Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration.

The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently under 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, remained in school or served in the military.

Well now.

That is exactly the sort of thing the President should be doing: implementing commonsense, compassionate policy at an executive level because Congress refuses to do it.

Well how about that.

I hadn't seen genuine common sense decency in so long I was getting worried I wouldn't recognize it when I saw it.

[Shinra]

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration.

The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently under 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, remained in school or served in the military.

Well now.

That is exactly the sort of thing the President should be doing: implementing commonsense, compassionate policy at an executive level because Congress refuses to do it.

Obama wages war on middle class america by handing the country to job-taking immigrants. We report: You decide.

[Thad]

You forgot "election-year pandering".

[Romosome]

I know people who would be disgusted by this, including my roommate.

[Brentai]

So why does it only apply to people in their 20s?

[Shinra]

I think the idea is that people who were too young to realize they were violating immigration law shouldn't be punished for crimes they couldn't understand and had no say in committing.

To be honest, even if Obama was inclined to write sweeping immigration reform that allowed people into our country again, I don't think he has the political clout to do it (and get away with it, anyway) least of all in an election year. Maybe two or three presidents from now, when enough old racists lose congressional seats by virtue of dying in them.

[Thad]

I think the idea is that people who were too young to realize they were violating immigration law shouldn't be punished for crimes they couldn't understand and had no say in committing.

But Brent's point is that some of those people are over 30.

To be honest, even if Obama was inclined to write sweeping immigration reform that allowed people into our country again, I don't think he has the political clout to do it (and get away with it, anyway) least of all in an election year.

Which is pretty much the correct-but-cynical answer, yes.  Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing, but it's a pretty SAFE good thing.

Maybe two or three presidents from now, when enough old racists lose congressional seats by virtue of dying in them.

And I just don't care for kicking the can down the road and saying "We'll fix it someday."  I think presidents like Obama (and, hell, Bush; Bush was actually pretty decent on the subject of immigration reform) should PUSH stuff like this.

I DO think this is a push.  It's not as strong a push as I'd like but it's a very good start and deserves praise for that.

[Shinra]

You've got to love the hyperbole.

Editor's note: LZ Granderson, who writes a weekly column for CNN.com, was named journalist of the year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and is a 2011 Online Journalism Award finalist for commentary. He is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN the Magazine and ESPN.com. Follow him on Twitter: @locs_n_laughs

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will not lose his re-election bid because of Eric Holder.

As sensational as the headlines surrounding the Fast and Furious controversy might be, recent history tells us Holder is only the topic of conversation right now.

Come July, we'll forget all about it much in the way the Keystone Pipeline is hardly mentioned.

Remember, it was just last week that all of the talk was about immigration and the Latino vote.

The week before that, it was same-sex marriages.

So Holder -- and the rest of those those sexy subplots -- are really just there to keep us entertained until the main event, the only event that matters leading to the election: the first debate. Everything before that will will likely fade away by November, especially for independents.

It's what happens when Obama and Mitt Romney finally square off on Wednesday, October 3, that will have the greatest influence on those who are undecided. The candidates will debate at the University of Denver, in the first of three planned presidential debates.

But you know the old saying: the first impression is the last impression. So if Obama stumbles in the first, he might as well spend the rest of the fall packing.

Team Romney knows this, which is why what we saw in the Republican primary debates is not what we're going to see in October. Back then, Romney came across flat and on the defensive in the first debate, but this time expect him to come out swinging, questioning nearly every decision the president has ever made -- from cash for clunkers and bailouts to health care reform and the stimulus package.

The presumptive Republican nominee won't have to knock Obama out, but if the night ends with the president appearing to be on the back of his of his heels, the game is over. After all, what could he possibly say in the next two debates or on the campaign trail that would erase an image of him struggling to defend his own record?

Especially against a guy who continues to struggle to be liked, much in the same way a rigid Richard Nixon struggled against the charismatic John F. Kennedy, the wooden Al Gore paled next to the friendly demeanor of George W. Bush and listless John McCain couldn't come close to igniting the crowd like Obama in 2008.

But to complicate things, Obama is defending his record against a man who is not afraid to distort the facts (i.e. lie) to win brownie points. That's not my opinion, that's what the people who currently endorse Romney said.

After a debate in Florida, Newt Gingrich said Romney gave "the most blatantly dishonest performance by a presidential candidate I've ever seen." Earlier, Rick Santorum said he was "stunned that Mitt Romney does not have the ability to discern something that is blatantly false."

On top of that, Obama has to find a way to remind the country where it was before he took office without appearing to be blaming former President Bush because, fair or not, people don't want to hear it. And unlike the backdrop of 2008, Obama doesn't have the luxury of speaking in generic hypotheticals because the country will have specific examples in 2012 to look at.

Nowhere to run.

Nowhere to hide.

And not a teleprompter in sight.

Just Romney, the list of promises Obama made in 2008 and his list of accomplishments heading into the stretch run of 2012.

If he's re-elected, it won't be based on how he handles gaffes or controversies such as Fast and Furious. It will be because he took the GOP's best shot and came out on top on the one night doing so mattered most.

Tradtionally, has the debate ever really decided an election? Dubya got his ass handed to him so badly in the 2004 election that Kerry might as well have sliced off a cheek, had it did up by Wolfgang Puck and served on a disc of lemon aspic. And he still managed to win by enough of a margin in 2004 that as much as we wanted to we couldn't exactly claim that he won because of voter fraud.

And considering that Romney can't finish a sentence without clipping the tip off a cigar and lighting it with a hundred dollar bill (since we're going full hyperbole here) why would anyone think Obama was going to be vulnerable in a debate anway? Charisma is kind of Obama's thing, whereas Romney is basically a parody of a pre-depression investment banker, which, isn't that basically what Romney actually is?????

I know the media wants to portray a narrative of a balanced competition, but beyond the puffed up false outrage of the month, what do the right honestly have to bring to the table at this point? The tea party movement is all but disbanded, they alienated their working class base in almost every battleground state, they've alienated hispanics with rabid immigration laws, they've alienated even the last of the log cabin republicans by making asses of themselves in the DADT debate. At this point, does Obama really have anything to worry about in this re-election game? Does Romney even stand a fucking chance?

edit: oh yeah also there's that whole thing where Obama managed to preside over the fall of more middle eastern dictators than George did and spend less money on the war while our economy has simultaneously improved visibly over the last two years, so it's not like Romney can even play the 'weak on terror' and 'the economy is bad' cards. Seriously, what do they have at this point? Is Romney just a lamb the republicans are sending out to the sacrifice? Somebody less important politically so they can send somebody else out in 4 more years? I guess he IS a new england republican.

[Thad]

Shinra, you are bad at proclamations and sweeping statements about the way the electorate is going to vote.  Remember six months ago when you said Gingrich had it sewn up and Romney should just go home?

Tradtionally, has the debate ever really decided an election?

Well, Nixon-Kennedy was pretty friggin' important.

Speaking more recently, while the debates certainly didn't decide '08 singlehandedly, they were pretty important.  Not because of the topics but because of McCain's attitude and behavior.

There are plenty of other things McCain did wrong (from "pick Palin" to "be a Republican in 2008"), but the debates were high on the list.

The tea party movement is all but disbanded, they alienated their working class base in almost every battleground state

Like Wisconsin?

I'll grant that the Tea Party Cosplay Brigade is no longer holding tens-of-thousands-strong rallies, but they're still a pretty influential force in the Republican Party.  It'd be nice to see them decisively smacked down, but so far it hasn't happened yet.  You're treating it like it's a certainty and I don't think it's anywhere NEAR a certainty.

they've alienated hispanics with rabid immigration laws, they've alienated even the last of the log cabin republicans by making asses of themselves in the DADT debate.

Trouble with framing it in terms of the Hispanic vote is, look at the border states -- California, Arizona, Texas are not exactly swing states.  New Mexico, plus Nevada and Colorado, could be affected given sufficiently high Hispanic turnout, but combined they have 20 electoral votes.

It could make a difference in Florida, but lumping all Hispanics together is problematic.  I'm sure there's a good chunk of the Cuban population that's dissatisfied with Republican immigration policy, but they haven't been targeted to the same extent that Mexicans have.  (Rubio as Romney's running-mate would probably swing Florida but nowhere else.  I don't think he's a great option, but I'm not sure who the hell is at this point.)

At this point, does Obama really have anything to worry about in this re-election game? Does Romney even stand a fucking chance?

Again, dude, this is you six months ago:

Really, just Newt. There is not a lot of realistic scenarios that Romney wins his primary short of Newt dropping out or making the gaffe to end all gaffes.

Maybe you want to tone down the "____ doesn't stand a chance" rhetoric.

edit: oh yeah also there's that whole thing where Obama managed to preside over the fall of more middle eastern dictators than George did and spend less money on the war while our economy has simultaneously improved visibly over the last two years, so it's not like Romney can even play the 'weak on terror' and 'the economy is bad' cards.

Sure he can.  George Bush won in 2004 on a campaign that he was better-equipped to deal with two wars than a three-time Purple Heart recipient.  And he didn't have unlimited anonymous campaign donations going for him.

The economy IS bad, and 2012 is not going to be decided on Middle East policy.

The trick is (1) the economy continuing to improve enough so that people feel it and/or (2) convincing undecided voters that it's guys like Romney who drove the economy into the ditch in the first damn place while (3) de-emphasizing Obama's repeated failures to get shit done to fix it.

Seriously, what do they have at this point? Is Romney just a lamb the republicans are sending out to the sacrifice? Somebody less important politically so they can send somebody else out in 4 more years? I guess he IS a new england republican.

Well, as I've said before, his defeat WOULD probably result in a farther-right candidate in '16 (while his victory would probably result in a farther-right Democrat in '16), but I continue to think he had the best shot in the general of any Republican candidate in the field.  I think Obama's probably got an advantage, but there's plenty of time to fuck this up.

I totally agree that Obama's going to stomp Romney in the debates, but I also agree with you that the debates aren't the sole deciding factor in this race.

This election's about jobs and the economy.  Obama's record is less than stellar, and that's an easier thing for people to see than "We're in this mess because of guys like Romney."  The Tea Party HASN'T gone away, Occupy has faded in the news without having much visible political impact, Obama's base has lost enthusiasm, and Karl Rove is raising money from multibillionaires like a motherfucker.  Plus we don't know how the Supreme Court healthcare ruling is going to come down or how the electorate will respond.

Obama and Romney have been neck-and-neck in national polls -- which are largely useless because (1) we're more than 4 months out and (2) we don't have a single national election, we have 50 state elections plus one in DC.

So again -- I think Obama's at an advantage right now, but I don't see it as a sure thing by any means.

[Thad]

Some thoughts on the scandals the Republican noise machine is pushing.

You can probably guess which ones I think are less scandalous than they're making them out to be and which one is moreso.

[Brentai]

Yeah, I haven't been talking about it because I don't feel like giving it too much mouthspace, but my thoughts on the IRS thing basically boil down to "Wow, the IRS paid special attention to anti-tax organizations?"

[Brentai]

I mean, my real thoughts tend to go more along the lines of "No seriously, you want me to act shocked about this?  Fuck you."

When the whole thing broke I basically stopped reading any news at all.  I couldn't take any more of them trying to convince me to be a moron.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

[Rico]

I was raised to know that "But officer, the guy in front of me was speeding even more than I was," was a bullshit excuse. Sure, Democratic political groups should have theoretically, in a magical theoretical world, been targeted as equally as Republican groups, but that doesn't mean for even a nanosecond that the Republican groups who didn't get their tax exemption actually deserved that exemption.

[Joxam]

Also if I'm not mistaken less than a handful actually didn't get tax exemption, most were just more questions than others.