E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSObama expected to embrace Senate deal… The reason Obama is headed to Las Vegas: No state has better epitomized the power of the Latino vote… The Kabuki dance… On Rubio selling reform to the conservative base… On Schumer becoming the Democrats’ dealmaker… And Senate is set to confirm John Kerry as secretary of state.
*** Obama to embrace Senate deal: When President Obama delivers his immigration speech at 2:55 pm ET today in Las Vegas, he will hug the principles that the bipartisan group of senators outlined yesterday. “POTUS will applaud the bipartisan Senate agreement that is very consistent with his long-held view and lay out his vision for immigration reform,” top White House aide Dan Pfeiffer just tweeted. Obama also will call on the Senate to act on the legislation soon. While one publication is reporting that the White House has developed its own immigration-reform plan that’s more liberal than the bipartisan Senate outline, that information is outdated. Had the bipartisan senators NOT acted yesterday, you likely would have seen Obama offer his own plan. But the senators did act, and their plan is the plan. The last thing the White House wants to do is blow up this fragile coalition. As we reported yesterday, the White House floated the idea of doing a more liberal or progressive bill during a meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus last week, as a counter to what was being offered in the Senate, and the CHC shot the idea down. The CHC’s advice to the White House was let the Senate work its will – at least for now. That said, the White House insisted last night to reporters that if the Senate coalition falters and if bill shows signs of dying, the president will step in with his own legislation.
Related: Obama’s vs. Senators’ immigration reform plan: 6 points on what overlaps, what differs
Larry Downing / Reuters
President Barack Obama speaks in the State Dining Room of the White House, Jan. 24, 2013.
*** Vegas, baby: So why is the president giving his speech in Las Vegas? There is no state that better epitomizes the power of the Latino vote in American politics than Nevada. In 2010, Harry Reid won 69% of Latinos in his race against Sharron Angle, according to the exit polls, saving his Senate seat from a GOP that was convinced was theirs for the taking. And two years later, Obama won 71% of that vote -- matching what he received nationwide. The three states that have moved the most dramatically in presidential contests since 2004 have been Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and it’s due primarily to the Latino vote in all three states. (New Mexico is not even remotely a purple state anymore.) In Nevada, in particular, Latinos make up 27% of the state’s population and 19% of the voters in the 2012 election. Translation: The Latino influence in the state has even more room to grow.
*** Kabuki dance: While Obama will embrace the bipartisan Senate framework today, one Republican senator who’s part of the deal -- Sen. Lindsey Graham -- was criticizing Obama on FOX last night. “In 2008, he promised comprehensive immigration reform in the first year of his presidency, and it took all the oxygen out of the room,” Graham said. More: “In 2007, when we were trying to do immigration reform, he folded like a cheap suit because labor, the AFL-CIO, got mad at the bill to allow temporary workers... So I don't need a lecture from Barack Obama about bipartisanship; he was never very good at it in the Senate.” Moreover, top Marco Rubio staffers last night tweeted that Obama was “to oppose security and enforcement triggers,” even though the article that was cited never explicitly said that; it simply said Obama “does not favor linking legal status to border security.” So what’s going on here? This is all Kabuki theater to show that these Republicans aren’t in bed with the White House. The best way some Republicans privately believe they have to get more folks on board (or at least to convince some groups not to be overly aggressive AGAINST this plan) is to not look like they are “giving” the president a “win.” Politico also makes this point: “Whether he likes it or not, the president’s top legislative priority rests in the hands of McCain, his former 2008 rival, and Rubio, one of the GOP’s leading candidates to take back the White House in 2016.”
*** On Rubio selling reform to the conservative base: That said, this is an important test for Marco Rubio. He has spent the last several days selling comprehensive immigration to conservatives. And today, he speaks with Rush Limbaugh, who has criticized the bipartisan Senate framework. (“This immigration bill that everybody’s touting on TV is essentially the Bush immigration bill that was beat back in 2007,” Limbaugh said yesterday.) One of Ronald Reagan’s great talents was selling compromise to his party -- and declaring victory. Can Rubio pull this off, especially on an issue that base conservatives have opposed in the past two presidential elections? Rubio’s job with Limbaugh isn’t to convince him to sign on; we’re not sure that’s possible. What Rubio’s goal is today is to convince Limbaugh not to aggressively be AGAINST what he’s doing. If he can pull this off, it will be quite the feather in his hat as we get closer and closer to 2016 -- and perhaps show Rubio has some Reagan-like political skills.
*** On Schumer becoming the Democrats’ dealmaker: For those who closely follow American politics, Chuck Schumer is an easy target to mock. The running joke, for years, has been that the most dangerous place in DC is to be between Schumer and a TV camera. Perhaps lost in this caricature, however, is that Schumer has become the Democrats’ mover and shaker on key legislation -- dare we say the most effective dealmaker on the Democratic side of the aisle right now. On immigration, he’s reaching across the aisle to work with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio. And on guns, the legislation that has the best chance of passage is Schumer’s (on universal background checks) where he just might MIGHT convince Republican Tom Coburn to come on aboard his bill. What made Ted Kennedy a lion of the Senate was that he had influence with his Democratic colleagues (if he was backing something, they had cover to get on board) but also the ability to reach across the aisle. And so it’s worth asking: Is Chuck Schumer the closest thing to that right now? And we haven’t even touched on how relentless (and effective) Schumer has been the Senate Democrats’ de facto political director. Is there anyone better at candidate recruiting and clearly primary fields right now than Schumer?
*** Senate set to confirm Kerry: In non-immigration news, U.S. Senate today is expected to vote on John Kerry’s nomination to be secretary of state, and he’s a sure bet to win an easy confirmation. As one of us reported yesterday, if Kerry is confirmed and if his letter of resignation is received tomorrow, Massachusetts will set the special general election for June 25 -- with the primaries to take place on April 30. Also, Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is expected to announce his pick of an interim senator to fill the seat until the special election.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
With all this talk of "immigration reform" going on, I wonder about a few things.
Why would any Hispanic person here legally EVER be in favor of amnesty?
Reagan was just flat-out wrong to grant amnesty, as has every other President who allowed it. It is simple, really---you should NOT reward people for breaking the laws of this country.
One other thing I wonder about is why is DHS waiving requirements that immigrants not be a "public charge" (i.e. likely to be a welfare recipient)? Why is this Administration actively recruiting Mexicans for food-stamp enrollment in direct violation of federal immigration statutes?
good question.
The only problem with Reagan's Amnesty is he trusted Tip O'Neil to strengthen the Border Security. It never happened. That's why we have 11-20 Million Illegals here now! We have to secure the Border BEFORE ANYTHING else starts!!
No more of this 'We have to pass it before we can read it' crap! Just look at Obamacare to see how the Pelosi method for legislation worked out.
I didn't know "border security" was a Congressional responsibility? I thought that fell to the Executive Branch.
The part about actually enforcing the immigration laws we already have before we do "comprehensive immigration reform" is kind of like getting tax increases BEFORE we ever see a solitary cut in spending---or in other words, par for the course in D.C.. Both things are SUPPOSED to happen, but in all likelihood will never happen.
Congress has to allocate the Funds so the Executive Branch can hire more BP Agents get new equipment and such. Th Executive Branch just can't hire without Congressional OK.
I'm waiting for the 'So Obama can't spend without the Congressional OK?"
True...but I believe that's part of the Senate proposal.
It wasn't part of the Reagan Amnesty. Tip O'Neil broke his word and didn't allocate the funds to secure the border!
Hmmm...the only thing more surprising than one Irishman lying to another is one believing the other.
That must be a W.C. Fields line.
Is it me or do the Republicans try to weasel out of every harm they have ever inflicted on the American people and we all know there have been a lot. Now they are trying to pin the damage that they have wrought on Democrats. Unbelievable.
Man up you bunch of jack boot idiots and take responsibility like a man.
What specifically are you referring to?
Republicanism = Toast
Right, because losing a couple of presidential elections automatically means you are dead as a party. Even when you still control the House with the most seats you have held since 1948, save for last Congress. R-i-i-i-g-g-h-h-h-t-t-t.
Even Bobby Jindal is calling the Republican Party the Stupid Party. Obama has got the Republicans following him lock, stock and barrel. Simply AWESOME Bo, simply awesome.
Is the Kool-Aid red today?
Coopster
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/immigration-reform-years/story?id=18338953
Looks like the Democrats and Obama are coming around to the Republican point of view. It was the Democrats including Obama who killed the Republican efford at Immigration Reform in 2007.
The Republican Party with a 20% like-ability factor they have but one way to go - down and out. Moderate, Republican and former RNC Chair Michael Steele is even saying they have little chance of staying together as a party, perhaps as a faction but not a party.
And yet they somehow managed to elect enough to control the House by their second-largest majority since 1948. Amazing what a dead party could manage to do against the awesomeness that is the Democratic party!
with the increase in people registering as independents, i predict that both parties will be decimated before long. ----- in california alone, independents increased from 19% to almost 22%
In favor of whom?
The 33 seat majority is largely due to Republican gerrymandering in Red States. Cumulatively, nation-wide, the Democrats received 1.2 million more votes than Republicans. That won't last very long...maybe one or two more election cycles.
well, the vote for obama , in CA, decreased in 2012, so it would appear to be moving against the blue.
California now has a super majority in its state House and Senate + with Democrat Jerry Brown as governor, he will balance our budget within the next few months - yes, within the next few months!
If you haven't heard, California's economy is heating up, big time.
Dream on if you think California will go Red - it will only go deeper Blue.
another myth ---- the effect of the hispanic vote ---- the hispanic population in texas increased from 2008 to 2012, but obama did not receive any more votes , in texas, than he did in 2008. ------------------------- i did not say that CA would go red, i said it will go against the blue ------ the independents will take over. ------ it's only a matter of time ----- people are getting fed up with both parties.
Come on Stone----you know better than to type that nonsense. How did the GOP deliver such a stunning blow to the Dems in 2010? It wasn't because of gerrymandering then, too, was it?
And if a district in California has 700,000 voters and votes 80% Democratic vs. a district in Nebraska that may have 50,000 voters and votes 80% GOP, well of COURSE the Dems will tally more votes. Big deal---you do not count votes nationally when you talk about Congressional districts. Have the Democrats held the majority in Congress for far more time than the GOP simply because they gerrymandered? Or do you think the Dems are above doing that?
if CA's economy is doing so well, why can't they repair their highways ??? ------ as it stands, CA has the worst highways in the western USA.
Ron. Siding with Democrats, not Republicans. The words Republican and Conservative have become synonymous with the words toilet water and ain't no one drinking it.
Coopster
What part of California do you live? LA or Frisco? Want to bet that the PROPOSED BUDGET will be @!$%# canned by the Legislature?
sorry coop, but the percentage of independents increased in CA from 2008 to 2012, and obama received fewer votes than in 2008, in CA. ------ btw, that increase was from 19% to 22% , which is fairly significant for a segment of only 4 years. ------ just in case you've never been to western CO, i can tell you where some of your democrat friends have moved to.
Gawd Ron, you are so right there. My biggest pet peeve since I have lived in California (28 years) is the condition of the roads. Can you say one gigantic pothole? Well, it's true but I would not want to live anywhere else and I have been all over the world.
CA takes in about $6.8 billion in fuel taxes each year, and yet their roads are horrible. ----- where are they spending that money ??? ------ take your pick..... 99, 101, or I-5 --- i've been on all 3 recently. ------ and i'm not even including the connector freeways, which are also bad news.
Have you seen that fabulous Bay Bridge that is currently under construction? That is Cal Trans cash cow.
Try 280. Perhaps the most beautiful stretch of freeway in all of California if not America.
missed that on my last trip ---- i was in san jose, but didn't get quite that far north. ----- i went from fremont to stockton, so i missed the bay area this time ---- probably will see it though when i go back down there in march.
It's the $$$ corridor of the Bay Area. SF to San Jose - Silicon Valley country including Stanford. It has been maintained immaculately for as long as I have lived here + no big rig traffic which makes a huge difference..
Hey Coop---if the GOP only has a 20% likeability factor, why were they voted into the majority in the House?
And what does that say for the Democrats who couldn't unseat the GOP from the majority?
most of my bay area business contacts are off of 101, so i don't usually take 280. ----- i usually come up from LA on 101, and go up all the way to santa rosa, before heading for sacramento.
Okay Mike. To answer your question simply. The Democrats sat on their fat duffers and didn't vote. Not me. I have not missed a vote since I became eligible to vote.
2014 will be different for the Democrats. We have an excellent ground game and we are not relying on big donors like the Republicans. That is not to say that big money does not help Democratic causes because they do. Also, the Republican Party has turned off so many voters + the demographics have changed along with Americans attitude on social issues - all strikes against the Republican Party.
African Americans voted for Obama big time but so did the youth, Asians/Chinese, Gays, Hispanics, Independents, women and the upwardly mobile. That is a huge voting block and I do not see the Republican Party dipping into those sectors for a very long time. You can blame your guy Romney and that idiotic 47% statement for that.
so..... why didn't obama get that extra independent vote in 2012, in CA ???
On gerrymandering...2010 was the year of the census...so Republican gains in that year were not due to gerrymandering based on that census, but primarily the Tea Party. I'd have to do more research to find out what seats were impacted in the 2012 election...but overall Republicans lost six seats (I believe) and retained a 33 seat majority, although losing the total vote by 1.2 million.
Outside of the seven states who have a representative, even though they have less than 650,000 people, the other congressional districts represent approximately the same number of people. Since the seven states are essentially Red States, that would explain part of it...i.e. they would be sending a Republican representing fewer people than a Democrat say in California representing 650,000 people.
If that's entirely it, I'll stand corrected...because the difference would be due to the Constitutional requirement of ALL States to have at least one Representative, but I think gerrymandering also accounts for part of the difference. If someone knows of a link to the statistical analysis, a link would be appreciated.
There are a lot of rich independents in California? I don't know Ron, what do you think?
for obvious reasons, i hang out with a lot of independents, or rather, i prefer to be called "unaffiliated" ----- based on the shared opinion of those people i know..... i think independents are becoming disillusioned with both parties. ----- when the percentage of independents increases from 19 to 22% in 4 years, that has meaning. ----- keep in mind, that even though obama's vote decreased in CA in those 4 years, romney actually garnered more votes than did mccain. ------ in fact, i believe that if there weren't so many religiously biased people in this country, romney could have won. ------- i know quite a few republicans, and independents, who said they couldn't vote for romney because he's a mormon.
I knew that Romney was not going to win. Obama, along with a republicans painted him as the ultimate flip flopper who would do and say anything for a vote and he did not disappoint. His religion had something to do with it perhaps but not nearly as much as the etch a sketch titles, et,al. I am not so sure the Republicans "really" liked him.
I have many moderate leaning left friends and they would have voted for Jon Huntsman, the only sane candidate in that crop of Republicans. The Republicans were so sure that anyone could beat Obama that their campaign became a joke instead of a serious campaign. Look at their disastrous Convention as compared to the Democrats. What they ignored and completely underestimated was how popular the President really is whether you agree with his policies or not. 70% of the populace like him right now and blame the Republicans for not allowing him to do his job.
well, it's impossible to know for certain ---- but i still maintain that it was his being a mormon that made the difference. ------ i would have hoped our country has evolved beyond that kind of religious bias, but i guess not. -------------- btw, even though JFK won, i knew many democrats back then who wouldn't vote for him because he was catholic.
You may presume a high percentage of the Mormon faith voted for Romney. And, this might explain some of the California shift. Plus, some on the far left consider Obama as too conservative and may have not voted at all.
Did you find Romney to be a bit odd or awkward? I heard that repeatedly throughout the campaign. Again, it goes to the like-ability factor and perhaps that had something to do with his Mormonism. I certainly would not want to sit and have a beer with him as they say.
You're right. We'll never know.
stone ------ i mighta thought that, except that romney only garnered a few more votes in CA than did mccain, not a huge number more. -------------------------- speaking as an unaffiliated voter, romney was not my first choice as an alternative to obama, but my rationale for that had nothing to do with his religion. ----- it saddens me, however, that i know so many people who do dislike the mormons.
Hmmm...missionary work is tough and may yield a more negative impression than gains in converts. But, I just did some instant research, apparently Romney received LESS Mormon vote than Bush II (2% less).
Apparently, according to his own analysis, Romney feels the 47% remark was his largest error.
A curious thing is that in June polls, Romney was getting about 84% of the Mormon vote and it dropped to 78% by election day.
Why? The 47% remark? The LDS CHurch is very charity oriented and almost socialist within its own ranks...no one is beyond salvation. Was the 47% remark a bit over the top?
well, that's why i said the california vote had nothing to do with the mormon vote. ------ obama received fewer votes , in CA, because independents who might have otherwise voted for romney, decided to vote for nobody.
as for the 47% remark ----- i don't know ---- i've never heard or read that remark in the entirety of its context, so am not prepared to comment on it. ------ i do know the media made a big deal of it, but i also know the media often takes things out of context.
Republicans are learning their lesson the hard way. You can not spit on the face of every single American that you disagree with and expect to win National Elections. Follow the leader or get left behind.
Why not, Coop? It seems to be working just fine for the Democrats!
Take another listen to your superb candidate - Willard Romney's 47% video tape. Rather funny that Obama shellacked the Mormon by 53% to guess what? 47%!
Ouch, what goes around comes around.
You democrats let obama $hit in your faces and tells you it's a mud mask facial!
Hey, Coopster, why don't you take a swing at answering the questions I asked in post #441?
The Democrats see the next mid- term as fertile stomping ground - we are working with (gag) the tea party in Kentucky and it appears to be working. Early signs show Mitch McConnell is not so popular, especially with radical tea partiers and Kentuckians are ready to boot him.
Sure, the Democrats see it as "fertile stomping ground"---just like they saw the elections in 2010 and 2012.
When obama and the marxists bankrupt the country, riots will begin. You socialists will see the results of your failed ideology. Your weakness is you do not see how stupid you actually are. You will never understand why you have failed when to real Americans it is obvious. You will never see the worst depression ever when it hits you and you caused it.
They mentioned Kubuki in the article but they misplaced the reference. Kubuki is what this whole sham of a proposal is. Illegal aliens fall into two groups. One never paid taxes and has worked here for as many as twenty years. The other paid taxes, because the employer wouldn't have it any other way, but then got back four times the taxes paid claiming fictitious children. If most of them honestly admitted what the have done then they owe in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What they will do is conjure up a scenerio that is plausable but criminally fictitious and sell it to a INS agent who will check it out by looking at a rain guage. Forget that illegal aliens have decimated the working class job market by working without workers comp, unemployment, or paying Social Security. Forget that they came here to do anything proffitable but found that running drugs was fast easy money, and if caught the moron judges would give them bail, of course they skipped. So now this community organizer is going to further reward all this criminality with the keys to the kingdom. I hope our forefathers can't see what we are doing to their country.
Can we trade 11 million illegals for one worthless arrogant incompetent president.
Seriously, we're going to be having the same debate in 5 years if we don't protect borders now. Obama may be the most ignorant person in America
I absolutely HATE the fact that this President is so in favor of bipartisanship! This admn in particular has been met by every roadblock and still Pres Obama is so ignorant that he can't let go of his outmoded ideologue that the two parties can work together.
There is no peace or compromise with the GOP nor can there ever be until they change. They HATE his guts but he continues to play the fool who leaps at every opportunity to kiss their asses! In his place, if it were me, I would run flat over the Republicans like a Mack truck! They don't respect his dumb ass and they HATE us; the so-called 47%; they have made that much plain to me at least, so why does he keep running up behind them like a lap dog? HATE is useful when properly used. He is an idiot as well as a suck ass!!!
Right on...
Let us now discuss what the GOP/Teabeggers do not 'embrace.' They do not 'embrace' any type of 'compromise.' The Teabeggers do not 'embrace' reading or comprehending factual information on any level. The GOP/Teabegger "Hoodlum's On The Hill" do not 'embrace' Sandy relief. The Teabeggers do not want to 'embrace' the "Annal Antics" of their hero President "W." Yes America! The Teabeggers will never 'embrace' the fact that President "Brainless Bush" bankrupted our nation. The Teabeggers will never 'embrace' the fact that their hero put his "Bush Wars" on a credit card. To make it worse the "W" never developed a budget for his Two wars. The Teabeggers will never 'embrace' that fact that the "W" put a Prsecription Plan on a credit card at all. Again! Then the Teabeggers will never 'embrace' the fact that their party have supported the "W" tax cuts for the rich. This caused huge deficits, and no revenue was created to lesson the debt. Then the Teabeggers never 'embraced' the idea of our President being African American. The Teabeggers do 'embrace' mental illness, Cognitive Disabilities, and no common sense. The GOP "Teabegger Congress does 'embrace' the "Political Tactics" of "Attack and Distract." The Teabeggers do 'embrace' race hatred, religious intolerance, and the destruction of an American President. The GOP/Teabeggers do 'embrace' the concepts of Voter Suppression, destroying Social Security, and violating the US Constitution. Now the Teabeggers are 'embracing' the rigging of Congressional Districts on the state levels. The Teabeggers do not 'embrace' tax cuts for the Middle Class or the Working Poor. The Teabeggers do 'embrace' no gun control laws, and no financial regulations for the banks. The "Tea War Hawks" do 'embrace' another war that our nation can not afford. The GOP/Teabeggers still 'embrace' the ideas of 'greed.' They did fully 'embrace' their fallen hero of 2012 "Romulian Romney." He is still the "Super Speculator." Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Party of NO has got to GO!
Progressive=forward
straight to the @!$%#t_r