Here we go: White House gearing up to push amnesty in 2010
posted at 3:37 pm on December 30, 2009 by Allahpundit
Why not? What do they have to lose? They’ve already pissed away independents and re-energized conservatives thanks to ObamaCare. Might as well use next year to check as many boxes left on their agenda as they can before they take their beating. Amnesty, cap-and-trade, transferring Gitmo detainees to the U.S.: Pour it on and hope that progressives and Latinos will react by turning out in numbers just high enough to keep the House in Democratic hands. Even if it backfires, how bad can the damage be? They lose 35 seats instead of 30?
In fact, this may help them pass ObamaCare next month. What other way is there to read this except as a signal to Blue Dogs — and Harry Reid, whom Pelosi expects to take the lead on this — that The One’s fully prepared to sacrifice them on the altar of his liberal policy wishlist? Now they can grit their teeth, vote yes on whatever he wants them to, and fall on their swords nobly next November. We’ll miss you, Dingy.
Senior White House aides privately have assured Latino activists that the president will back legislation next year to provide a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States…
Whatever proposal Obama puts forward will probably meet equally determined opposition. Another complication is the calendar: Midterm elections are in November, and polls show that the public is more worried about joblessness and the fragile economy than anything else.
So embracing an immigration bill is a gamble for the White House, which already has a packed agenda for 2010: economic recovery, global warming legislation and tougher regulation of financial institutions…
No one anticipates that a core element of the Democratic base will defect to the Republican Party in November. But even a significant drop in turnout — which often happens in nonpresidential elections — could frustrate Democratic efforts to preserve their congressional majority.
Ed made a smart point about this over the summer on how immigration can be used as a wedge against the GOP, splitting the McCain/Graham amnesty faction from the DeMint border-enforcement wing. Certainly true, but (a) Maverick’s going to keep a low profile this time due to his antipathy to Obama and the fact that he’s up for reelection in Arizona; (b) it’s much less appetizing for people like Grahamnesty to push a path to citizenship when unemployment is 10 percent rather than five; and (c) the growing backlash to The One’s policies, especially among indies, will pressure fencesitters who might have voted yes two years ago to vote no now. The bigger wedge, of course, will be on the left, as Democrats get a shot in the arm from Latino voters while pissing off labor interests who don’t want to have to compete with millions of newly legal workers in this economy. Will the marginal gain among the former be greater than the marginal loss among the latter? Hmmm.
Exit question: Would it make more sense to promise to do this in 2011 provided that Democrats retain control of Congress? You’d take some immediate heat off the Blue Dogs while still theoretically getting a bump among Latinos who are eager to see this bill pass. It would also avoid further feeding the anger among indies by kicking the can down the road: At the end of the day, the Dems are better off with a “They passed ObamaCare!” attack ad from the GOP than a “They passed ObamaCare and amnesty!” one.
Update: Possible exit answer: Obama knows it won’t pass the Senate and wants to get it over with now so that he can blame the GOP and reassure Latinos that he tried his best. In that case, you’ll still have high Latino turnout — to punish Republicans — and comparatively little anger among labor and indies. Kabuki!
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.
Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2