Was Obama not-so-strident on immigration Tuesday night a) in order to not alienate Republicans who might cooperate on a bill or b) because amnesty (contrary to MSM wisdom) is actually not all that popular with the broader electorate that watches State of the Union speeches–especially not when the economy’s flatlining? … P.S.: The NYT‘s argument for explanation (a) would be more effective if the “bipartisan praise” for Obama’s approach (“He’s walking a tightrope here”–Sen. Durbin) came from just one (1) politician who isn’t an amnesty supporter. … Sammy Glick Paul Ryan doesn’t count. He’s clearly itching to cut an amnesty deal. …
__________
Tom Edsall: “Obama’s fingerprints are all over the sequestration he is now determined to avoid …”
__________
The idea that a broad amnesty for 11 million mostly unskilled illegal immigrants (as opposed to skilled tech workers) is a way to ‘grow the middle class’ for current non-middle-class U.S. citizens may be the biggest stretch in political marketing since James Baker declared that the 1991 Kuwait war was about “jobs.” … In particular, Obama may find convincing African Americans that amnesty means jobs for them a tough sell. See the Earl Ingram quote here. (” You have to understand that in the community in which I live the percentage of African-Americans who are unemployed. They look at what’s going on with immigration as an affront to African-Americans who can’t pay their mortgages because many of the immigrants come here, they are hired at less than minimum wage.”)
Are blacks going to retaliate against Obama at the ballot box for his immigration push? Probably not. But Obama won’t be on the ballot in 2016–another candidate, almost certainly one less able to take high black turnout for granted, will. That’s one reason Democrats probably want to actually pass an amnesty this year, not just get an issue to club GOPs with. It might be much costlier for them to try to pass it closer to 2016–or after 2016–assuming they still need a big African-American vote. …
__________
Where’s Marty Peretz when you need him? … Right over here, it turns out. … P.S.: Would Jake Weisberg really try to talk Peretz out of writing this anti-NewNew Republic piece? Why? There’s a lot of truth in it. It starts an argument with gloating Obamaphile whippersnappers less neoliberal journalists that needs to be had sooner or later. How about sooner? Should we have to wait for this enjoyable feud until it seems more seemly under some pre-Internet rule of etiquette? Peretz didn’t attack until the second issue! That’s patience in this day and age. …
If Marty is pissed Marty should write about why he’s pissed. We can’t wait! …
__________
Ann Coulter manages to get away with making some conservative points on Fox. Attacks “amnesty for illegals.” …
__________
Sometimes, in extreme cases, L.A. cops (not non-understandably) would really maybe rather you not survive to be charged and stand trial. Remember this incident in 1997? ….
__________
