ve read stories in the last few years of city councils/residents in various states quite disenchanted with their local and state chambers but don’t remember the locations. I’m sure some googling would turn up some articles.

    The ones in lockstep are the true believers, rightwing, and will remain that way. Very loyal to their abusers and they manage to blame Dems for all their problems anyway.

  47. 47

    @Gene108: They also want:
    5. To take away birthright citizenship.

  48. 48
    Gene108 says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    I think the Senate bill, by eliminating per country quotas for GC’s, will give some relief to folks*, I have read that it makes workers more dependent on their employers.

    * Clearing the employer based GC backlog, ie Indian IT professionals, would cause an initial uptick in home sales as thousands of people with upper middle class incomes have the security to put down roots.

  49. 49
    Gene108 says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    But they do not want to take it away from everybody, because you take away birthright citizenship too broadly and you could have adverse unintended consequences to yourself.

    This is why I think second class citizenship will be the way it goes. Sort of like Kansas having different rules for state versus federal elections.

  50. 50

    @Gene108: Is it just Indians, aren’t many Mexicans, Chinese and Philipinos caught in the same quandary, and I think there was one more country which I am forgetting.

  51. 51
    muricafukyea says:

    Jesus fuk. You people are still wanking off about why the right doesn’t like Obama. It’s race. It’s ALL ABOUT RACE! He’s blah……GET IT??? Yes there are other reasons they come up with….some of which are true sometimes…but you can usually trace the root of those other reasons back to race as well.

    Also for you poor saps in the US who don’t get to see the opening ceremonies live. Check out the flag bearer for Greece!

  52. 52
    NonyNony says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    I am sure it happens but since it does not fit the MSM narrative, it does not get reported. Just like we keep hearing about Reagan Democrats but never about Obama Republicans, i.e., people like blog host Cole and many of my friends.

    The trick is that most “Obama Republicans” seem to now be Democrats. It isn’t that they found a charismatic Democrat to follow and seem to be the kind of voters that Republicans could “get back” – they seem to fall more into Cole’s narrative of realizing that the Republican party is a lost cause and leaving entirely.

    The narrative about “Reagan Democrats” was that they weren’t really Republicans – that they were Democrats who were disappointed in the Democratic Party and that they were “gettable” if only the Democratic Party would change. I don’t think that this narrative was actually true – the Reagan Democrats were mostly people who shifted permanently from D to R. It was when social conservatism outweighed economic self-interest for those voters – mostly because the economy had been in the shitter for a decade and so on the economic self-interest side the Reagan Democrats didn’t see a dime’s worth of difference between the GOP and the Dems, so why not vote for the guy who is going to put the screws to “those people” and at least do something different since whatever was being done in the 70s wasn’t working?

    Now I suspect that the narrative that we get is different because the DC press worshiped Ronald Reagan and wanted to make it all about his personal charisma. They don’t have the same view of Obama and so that narrative isn’t going to show up. But overall I think that’s healthy anyway – this way the Democrats can actually focus on why people are shifting (because the GOP has become the party of hateful, spiteful xenophobes) and can make that work instead of trying to find the “next Barack Obama” (which is the trap that the GOP has fallen into – look at how they cast about for the “next Reagan” constantly. And they’ll never find him because they’re looking for a mythical Ronald Reagan that never existed outside of a press narrative and some poor memories.)

  53. 53
    muricafukyea says:

    Absolute silence when Team USA comes into the stadium. Welcome to Russia team USA.

    Murica….FUK YEA!

  54. 54
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @bemused:

    The ones in lockstep are the true believers, rightwing, and will remain that way.

    The natural serfs.

    Wretches totally unworthy of the freedoms that so many have fought, bled, and died for.

    My contempt for these maggots knows no bounds.

  55. 55
    Cervantes says:

    @NonyNony:

    The narrative about “Reagan Democrats” was that they weren’t really Republicans – that they were Democrats who were disappointed in the Democratic Party and that they were “gettable” if only the Democratic Party would change.

    More or less, yes.

    I don’t think that this narrative was actually true – the Reagan Democrats were mostly people who shifted permanently from D to R.

    No. Ground zero for “Reagan Democrats” was Macomb County in Michigan. Here’s how it voted:

    1960: Kennedy 63%
    1980: Reagan 66%
    2008: Obama 53%
    2012: Obama 52%

  56. 56
    Ruckus says:

    @Berial:
    The CoC is nothing more than a grift. The locals take money from local business and involve local business in nothing more than occasional parties to stand around and BS. The way I know this is I belonged to one when I owned my retail store. Thought it might help me contact with other business owners and be helpful to my business. You know the stated goals. Was once even asked to give a speech to a group about my business specialty. Turned out when I got there I was expected to give a sales pitch for my business and pay them for the privilege. This of course after spending time preparing to do what I was asked for ahead of time. That’s when I looked farther into the whole CoC bullshit and told them to keep their membership. They kept sending me bills worded in strong language about owing them money. I kept telling them to go fuck themselves.

  57. 57
    Tim F. says:

    @NonyNony: Cole is a Schiavo Democrat. Nobody attracted him away from the GOP, he was pushed.

    @Cervantes: You have a thirty-eight year gap between Reagan and Obama. A lot of those ‘Reagan Democrats’ were older than average when they voted for Reagan the first time. They’re dead now.

  58. 58
    gvg says:

    Well R congress and most GOP voters are using that for hidden code for racism but there are at least some former hardworking Obama supporters who are upset about the Snowden stuff and believe Obama has betrayed them and broken the constitution etc. I know ancedotes aten’t data but I’m a bit worried. My sister in fact did a lot of get out the vote for both Obama elections and is now refusing to give Dem organizations money and is totally convinced he has actually done illegal things himself, beyond Bush that he promised he wouldn’t etc. I haven’t gotten anywhere arguing about it. She is using broken trust words in it’s real meaning.
    I’ll bet on the GOP finding a few real people to speak up.

  59. 59
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Tim F.:

    Cervantes seems to be our own inhouse Slate writer.

  60. 60
    Cervantes says:

    @Tim F.: Sure, people die. But for more insight than that, try this (from the pollster who “discovered” Reagan Democrats).

  61. 61

    @Villago Delenda Est: Whatever happened to Brachiator? He was BJ’s in-house Slate writer. Is Cervantes his new nym? I don’t think so, because the writing styles are different.

  62. 62
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Tim F.: Based on a lot of voters I know in my parents’ generation (WWII/Korea) a lot of those “Reagan Democrats” were actually “Nixon Democrats”, but that doesn’t sound as flattering in the ears of Brokaw and Cokie. And yes, a lot them have died off in the last ten/fifteen years.

  63. 63
    Cassidy says:

    @Paul in KY: Yeah. I think the lesson learned for me is that softer and harder features really have no meaning without context.

  64. 64
    Paul in KY says:

    @Cassidy: Haven’t seen any answers to what they were (male/female, race).

    Guess they were all opposite of what I thought they were.

  65. 65
    Barry says:

    @Berial: “I’ve never understood the Chamber of Commerce positions on, well, pretty much anything. Aren’t most ‘members’ small businesses and small businessmen? ”

    (sorry if somebody already got here)
    Not any more; the US Chamber of Commerce is strictly a big business group.

  66. 66
    Cassidy says:

    @Paul in KY: I didn’t get any answers either, but I found I couldn’t explain why I thought what I did beyond just superficial observation.

  67. 67
    Cassidy says:

    @Paul in KY: I didn’t get any answers either, but I found I couldn’t explain why I thought what I did beyond just superficial observation.

  68. 68
    shortstop says:

    What does “in-house Slate writer” mean?

  69. 69
    Mnemosyne says:

    @gvg:

    Here’s the thing: the GOP is desperately trying to get more white voters, because they’re convinced they can win just with a majority of whites. I’m guessing you (and your sister) are probably white. So, yes, there’s a specific campaign directed at people like your sister to try and get them to vote Republican, or at least to not vote at all.

  70. 70
    jl says:

    I think the racism angle is in Boehner and Cantor’s pitch. But they would have found some excuse to shelve immigration reform, even for a purely Anglo-Saxon president named Whitey Whitesworth III (edit: be he Dem or GOP). They had to find an excuse to do nothing when Bush II, under Rove’s prodding, wanted immigration reform.

    Sorry, I don’t have any specific examples for a time line, but might later when I have time to think about it.

    So, the GOP continues its march to long run extinction. We have to hold the fort down during the next couple of election cycles, both midterms and the main presidential year events.

  71. 71
    Paul in KY says:

    @Cassidy: Superficial reasons is about it. I looked at eyes & lips & adams apples & stuff like that & mentioned that in my comments.

  72. 72
    Cervantes says:

    Oh, one more thing:

    Can you all help me document every stupid excuse that leading Republicans have given for spiking immigration reform?

    Leading or not I have no idea but here’s the part where a “Southern Republican lawmaker” skips the stupid excuse and just tells the truth:

    And although there are a variety of reasons for inaction, one Republican lawmaker recently offered a frank acknowledgement that for many House Republicans, there’s one issue at play that’s not often discussed: race.

    “Part of it, I think — and I hate to say this, because these are my people — but I hate to say it, but it’s racial,” said the Southern Republican lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If you go to town halls people say things like, ‘These people have different cultural customs than we do.’ And that’s code for race.”

    That’s from John Stanton, Buzzfeed, January 29, 2014.

  73. 73
    ted says:

    Does anybody have an update on those states that decided to be macho n tuff and enact draconian laws for illegal labor and then watched as nobody would pick their fields for a pittance? Did they all quietly go back to the status quo?

  74. 74
    McJulie says:

    @Berial: I’ve always thought a lot of it stems from a very ideological, almost religious, ‘Capitalism is the BESTEST” mindset. They run a small business, but they idolize the principles of big business. They sincerely think that things like a “good business climate” apply equally to all sizes of business in all areas of commerce.

    In early 2009 I was at a meeting of local businesses, and speaker after speaker betrayed a deeply weird, very retro paranoia that Obama was going to be — I don’t know, roaming the country and personally seizing the means of production wherever he might find it. And this was in Bellingham, Washington, where at least half the small businesspeople sitting in the audience were hippies running natural juice farms & stuff. The speakers seemed completely out of touch with their own audience.

    In Bellingham, the problem was bad enough that a bunch of local businesses decided to form their own version of a chamber of commerce http://sustainableconnections.org/

    Oh, and don’t forget the developers. They are usually smallish local businesses, but first in line to bootlick the 1 percent and punch any hippies they happen to see.

  75. 75
    mclaren says:

    Why is Obama untrustworthy?

    Let’s start with the 20-million-dollar bribe Obama took from the health care industry during his 2008 election campaign. In 2008 Obama campaigned on a public option; after he got elected in 2009, he magically dispensed with the public option as a possibility for health care reform. Could that 20 million dollar bribe have had anything to do with his change of heart?

    Jimmy Carter campaigned on cleaning up Washington and ending inflation and putting the country back together after the Vietnam war tore it apart. When elected, Carter ran a scandal-free administration, gave amnesty to draft evaders in Canada, and appointed Volcker, whose rate hikes at the fed eventually ended inflation. Of course, Volcker’s rate hikes created so much economic pain that the infantile spoiled-brat American people voted Carter out in 1980 in a fit of childish pique, choosing instead that mastermind and paragon Ronald Reagan.

    Reagan campaign on reducing the deficit. Naturally, deficits skyrocketed under Reagan courtesy of his tax cuts for billionaires + sky-high military budget increases. Reagan campaigned on “getting back to the real America,” so naturally 135 Reagan administration officials resigned in disgrace or were indicted for bribery and various crimes during Reagan’s 8 years in office — including the Attorney General of the United States, who was indicted and served prison time. Reagan campaigned on “getting tough with the Soviets,” so naturally he suggested eliminating all nuclear weapons during talks with Gorbachev.

    Bill Clinton campaigned on putting the U.S. economy back on track after the depredations caused by the crazy-spending Star-Wars-boondoggle Reagan years. After Bill Clinton exited the preidency, the U.S. had a surplus for the first time in many decades and the economy was roaring on all 8 cylinders. Bill Clinton campaigned on cutting back on secretive Iran-Contra-style government-by-black-ops, and more secrets were declassified during Bill Clinton’s administration than in any other presidency. Bill Clinton campaigned on competent govenrment and under his administration, fewer White House appointees were indicted than under any other modern presidents than Carter or Obama.

    Jimmy Carter was trustworthy. He did what he promised to do. Ronald Reagan lied whe nhe said hello, lied when he said goodbye, lied to congress about the Contras, lied to the American people about his tax cuts, Reagan lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied until it reached the point 1987 where, when Reagan proposed a new appointee and the Democratic congress balked at the appointee’s gross dishonesty, the response of the Reagan adminstration was: “At least he hasn’t been indicted yet!”

    Meanwhile, Clinton by and large was trustworthy. He lied about getting dick sucked. Oohhhh. Other than that, Clinton did what he said he’d do.

    Dubya lied about not being interested in nation-building, he lied about his tax cuts, he lied about the Medicare expansion, he lied about the deficits, he lied about the economy, he lied about torture, he lied about universal NSA surveillance, he lied about extraordinary rendition, he lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied to the point where nowadays, when you open a Webster’s 3rd Edition dictionary, it’s surprising you don’t find the definition of lie as “Something said by George W. Bush.”

    Obama campaigned on reducing penalties for marijuana, then he turned around and increased the DEA raids for marijuana once he got in office. Obama campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo, then he kept it open. Obama campaigned against the illegal grossly unconstitutional rigged military commission kangaroo trials, then he continued them. Obama campaigned against Dubya’s abuses of the constitution, then Obama turned around and started ordering the assassination of U.S. citizens without a trial and without charges of criminal activity. Obama campgined on a single-payer health care reform, then he turned around and said single-payer was “off the table” once he got into office. Obama campaigned against unconstitutional universal NSA surveillance, then he turned around and approved it once in office. Obama has lied about universal NSA surveillance, he’s lied about the torture and death squads that went on in Iraq and Afghanistan under his presidency, Obama has lied about single-payer, he’s lied about extraordinary rendition, he’s lied about ordering extrajudicial murders, he’s lied about wanting to respect international law and then turned around and not only ordered drone strikes on innocent women and children but ordered second drone strikes specifically targeting hte first-aid responders and doctors and nurses who tried to rescue the injured survivors of the first drone strikes (the infamous “double tap” which according to American administration has always been the distinguish characteristic of the worst kind of immoral mass-murdering terrorists). Obama claimed he would run the “most transparent administration in history” and instead he’s prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents put together. Obama has lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied to the point where, when Obama makes a public speech decrying some illegality nowadays, it’s very bad news…because you know it’s a matter of a few months before some leaker like Snowden or Manning or Kiriakou will show that not only was Obama lying, but that he’s done things much worse than the atrocities he was decrying.

    Is Obama untrustworthy?

    Three guesses.

    If Barack Obama says the sun is shining, check your almanac — means there’s an eclipse scheduled that you didn’t know about.

  76. 76
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @PurpleGirl: Actually, right-wingers are the ones most likely to make a big deal about him having a white mother, because they think it makes him some kind of fake black person who is pretending to be black for social advantage, which feeds into their narratives about affirmative-action scammers and race hustlers picking on them all the time.

  77. 77
    Cassidy says:

    @mclaren: I see you forgot your meds again.

Comments are closed.