Skip to main content

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (C) is flanked by Senator John Thune (R-SD) (L) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) (R) as he addresses reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, February 4, 2014.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst    (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTX1880M
GOP immigration reform supporters want action now because
they're afraid of what might happen if these guys win.
At the end of a Wall Street Journal report on how House Speaker John Boehner and other top House Republicans are privately telling campaign donors who support immigration reform that they still believe it can happen in 2014 comes this amazing passage explaining why some Republicans believe it's important to take action this year instead of waiting until 2015 or beyond:
GOP lobbyists and some congressional staff say the task might grow harder if the party waits.

If Republicans win control of the Senate, for example, Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), who is widely seen as opposing an immigration overhaul, would be slated to lead the Judiciary Committee, which handles immigration.

Many in the business community have shifted their lobbying to emphasize this point, several lobbyists said.

In other words, Republicans who support immigration reform want to act now because they're afraid of what would happen if Republicans were to take full control of Congress. In a way, that makes sense, but it's also a damning indictment that the possibility of winning the next election is one of the biggest fears of the GOP's immigration reform supporters.

But how about this for a better solution? Deny Mitch McConnell his dream of becoming Senate Majority Leader and put the Democrats back in control of the House. Short of a miracle from House Republicans, that's the only way immigration reform is going to happen anytime soon.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I prefer… (17+ / 0-)

    …that Democrats win back the Congress. Good news, and more good news, on Obamacare makes it more likely that the Dems will have an unexpected wind at our backs in 2014.

    •  ignoring the unemployed and underemployed (0+ / 0-)

      voting citizens in favor of importing millions of competing workers is what will cause the democrats to lose the senate and house.

      The immigration issue will never go away, even if the U.S. enacts an amnesty today. Tomorrow, there will be be millions of new arrivals making the exact demands.  We have been here before.

      •  So, anti-immigrant bigotry wins elections? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, Linda1961

        If so, Romney should have won with his self-deportation talk.

        Oops. Non-whites actually vote (the GOP forgets this).

      •  Ignoring the unemployed? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, bananapouch1, thomask, Linda1961
        ignoring the unemployed and underemployed voting citizens in favor of importing millions of competing workers is what will cause the democrats to lose the senate and house.
        So the GOP solution of ignoring ALL of the voting citizens' needs is somehow a winner?

        In case you haven't noticed, Democrats in the Senate have passed unemployment bills where they sit in the GOP-controlled House to languish.


        •  The unemployment extension bill (0+ / 0-)

          has been set aside to focus on immigration.

          •  Nonsense. (5+ / 0-)

            Democrats have tried to pass unemployment benefits multiple times this year, succeeding on the third try. Republicans have refused to consider either immigration or unemployment benefits.

            •  the catch (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              We forget that much (most?) of America opposes extended UI. Remember, Bill Clinton ended welfare with the declaration that "there is NO excuse" for long-term unemployment. The public agreed.  He declared that strict time limits on aid (by any other name) are necessary to "serve as an incentive to get up every morning and find a job." America demanded this of many who have significant barriers to employment. It doesn't make sense to think that hardworking Americans would need more help than those with barriers to employment. Economic downturns are cyclical. In the past, during long downturns, those whose UI expired before they could secure jobs turned to welfare.  Welfare was extended UI. It provided a fraction of the income provided by UI, but was usually just enough to tide them over. We got rid of it.

      •  Immigrants start all the new businesses... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BMScott, penelope pnortney

        I'm in the Silicon Valley so maybe my perspective is jaded...

        But almost ALL of the newer high paying jobs are with companies started by immigrants.

        For every Facebook started by an American, I see a dozen spin off and support businesses hiring people for all kinds of related needs, and headed by somebody from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, or Europe - one of them 'funny people with an accent' we call an immigrant.

        I know a lot of immigrants. The folks who come here tend to have solid work ethics, a sense of community responsibility, and a heavy value on education.

        I'd be selling beads on a corner near a headshop like my mates from high school if it wasn't for a bloke from India not caring that I was a mix-breed Native American when looking at my military record and seeing skills he could use.

        Bring them in here by the truck load I say... so they can start companies and innovate us into prosperity. And so that, as their kids grow up, they will force people to stop spending on prisons and defense and start spending on education.

        OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

        by Jyotai on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 03:46:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is gibberish and insulting to Americans. (0+ / 0-)

          Just about every conclusion you make is false and ridiculous.

          •  It’s certainly not gibberish; a bit (3+ / 0-)

            exaggerated, but far from gibberish and, allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, generally in line with the facts.  From Reuters:

            The study "America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Then and Now," shows that 24.3 percent of engineering and technology start-up companies have at least one immigrant founder serving in a key role.

            The study paid particular attention to Silicon Valley, where it analyzed 335 engineering and technology start-ups. It found 43.9 percent were founded by at least one immigrant.

            That article is from October 2012.
          •  Did you miss the part... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...where s/he said they were part Native American?  You know, the ORIGINAL Americans?  Unless you're Aboriginal, yer an immigrant, sir.  Way to slag your own folks, unless the immigrants you don't happen to like are brown or Hispanic, is that it?

            By the way, I'm an immigrant (to the U.S, anyway), and you characterizing us as job-stealing whatevers is the insulting thing, not Jyotai's comments.  There is nothing insulting in what he said; he merely related his personal experiences with a sub-set of people, that's all.

            I also happen to be part Native American.  I'm Canadian, an immigrant here in the U.S and I own a (very) small business making costumes.  Not "stealing" anyone's job there.  Oh wait, doesn't that make me an entrepreneur, too?  An immigrant entrepreneur, just like Jyotai describes...  Jeesh.

            If you think someone's personal experience is somehow "false and ridiculous", then what are your comments but base anti-immigrant bigotry?

            If we acknowledge our fears, then we must also acknowledge the consequences of our actions when we react to those fears. Hate is based on fear, fear comes from a lack of understanding. When you understand, it is more difficult to hate.

            by TheProgressiveAlien on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 09:51:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ah ha! (0+ / 0-)

          The US is sinking because Americans are inferior humans who lack work ethics. You are incredibly disconnected from, and contemptuous of, American citizens. Hiring foreign labor at the expense of American workers is, quite simply, an anti-American act that should be treated as such.

      •  As one plutocrat said to another (0+ / 0-)

        My dear fellow, those tomatoes aren't going to pick themselves, and white trash are simply too lazy and too expensive to compete with starving Mexicans desperate to support their families.

        Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!

        by BenFranklin99 on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 11:05:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Winning back the House wouldn't mean reform (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IT Professional

      Immigration has failed in the past under all types of Congresses. It is a complex issue, and by the time Democrats retake the House the next time, the party may have moved onto different issues. Just like Pelosi didn't push for immigration (except for DREAMers) in 2009-10, with the largest majority in a generation.

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        Democrats and liberals have done much to alienate those masses who voted for President Obama, who are not as well-off as the middle class. The US shipped out a huge chunk of our working class jobs since the 1980s, then cut the rungs off of the proverbial ladder out of poverty. The number of permanently poor has continued to grow. It was hoped that President Obama, with his knowledge of US poverty and the poor, would be able to launch a legitimate discussion about this, and he tried a few times.  Dems and libs would have no part of it. Bill Clinton targeted the poor, giving us 8 yrs of Bush. The poor voted third party or withheld their votes, and the middle class voted for Bush. The most recent act of the Dems in Congress was to cut food aid to the elderly, disabled and working poor.  Again. This is the issue that will determine the next election.

    •  Reality of 2014 (0+ / 0-)

      The reality is that the America that votes in off-year elections is NOT the America that elected and re-elected a progressive African American with an Arab name for president in 2008 and 2012.  As a strong supporter of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, who beat his head against the brick wall of the pro-war Democratic establishment for 40 years (Gene McCarthy, Morris Udall, Jerry Brown, Frank Church, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley and Howard Dean), I welcomed the nomination and victory of Barack Obama as the culmination of a life-long dream.

      But, just as Republicans created a delusional bubble in 2012 in which the polls were skewed and Romney was going to win by a landslide, I'm seeing very disturbing signs that my own Democratic party is concocting a cocoon of delusions themselves now.  The fact is that the America of 2010 and 2014 is the same America as 1992 demographically, older, whiter, more conservative, and it will remain that way at least until 2022 because current congressional boundaries aren't redrawn until 2020.  And this America would no more consider supporting the party of an African American president, supporting gay marriage, supporting talks with Iran over war with Iran, than they would consider growing their hair long and sharing a bong.  For better or for worse, off-year elections happen in a time-warp these days, where we are back in Ronald Reagan's America.  

      That is the reality.  And that is why the Congress that emerges in November will be at least as bad, if not worse than, the Congress we have now.  

      Which means that immigration reform HAS to be done after the primary season THIS YEAR.  Anyone who is saying it has to wait until after the election is, frankly, in la-la-land.

      •  backlash (0+ / 0-)

        Maybey if the Republicans keep the House and win the Senate this year, Democratic voters will get angry at the GOP and come out in droves in 2016.

        "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die." --Senator Ted Kennedy

        by Blue Silent Majority on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 12:54:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  2016 (0+ / 0-)

          Well, that's going to happen in the Senate, yes, but that's highly unlikely in the House because of the gerrymandering of the congressional districts.  We may even retain the White House in 2016 (as long as we don't do something foolish, like nominate Hillary).  But that doesn't help at all in terms of what we're talking about, which is how does immigration reform happen before Obama leaves office.  This year is it, as far as that goes; Democratic triumphs in 2016, unfortunately, are irrelevant as far as that goes.

          •  Immigration (0+ / 0-)

            Based on the assumption that the GOP can't possibly loose the House, then I don't see how immigration reform can happen any time soon. Nativist racist white republicans will tar and feather any GOP Rep who votes for the legislation.

            "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die." --Senator Ted Kennedy

            by Blue Silent Majority on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 07:37:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Won't Be Tarred and Feathered (0+ / 0-)

              No, they won't be, because you don't need most House Republicans to vote for it.  You need to do a debt ceiling-type vote, where only a handful of Republicans vote for it and the majority of the winning margin are Democratic votes.  There are about two dozen House Republicans who come from moderate swing districts where voting for immigration reform will be a political plus, not a minus.  And that's all you need.  Those Republicans were scared s****s of a Tea Party primary challenge.  Once that window of opportunity has passed, all those Republicans will have to worry about is the general election where immigration reform is cool in swing districts.  I'm talking about folks like Peter King, one of the very strong and outspoken supporters of immigration reform because it's popular in his district.

          •  Nominating Hillary = foolish? (0+ / 0-)

            Get out of the bubble.

    •  No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You, understandably, aren't factoring in the deep alienation of the masses of poor who voted for President Obama in hopes that we would FINALLY have a legitimate discussion about our poverty crisis. Can you understand that a person can't buy a loaf of bread with promises of eventual jobs? Or that you can't get a job once you no longer have a home address, phone, bus fare? Not everyone can work, and there simply aren't jobs for all who need one. It is the Democrats - not Republicans - who brought the war on the poor to fruition. Lib media has effectively blocked out all legitimate discussion of US poverty, choosing to wave the Middle Class Only banner. Clinton targeted the poor, giving us 8 yrs of Bush.  The poor either voted third party or withheld their votes. We can expect this to be repeated in 2016. With the latest budget, Democrats once again targeted the elderly, disabled and working poor. There is no one for the masses of poor (who still don't believe in the magic of trickle-down economics) to vote for.

  •  Grassley will create a new death panel but it will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    exterminate a lot of Republicans who oppose positive immigration reform.
    As they try to lash Democrats to the rails, Republican villains are going to be utterly flattened by the oncoming progressive train, if not in '14, then in '16.

    Putting the fun back in dysfunctional.

    by hawkseye on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:39:51 PM PDT

  •  smoke/mirrors (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IT Professional

    Immigration reform ain't gonna happen--will never pass in the House.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:41:13 PM PDT

    •  Immigration reform will happen. It's just a matter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      of time. I hope it's 2014. But if not, the time will come quicker if the Latino voters show up in the midterm.

    •  Will immigration reform pass this year? (0+ / 0-)

      The article states that Boehner/Goodlatte are planning to do it in June/July, once the primary season is over.

      It is a possibility given the business pressure, that they would introduce bills, schedule committee markups, and get it done quickly before opposition builds up. Most of the filing deadlines are gone by now.

      At the same time, they would need to be hiding their intentions carefully, because almost everyone has left immigration for dead.

      •  Immigration reform (0+ / 0-)

        That is EXACTLY how it has to happen.  In fact, that is the ONLY way for it to happen, because the Congress that emerges from this fall will be at least as bad as, if not worse than, today's Congress, for the reasons I stated in my posting above.  This year will be the last chance for President Obama to sign that legislation.  If it doesn't happen this year, it will have to wait until at least 2017, assuming there is a Democrat in the White House (though that is unlikely if the Dem establishment idiots jam Hillary down our throats).  And if there's no Democrat in the White House in 2017 it will probably be another seven or eight years before we will have another opportunity.

        •  So what Dem has the ability to beat Hillary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and then win the general election in 2016? Also, please BRIEFLY (please) sum up your objections to Hillary. I have my own reservations about her but if you can express some good negatives against her..... please speak up!

          •  Problems With Hillary (0+ / 0-)

            Excellent questions.  You have also asked me to be brief.  That's a challenge but here goes.

            Your first question:  What Dem has the ability to beat Hillary?

            The fact is that Hillary has been beaten once within the Democratic party.  She was beaten primarily because she was never able to exculpate herself from the original sin of having voted for the Iraq War.  A full-throated opponent of that war from the start, Barack Obama, beat her.  Right now, the public is even more tired of war than they were in 2008.  Barack Obama filled a vacuum Hillary herself created.  It is inevitable that someone will fill that vacuum.  Yes, but who?  Someone with credible governmental experience who has a good track record on Hillary's greatest vulnerability, her hawkishness.  In this regard, take a look at some of the leaders in the Senate who have shown consistent support for the president's diplomatic Iran initiative.  You will find at least two in there (maybe more) who have both senatorial and gubernatorial experience, New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen and Virginia's Tim Kaine.  Shaheen has the added advantage of being a woman.

            Your second question:  What Dem has the ability to win in 2016?  

            I would say that the Electoral College favors us at the moment, thanks to the brand spanking new presidential coalition Barack Obama built.  That coalition relies primarily on what pollster Stan Greenberg has called alternately the Rising Electorate and the Coalition of the Ascendant, based on people of color, single women and youth.  Considering the GOP's demographic problems, it is unlikely, barring supreme Democratic stupidity (like nominating Hillary), that the Dems will lose the White House in 2016.  Every presidential election is an answer to the previous victor.  In 2007 America had an uneducated shoot-from-the-hip warmonger president.  We replaced him with a professorial and cautious academic constitutionally uncomfortable with war.  In 2016, we will be looking for someone with solid gubernatorial credentials and experience, as opposed to an academic approaching politics from a semi-pedagogic perspective.  In addition, the Dems will need someone who is a good fit with the Rising Electorate.  Which means either someone embodies this new electorate, like a woman (Jeanne Shaheen), or someone who has an effective and proven ability to reach out to people of color (Tim Kaine spent years in South America and speaks Spanish fluently: ).  

            Next question:  Sum up your objections to Hillary BRIEFLY.

            First, a president's authority is greatest on foreign policy.  Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, derided then-candidate Obama's call for talks with Iran in 07 as naive, boasting that we could "obliterate" them, as Secretary of State supported an open-ended 40,000 troop surge in Afghanistan and also pushed for military involvement with Syria.  She's a Lyndon Johnson/Scoop Jackson-style Democratic DLC pro-war hawk from the word go; we don't need someone like that in the White House; we tried that in 64 and it led to a debacle.

            Secondly, we already tried winning the presidency with the Clinton Coalition in 00 and 04 and failed.  Then Obama came along with the Rising Electorate and we won -- twice.  We need a candidate who is a good fit with the Coalition of the Ascendant, not one that would be a throwback to the Reagan era when Dems had to apologize for being Dems and Dem winners were DINO's like the Clintons.

        •  True. This is a narrow window. (0+ / 0-)

          republicans want to pass it before 2016. Next Congress will be more difficult due to Chuck Grassley as Judiciary Committee Chairman and the upcoming GOP primary season. This year, they won't introduce a bill now, because they don't want opposition to build up to it. Instead, once a majority of the GOP caucus has secretly signed off to some form of reform, they will introduce the bills, pass them through the Judiciary Committee in the middle of the night, and bring them to floor the week after that, before the angry phone calls come.

  •  Hoisted on their own petard. (0+ / 0-)

    Defined for all time.

    Think about the baby Jesus. Up in that tower, letting His hair down so that the three wise men could climb up and spin the dreidle and see if there's six more weeks of winter. -- Will and Grace

    by Rikon Snow on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:44:44 PM PDT

  •  Dems will keep the Senate in 2014. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    "Really nice, but also very serious about his job." Jackie Evancho on President Obama 6/7/12

    by BarackStarObama on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:48:19 PM PDT

    •  Cool. I'd rather take the House. Oh, well . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They call them "representatives" but they're not even close.

      Think about the baby Jesus. Up in that tower, letting His hair down so that the three wise men could climb up and spin the dreidle and see if there's six more weeks of winter. -- Will and Grace

      by Rikon Snow on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:54:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We'll probably get at least two Akin/Mourdock/O'Donnells in the general election, if not three. The Repubs won't be THAT lucky. It isn't in their nature to keep their crazies' mouths shut.

      Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

      by Matt Z on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:56:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chuck Grassley as judiciary chair. (0+ / 0-)

    Will be fun. He is amongst the most headbanging opponents of immigration, legal and illegal. He even opposes H1B visas, which are usually pushed for by republicans, including Tea Partiers like Cruz or Lee.

    Grassley will probably conduct hearings on Arizona-style bills to crack down on illegal immigration.

  •  Anything goes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So looks like people are worried, businesses that is.. I guess they should be.

    I don't know but if the repubs got the whole thing in 2014 and 2016, I guess they could get rid of all their problems, no medicare, no medicaid, no UI, no immigration, more laws, more private prisons filling us, more taxes.,..

    lord that is all scarey especially sense reading about the 89 cents refill Chief of Police bully in SC...

    Okay enough of that, they are afraid and we will sweep the GOPTEA, they SHOULD be afraid.
    Get out and vote and vote often and help other ensure they have the papers to vote!

  •  What they are really afraid of (0+ / 0-)

    is for the Dems to win the senate veto proof, and control of the house. Then the Dems will pass immigration reform, and once again, the GOP will look like the clods they truly are.

    We have a major smack down coming next fall and they know it. Folks are sick of the Republican Koch libertarian crap.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 03:17:04 PM PDT

  •  Pretty sad for a party... (0+ / 0-)

    When the biggest obstacle its own members face towards their goals is their fellow thugs...

    OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

    by Jyotai on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 03:47:54 PM PDT

  •  so Braley comments on Grassley (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in a fundraiser and he is condemned for bashing farmers and Saint, excuse me, Senator Grassley, but a group of republicans do the same and it is fascinating..   Oh well....

  •  ... or "Stop us before we (0+ / 0-)

    REALLY fuck up!"

    ... the closest thing you'll ever see to the still-somewhat-coherent GOP 'old guard' acknowledging that their party is completely overrun with crazies.

  •  Conservative Politicians (0+ / 0-)

    are traitors to our nation.

  •  2014 (0+ / 0-)

    Those few GOP candidates are not he only ones scared that the GOP might win control of the Senate. America is is in for a bad run if the GOP gains control of anything. he issues facing our nation today are a direct result of the past 40 years of failed GOP policies and economic principals. For all the good things Clinton did while compromising with the GOP to get shit done, his banking deregulation garbage played a heavy role in our mess as ell.

  •  We all live in fear (0+ / 0-)

    of the Republicans gaining control of the Senate

    Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal. - General James Longstreet

    by kbrown2225 on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 03:04:03 PM PDT

  •  Linking jobs and immigration is counterproductive (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with some commenters that unemployment is our biggest issue in 2014, but immigration is a separate issue imho. Anti-immigration is also quite cyclical, that is, at certain times in history it goes away.

    Thomas Sheridan has written extensively about this in his book, "Arizona, A History". During the boom cycles of Cotton, Cattle and Copper, Mexican immigrants were welcomed not just onto work sites, but into families through intermarriage. This promoted some cultural stability during economic downtimes, but not enough to keep anti-immigration from flaring up when the going got tough.

    If we can refocus all the current anti-immigration energy on job creation, the former will resolve itself as it has done in the past. With this knowledge, we should certainly create better policies for ensuring workforce and social stability; but in a more constructive rather than destructive way.

  •  PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME....... (0+ / 0-) the Republicans can take over the Senate! They've shut down the government last year, costing us $25 billion.....they've tried to take health care, Medicare. Medicaid and SS away from needy folks, while giving huge tax breaks for the oil companies....they've denied needy people Unemployment Insurance, forcing them into abject poverty.....they've coddled Wall Street & Big Banks so that people are losing their homes to foreclosure.....they've flat-out REFUSED to raise minimum wage to lift people out of poverty......they've obstructed the President on good solid policy, just for spite.....they've had scandal after scandal after scandal, not to mention all the gaffes (like the GOP Senator threatening to toss the reporter off the balcony, or the crack-smoking Senator in Florida....) And we are supposed to say that's all OK and give them the rest of the government so they can destroy what's left of Democracy to appease the billionaires and corporations????

    Are 51% of the voters THAT INCREDIBLY STUPID, GULLIBLE & NAIVE??

    It was once said..."A people gets the government it deserves". I rest my case.......

  •  Eh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's a near certainty that the next admin. will be Republican, for reasons that liberals have ignored. Think back: Bill Clinton targeted the poor, giving us 8 yrs of Bush. The poor didn't elect and re-elect Bush -- the middle class did that. The poor withheld their votes or voted third party. The poor overwhelmingly voted for President Obama based on his direct experience with the poor, in hopes that he could launch a legitimate discussion about US poverty.  He actually did try, a number of times, but Dems and libs would have none of it. They've been stuck on maintaining a meaningless pep rally for whatever remains of the middle class. Fact: You can't rebuild the middle class without putting the rungs back on the proverbial ladder out of poverty. Democrats in Congress continue to target the elderly, disabled and working poor for cuts, and deep (life-threatening) poverty continues to be ignored. In short, the masses of poor who voted for Obama have been deeply alienated in the years since. For whom should they vote when no candidate, no party, represents them?

  •  I have to agree with DHFabian. (0+ / 0-)

    I live in an area that is full of poverty.  Few of these people have ever been middle class, or if they were, they barely were.  Yet they vote republican.  Why?  Because the dems message doesn't seem to relate to them either. They liked Clinton, many pine for those days, but feel thrown under the bus.  Gore seemed aloof, not in touch with them.  Most didn't have internet, still don't. The Bushes seemed like a nice safe alternative.  They didn't like him either in the end.  The tea party got rolling in places like this. They seemed to get it that these people have been forgotten by everyone.  They are hard workers, just want a chance to own a home, feed their families without government help, have a chance to send their kids to college.  Our school system is beginning to acknowledge the fact that most kids here won't get to college by setting up acadamies in the high schools to train kids for other types of employment.  They know most won't be able to afford college.  Alot of the poor are just starting to give up.  So why vote, for another politition who won't keep his/her promises.  It doesn't matter what party it is, the poor are really and truely forgotten.  I know a republican victory means it gets worse for the poor, the sick, the unemployed.  But these people here have been living with worse a long time.  This is in the country, they will go hunting for food, fishing, live with other families.  They will do what they need to do to survive. I feed some of these families now, eggs from my chickens.  Sometimes it is all they have til the end of the month.  I don't take money for it.  I am fortunate, for now.  If that ends, hopefully there will be others in the community who will help me.  This is the reality.

  •  As a lifelong Kentucky resident... (0+ / 0-)

    In a moment of utter insanity, as well as having one of the biggest brain farts in the history of farting, I actually voted for Senator Mitch "Sourpuss" McConnell in the 2008 election. [May God, and Daily Kos readers, forgive me.] Well, you can bet I won't be making THAT mistake again! If for some inexplicable reason I do, y'all have my full permission to take me out back and shoot me. I shit you not.

    As a lifelong resident of the Bluegrass State, if McConnell EVER becomes the Senate Majority Leader, I'll blow my OWN brains out. Once again, I shit you not.

    My mother's only goal in life is to live one day longer than old Sourpuss!

  •  Republican voters in the South (0+ / 0-)

    How is it that the people in Iowa can continue to elect and idiot like Grassley? Well, I guess if you have two idiots from Kentucky and two idiots from Texas you can expect anything or anyone from the Republican Party to be elected in a Southern State more than once.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site