Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
$Willard is such an EMPTY SUIT that even I almost feel sorry for him.
By the way, was great to see BO PUNK Team $Clueless and the do-nothing, treasonous con vermin in Congress with this move
OUTSTANDING work, BO
Are you saying that Obama didn't do this because it was the best policy, but rather he did something that previously he said was illegal for him to do so he could "punk" republicans and win more votes from the Hispanic community?
Obama has erased the "enthusiasm gap" (from now to 2008) among Hispanics in key battleground states.
And did you see Romney on Face the Nation??? Here it is, Monday, and he STILL doesn't know what what to say. Does he stick to the "let um self deport" hard line that helped him in the primaries with his mistrustful base? Or does he tack toward moderation, supporting Rubio's "Keep Dreaming" initiative ( which Rubio admits is now on hold, thanks to Obama), as he seemed to be about to do, till Friday.
Wow, I've never SEEN a pol knocked for a loop like this before. Romney looks like he got hit in the head by a fastball. His team of dolts had ALL WEEKEND to come up with something, ANYTHING!!!
Gee, if Obama can knock the Romney team for a loop like this, what's the Ayatollah of Iran gonna do?
Uh; more like many Americans WILL vote for Romney just to get back AT Obama. I'm 1 of them.
Yawn let me know how this policy works out with the white working class in those same states and beyond. This narrative that Latinos are the only people who are going to matter in this election is a false one that will blow up in the Dems faces in November.
Not just "white" working class. Many Blacks are so pissed off at Obama they may sit out this election. Many American Hispanics DON'T want amnesty either cause it really hurts them.
Are you saying that Obama didn't do this because it was the best policy, but rather he did something that previously he said was illegal for him to do so he could "punk" republicans and win more votes from the Hispanic community?
Sounds like a great leader you support.
It was the right thing to do given the failure of Congress to deal with the immigration problem. It seems to have worked as well. There is some movement among Republicans to implement the President's executive order as law. The Reps fell right into the trap with all their back door amnesty ranting over this. Unless they about face quickly, they may have lost the Hispanic vote for decades. Without this growing class of voters, they will never get the White House again.
I basically am in agreement. I am all for immigration reform and I'm okay with the Dream Act. The problem is that Obama's throwing away his election for gays and illegals. I know that's not what liberals want to believe, but that's the fear that I have. I do agree: I think the hispanic voter card is being overplayed and over-hyped. For every Hispanic who rises out of his chair, pumps his fist, and swears he's going to vote for Obama, there are probably one or two other blue collar plumbers, construction workers, and retailers who vow to cancel out their vote. And to be real here, that's probably an unfair stereotype - that's the old notion of blue collar. A blue collar guy these days could be a guy who once worked in IT back in the late 90s or early 2000s, or a returning soldier, or even a former business manager, all of whom have been unable to find steady work and are now struggling to find more than 20 hours a week. A blue collar worker is the guy who's angry about being underemployed and having his wife or live-in-girlfriend as the breadwinner and knowing that the party that supposedly cares about your lot in life is more concerned with whether some college intern can have her sexual freedom; whether illegals can stay in the country; and whether other minorities can take advantage of affirmative action programs. The blue collar class includes more than just people with high school education and nothing more; it includes a lot more people. I still plan to vote democrat this year but that's one thing that the party just doesn't seem to be getting. It's going to continue to cost them.
I can't post this on my FB or have conversations about this with certain people because inevitably will misconstrue what I'm saying. I am all for the democratic message of promoting minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, and immigrant rights (my wife is an immigrant, btw). But the ugly truth that nobody at the DNC seems to be getting is that nobody in the democratic party is even talking to down-and-out white guys. However, Republicans definitely *are* talking to them. Sure, they're playing on their fears, and they're playing dirty, but they're still talking to them. Democrats aren't. As you say, they've ceded them and written them off as uneducated and racist bigots who won't listen no matter what is said.
Yup this is not going to play out the way Obama and the Dems think it will for the reasons you mentioned. Other undits are also calling the bluff of the power of the Latino vote. As I've said before they have low turnout rates and are concentrated in states that lean one way or the other ideologically. Out of the three swing states (Nevada, Colorado and Florida). Florida's Latino population consists of Cubans and Puerto Ricans mostly, neither of whom immigration is a real issue. In Nevada and Colorado the electoral votes are small in nature and it's debatable they'll have that much of an impact.
My guide has always been Jan Brewer's win. In a state that's a third Hispanic she won by 20 points when a few months before she signed the most restrictive immigration law to date. She also ran a lackluster, gaffe plagued campaign it didn't matter. Why? She still captured a third of the Hispanic vote and White voters shifted dramatically to her. Obama's Puzzling Immigration Decision | RealClearPolitics
Quote:
I’ve made this point before, but consider the case of Arizona. For many liberal commentators, the silver lining to the state’s immigration bill was that it presaged the eventual death of the state’s Republican Party. By alienating Latino voters, Republicans would soon find it impossible to forge winning coalitions in the state.
To be sure, Latino voters were alienated. In 2004, George W. Bush won 43 percent of that group in Arizona. Four years later, John McCain won 41 percent. In 2010, Jan Brewer pulled in a paltry 28 percent.
Yet Brewer ran ahead of both McCain and Bush overall. The key is that her policies played well with white voters. In particular, McCain captured 60 percent of whites without college degrees and 58 percent of whites with college degrees.
Brewer actually ran somewhat behind McCain among whites with college degrees, capturing 55 percent of their vote. But among whites without college degrees, Brewer won 66 percent of the vote. This is where her increased victory margin came from.
This is important, because Obama has ongoing weaknesses with working-class white voters. So weak, in fact, that they threatened his presidential bid during the Democratic perfect storm of 2008.
What good is winning Nevada and Colorado if you lose Iowa and either Wisconsin, Michigan and/or Pennsylvania?
It was the right thing to do given the failure of Congress to deal with the immigration problem. It seems to have worked as well. There is some movement among Republicans to implement the President's executive order as law. The Reps fell right into the trap with all their back door amnesty ranting over this. Unless they about face quickly, they may have lost the Hispanic vote for decades. Without this growing class of voters, they will never get the White House again.
That is fine for him to do it if he thinks it is the right thing to do.
However, Obama previously said he could not act on this without congress -- I suppose he just evolved again. The poster I was responding to said he did it to punk republicans. That would be awful, if Obama did something that he admitted previously would be illegal for him to do, simply to punk the other party to essentially 'buy' votes. I think you would agree with me, that if that was Obama's motive as the poster above says, Obama was in the wrong.
That is fine for him to do it if he thinks it is the right thing to do.
However, Obama previously said he could not act on this without congress -- I suppose he just evolved again. The poster I was responding to said he did it to punk republicans. That would be awful, if Obama did something that he admitted previously would be illegal for him to do, simply to punk the other party to essentially 'buy' votes. I think you would agree with me, that if that was Obama's motive as the poster above says, Obama was in the wrong.
Puhleez! This is politics. This is the advantage of incumbency. Obama did this to curry favor with Hispanic voters, of course. It still was the right thing to do under circumstances other than politics. It is the Reps own fault that they have put Romney between a rock and a hard place. Bush tried to deal with the issue years ago and his own party back-stabbed him on it.
Puhleez! This is politics. This is the advantage of incumbency. Obama did this to curry favor with Hispanic voters, of course. It still was the right thing to do under circumstances other than politics. It is the Reps own fault that they have put Romney between a rock and a hard place. Bush tried to deal with the issue years ago and his own party back-stabbed him on it.
Why he did isn't the question, we all know why, but was it legal and is it right? That is the question> I happen to believe we do need to do something, I am not sure this was the right thing to do, but how many times will he go back on his word and keep any respect what so ever? Every one of us change our minds from time to time, we mellow, or we go the other way, but he said he couldn't do this and then did. That isn't the same as changing ones views.
Nita
Puhleez! This is politics. This is the advantage of incumbency. Obama did this to curry favor with Hispanic voters, of course. It still was the right thing to do under circumstances other than politics. It is the Reps own fault that they have put Romney between a rock and a hard place. Bush tried to deal with the issue years ago and his own party back-stabbed him on it.
So if it was the right thing to do, why didn't he do it when he had control of both houses of congress? He said it was illegal for him to do this without congress. So it seems a bit odd that he doesn't act on it when he had congress, but then acts on it in his original opinion illegally during election year - just seems like a poor leader to me.
Yawn let me know how this policy works out with the white working class in those same states and beyond. This narrative that Latinos are the only people who are going to matter in this election is a false one that will blow up in the Dems faces in November.
Not to mention the film clips of Obamas interview from a year ago admitting that the does not have the authority to take such a uni-lateral action and has a main job of supporting the laws on the books. Then this.
Who can say flip-flop?
I can hardly wait for the obamabots to try to explain this away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
