Catering to the Caucus State. (Already?) ...
Not only have Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform when it had a real chance of passing, they're now trying yet again to bring up unconstitutional bills to drive their point home.
Despite Rep. Steve King's anti-immigrant bile, plenty of potential GOP presidential candidates took part in his Iowa Freedom Summit. Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson all showed up. That they would associate with King raises legitimate questions about their judgment and whether they're presidential material.
Walker may have found the message that takes him all the way to the Republican nomination. By choosing such an anti-union politician to groom for power, the Kochs are trying to conflate organized labor and government dependency in the minds of the Republican primary voter.
Given that King was born in 1949, he would be referring to the 1950s and 60s -- decades that were great for white men, but not so much for Black Americans, women and gay people. They are also decades in which U.S. tax rates were near their highest, with a top rate of 92 percent. Does King yearn for a return to those glory days?
Should Jeb Bush make a bid for the GOP Presidential nomination, he will have the same challenge to overcome as Henry "Scoop" Jackson did. The question remains: Will Bush, like Jackson, be able to secure his party's nomination despite taking an opposing stand on what is the flagship issue to many voters in his party?
If you want to know the current state of the Republican Party, look no further than the activities that the party's leading presidential hopefuls have planned for this weekend. They are scrambling to win the support of theocrats, bigots and anti-immigrant extremists. What they don't seem to realize is that that will make it much harder for them to win the respect of the rest of us.
While the Republicans are scrambling to figure out their next steps and keep their forces together, the president and Democrats are taking victory laps with cheering crowds of recent immigrants who are mobilizing to stand up and defend executive action.
Finally, President Obama is playing offense on immigration reform -- and it will pay dividends to both the country and his own political standing. Republicans who thought Obama would be a rug they could stomp on to 2016 are now on defense.
Even as Republicans bask in victory and Democrats try to recover from shell-shock, the greater implications of this election are starting to crystallize. It's early, but three lessons particularly stand out.
One year ago today, Republicans made their strongest possible case outlining their governing principles. Threatened by the prospect of millions of Americans securing access to quality, affordable health care, Republicans chose instead to shut down the federal government.
Desperation is the father of bad decisions. At this point in the never-ending saga of immigration reform, mass deportations and the GOP's rabid opposition to immigrants, advocates are pushing Obama to take executive action, bold and sweeping changes to the enforcement of our current ramshackle immigration law. That would be a mistake.
In the world of social media, the current question of Obama's immigration legacy can be summed up as this: Which will be the dominant tag, #DeporterInChief, or #GoBigObama? Anything Obama does will exist next to the 2 million deportations his enforcement has already carried out, more than any previous president.
Ironically, Speaker Boehner resorted to the American justice system to sue President Obama, the very system he has worked relentlessly to underfund for indigents. Instead of suing Obama, he should start fixing the system he and his colleagues broke.
In the latest attempt at Photoshopping Latinos' deep and wide loathing of the Republican Party, National Review's Reihan Salam informs his readers that "Immigration Reform Is Not the Key to the Latino Vote."
It was a political ambush, and in deciding to stand and fight, Steve King had lost before he'd even started. The whole idea of a political ambush is that it's lose-lose for the ambushed.