Scotus Blog : Arizona v. United States: S.B. 1070 - Forum of Kali Borkoski : Many Famous Legal Experts argue here strongly and forcefully against SB 1070 and worry deeply about the Supreme Court making a mistake of upholding and supporting this law

.

"SB 1070 is poor public policy. It is poorly reasoned, poorly crafted, and—if the Supreme Court lifts the pending injunction—is bound to be poorly implemented", says Legal Expert Ben Winograd.

Professors of Law Ben Winograd, Toni Masaro and Jack Chin argue very strongly against SB 1070.

Note : Professor Kevin Johnson, Dean of the School of Law, University of California at Davis since July, 2008 and Gabriel Chin of the same School have also strongly argued against this law, using the facilities of the prestigious Scotus Blog.

Scotus Blog
Arizona v. United States: S.B. 1070
Forum of Kali Borkoski
November 30, 2011


Arizona v. United States: S.B. 1070 - Forum of Kali Borkoski


Some excerpts :

********************

Ben Winograd

SB 1070 is poor public policy. It is poorly reasoned, poorly crafted, and—if the Supreme Court lifts the pending injunction—is bound to be poorly implemented. It was conceived not by legislators in Phoenix but outside lawyers specifically hoping to provoke a legal challenge. And though the Justices may empathize with the people of Arizona, those feelings are unlikely to impact their decision to review and/or overturn the ruling below.

The fundamental problem with SB 1070 is its basic assumption that whether an immigrant is “unlawfully present” is a simple yes-or-no question. In truth, determining the answer can require years of litigation and generate different responses from different federal agencies. There is a reason people say immigration law is more complicated than any field but tax law. Even the Supreme Court makes simple mistakes when dealing with the subject. In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, for example, Chief Justice Roberts wrongly assumed that immigrants with final removal orders can never lawfully work in the country (see page 17 of the opinion). As one immigration lawyer quickly pointed out, however, federal regulations set forth numerous ways by which immigrants with outstanding removal orders can still obtain employment authorization.

Thrusting local law enforcement agents into this thicket is not a wise idea. Local police are no more competent to identity violators of federal immigration law than they are to spot breaches of other federal regulatory regimes, such as insider trading. As District Judge Marsha Blackburn noted (pp. 76-77) in discussing a similar provision of Alabama’s immigration law, inviting untrained local officers to make spot determinations about immigration status is likely to enmesh municipalities in litigation for Fourth Amendment violations. And from a public safety perspective, to say that police must investigate the status of persons they suspect of being deportable is to say it is acceptable for undocumented immigrants—or those with whom they work or live—to fear informing the authorities when they are victims or witnesses of crime.

Ironically, the passage of SB 1070 coincided with the most significant downturn in illegal immigration in decades. During the most recent fiscal year, apprehensions along the southern border fell to the lowest levels since the early 1970s. Meanwhile, interior enforcement of the immigration laws is more robust than at any time in the nation’s history. Since the start of the Obama Administration, the government has carried out nearly 1.2 million deportations—a pace that, if continued for two full terms, would rival the total figure for the Clinton, Reagan, and both Bush presidencies combined. As these figures suggest, claims the federal government does not enforce the immigration laws are simply not true.

*************************

Toni Massaro

Whether SB 1070 is “good policy” depends on one’s perspective about law and policy, of course. But it is hard to see how this is anything but a tragic piece of legislation –even if one places to one side the fundamental normative issues regarding how America should treat its immigrants and undocumented persons, as a matter of fundamental justice, as well as law.

First, SB 1070 was poorly crafted. It was designed outside the state, and fits awkwardly (at best) into existing state laws. This already has led to knotty and baffling questions of what it even means. Law enforcement and their legal counsel immediately raised serious questions about this, as well as concerns about how its literal enforcement might actually hamper their efforts to secure public safety.

Second, SB 1070 is bad for the immigration law and policy. This was a politically charged, chest-thrusting, “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” measure designed to challenge, if not defy, the federal government rather than work through the massively complicated legal and policy questions that federal immigration law presents as it intersects with traditional enclaves of state and local power. It was more political posturing than political craftsmanship. This reduces our ability to address the real problems of fixing immigration law and policy, and further undermines public confidence in government’s ability to engage in effective, bipartisan policymaking.

“States’ rights” should include states’ responsibility, especially when a state is insisting on more cooperative federalism. Openly defying the federal government and daring it to respond is a poor way to start any intergovernmental conversation that will require compromise and shared governance. Of course, in immigration law and policy, the federal government has similar responsibilities, which it has failed to meet.

Third, SB 1070 has had extremely harmful expressive and community effects on people within Arizona. Legislation that is this divisive, and that is interpreted so widely as aggressively –even cruelly– hostile to a vulnerable population is harmful in and of itself. Friends and neighbors were wounded. Community internal trust was eroded. Political community was frayed.

Fourth, SB 1070 likely will be bad for the courts. There will be no good outcome here, no matter how the case is resolved by the Court. The outcome likely will be used as a political parry to a political thrust, even if the Court works hard to resolve the matter on strictly “legal” grounds. When legislatures give raw political messes like this to the courts and ask them to resolve them, nobody wins.

Fifth, SB 1070 has had a negative effect on the state’s economy, –which the state can ill afford. This hurts all Arizonans, and all who depend upon them.

Finally, SB 1070 sends a wildly distorted image of Arizona’s complex peoples to the nation. Senator Pearce was recalled, which was widely reported and linked to the SB 1070 legislation and its aftermath. And the nation saw how Arizonans come together in times of crisis, after the horrific shootings here last January. But significant reputational damage already has been done, in terms of the nation’s very skewed (almost defamatory) view of Arizona. The face of a wonderful state that is richly diverse, red and blue, native and non-native, urban and wildly rural, ideologically pluralistic , and distinctively open –in so many ways – to cultural and ethnic complexities, appears one-dimensional , insular, and hyper-partisan. SB 1070 turned Arizona into a sound bite, tailor-made for today’s sensationalist journalism to compress and exploit. And any public leader who cares about the state as a whole, as a mosaic, should have anticipated this and worked very hard to prevent it.

If some policy good does come of this, perhaps it will be as a cautionary tale, and as occasion for a “stop and think” moment for all policy makers seeking to promote the public good with minimal public harm as we all face agonizing problems that defy easy or one-party solutions.

**************************

11/30 at 11:21 pm

Jack Chin

SB1070 and its cousins are clearly based on the idea that justice should be done, though the Heavens fall. Recalled Arizona senator Russell Pearce, one of the parents of SB1070, was not motivated by social or economic effects; the point was the principle of the thing, a naive view that if laws are broken, then there must be a governmental response.

On the other hand, even if the policy implications are dreadful, I doubt that will be particulalry important to a majority of the Supreme Court. In three-strikes cases, and drug cases, the Suppreme Court has upheld policies which were at least as costly, harmful and ineffectual as SB1070. The question will be state power.

***************************

VIDEO, Misleading Romney Ad Draws Criticism for Distorting Obama's Words, The Hypocrisy and Lies of Mitt Romney : Deception, Deceit, Falsehood, Misrepresentation, Trickery to deceive the voters - First Romney Commercial is Dishonest

.

Uploaded by slatester on Nov 22, 2011

Mitt Romney is drawing fire over the first commercial of his 2012 presidential campaign, in which he quotes President Obama out of context. The ad uses a sound bite from Obama's 2008 campaign: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

The only problem with this apparently damning clip: Obama was quoting his Republican opponent John McCain at the time. In response, Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom claims the misleading quote was used intentionally to "show that President Obama is doing exactly what he criticized McCain of doing four years ago."

The Romney ad premiered in New Hampshire, the bellwether swing state that is home of the first primary of the campaign.

Misleading Romney Ad Draws Criticism for Distorting Obama's Words

*******************

Obama's campaign persona : He only feels comfortable being truly rhetorically confrontational when standing behind a teleprompter or a podium and before a cheering audience. Obama disconnects himself from fury through intellectual exertion and by strenuously trying to keep matters in clear focus

.

Obama doesn’t simply contain his rage or hold it inside his mind; he dissociates–a psychoanalytic term for disconnecting thought from feeling. This allows him to operate in a purely intellectual state, protected from the disruptive influences of excessive passions.

Obama on the couch : Obama suffers psychologically, but he is a Superb Campaigner ! :


The New Republic
The Psychological Foundation of Obama’s Political Problems
November 28, 201

By Justin Frank
Justin A. Frank, MD is a psychoanalyst, clinical professor of psychiatry at George Washington Medical Center, and the author of Obama on the Couch.


The Psychological Foundation of Obama’s Political Problems


Some excerpts :

The 1789 French Revolutionary saying, “The tongue is the enemy of the neck," describes the approach Obama has always lived by. He turns a blind eye to his own rage; he seems almost sleepwalking when others would be screaming. This is not simply a matter of the president’s public persona pushing aside the private, enraged one. It is a profound ability to disconnect himself from feeling the full force of his own rage.

Ultimately, this is an expression of his fear of abandonment. In fact, what appears as detachment is the latest manifestation of a long history of removing himself from the fray in idiosyncratic ways. Growing up as a mixed-race child of two broken homes, and living in two dramatically different countries, Barack Obama learned to survive by carefully noticing everything around him while at the same time not allowing himself to feel the full emotional impact of his experience.

He dealt with loss without protest. He didn't complain when his mother abandoned him to pursue her passion for anthropology on far-flung expeditions, or when she removed him from the home of his stepfather in Jakarta when he was ten. Instead, Obama focused on surviving by getting along. He pursued inclusion relentlessly, even when circumstances repeatedly cast him in the role of the outsider.

It's not an accident that one of the strategies he developed to maintain his membership in groups was to keep his mouth shut. Indeed, his autobiographies show that he was repeatedly taught as a child to keep his feelings to himself. His stepfather Lolo told him regularly never to complain if he were hurt or in trouble. His high school basketball teammates reinforced that message some years later. And so by keeping careful and cautious watch of his surroundings, he learned to be at home in different groups, easily shifting from one to the other.

This kind of dissociation is at the core of some his greatest political strengths. It helped him become intellectually nimble, and acutely alert to his surroundings. It's only by adapting this kind of psychic position his entire life that Obama was able to easily joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner while knowing there was an active mission underway to kill Osama bin Laden.

But assuming this perpetually peripheral role has also taken a lasting toll. The anxiety of not belonging has grown to occupy an ever-greater part of his psyche. He writes in Dreams From My Father that when, as an adult, he was walking through the most dangerous parts of Chicago late at night, the greatest fear he had was the fear of not belonging. But now there is a new tension, between his need to belong and the demands of standing up for what he believes. The former is driven by his related fears of not belonging and being abandoned; the latter carries the risk of alienating others irrevocably.

In material reality, his concern with alienating conservatives is wholly unproductive: it is unlikely that he can be more hated by the Tea Party than he already is. Nonetheless, he continues to relentlessly pursue compromises with Republicans that will never happen. Indeed, so concerned is he with his own degree of belonging that he jeopardizes the sympathies of those who actually have felt a natural and authentic connection to him. Whatever other political and personal advantages it confers, Obama's observational caution doesn’t give jobless participants in “Occupy Wall Street” or Wisconsin’s striking public employees the sense that he is concerned.

..........

The Republicans have this ugly, filthy and dirty strategy : paint President Obama as a failure, a loser, a sissy in International Politics, a moron and idiot, a Socialist Communist Nazi promoting Sexual Perversions in Elementary Schools

.

My Thumbs up to those Democratic Strategists in the "New Republic", "The Atlantic", "The American Prospect", "The New Yorker", etc .... and other liberal magazines ..... that believe that Obama can win a second term and are helping to develop a strategy to achieve that Wonderful and Beautiful Goal.

Ruy Teixeira, William Galston of the "New Republic" and "Huffington Post", Josh Kraushaar in the "National Journal", those in "The Arena" of POLITICO.COM ... and many others like Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs ( two economists ), Robert Kuttner, etc .... This is the American Intelligentsia.

Don't forget these excellent People : Mike Papantonio, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Cenk Uygur, Rick Horowitz, and many others in Television.


There are funny and charming guys in the YouTube Videos like "Old Fart Rants" .... If you want to laugh at the Imbecility of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and all the Republicans Presidential Candidates, all those mentioned  are perfect Super Fools or Snake Oil Salesmen, if not Quack Doctors like Michele Bachmann and her "Doctor" husband that cures Homosexualism and gets a lot of Taxpayer money for that Wonderful ( Illusory and Fantastic ) purpose.



I am forgetting many outstanding journalists, economists and media people, forgive me.

The Republicans have powerful and fat donkeys in the Media carrying loads of Negativity and Pessimism.

Unfortunately my memory is very poor, but I always get a high by reading their cerebral and brainy analysis.

The Republican strategy is to give a drug of depression and pessimism to the Public, an opium that paralyzes the imagination and the heart by telling a lot of lies about one of the Greatest Presidents.

Obama, is the guy to fix Health Care, to slowly fix Immigration ( a very difficult task ), to help the Recovery of the American and World Economy that the Republicans harmed.

Obama is the Man to address and correct the Great Inequalities to make a Greater Nation.

Vicente Duque

.......

POLITICO.COM "The Arena" Forum : Mitt Romney - once a supporter of the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform approach – emerged as the most extreme, right-wing presidential candidate on the issue of immigration in history

.

Newt Gingrich has boxed in Mitt Romney - Now Mitt is painted in a corner in the Immigration Issue

POLITICO.COM
"The Arena" Forum
Forum : How Newt Gingrich is pushing Mitt Romney to extreme positions on Immigration
Sunday, November 27, 2011


Forum : How Newt Gingrich is pushing Mitt Romney to extreme positions on Immigration


Some excerpts :

*********************

Ryan Rudominer Former National Press Secretary, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee :

By slamming the GOP's extreme right wing push on immigration, Newt Gingrich poured gasoline on an issue that already blew up the candidacy of one leading GOP presidential candidate.

In one of the most consequential moments of the primary season so far, Newt forced the GOP to move beyond sound bites and finally confront the question of what to do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently settled in the U.S.

One can almost see the sparks flying as Newt declared, “I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter-century, and I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, 'Let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.'”

But, that’s just the beginning…

In typical Mitt Romney "take any position to win" fashion, Romney - once a supporter of the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform approach – emerged as the most extreme, right-wing presidential candidate on the issue of immigration in history.

Denouncing Newt's position and racing to the right of every other presidential candidate, the Romney campaign embraced the radical right wing world-view of immigration that calls for mass deportation, ala Arizona and Alabama.

Though Newt may have doomed his primary chances by taking a sane position on immigration; by embracing a mass deportation position on immigration, if he emerges as the nominee, Mitt Romney can say hasta la vista to the 40% threshold of the Latino vote that any GOP nominee needs to win the general election. Not to mention, he'd find himself in hot water with swing voters who want mainstream solutions on immigration, not the extreme rhetoric that appeals only to the right wing base.

**********************

Ex-Rep. Artur Davis Former congressman (D-Ala.); Partner, SNR Denton law firm :

Gingrich's answer on immigration was the right one and he made exactly the right argument. There is a sharp difference between a $30,000 tuition subsidy for families who have come to the country illegally and a policy that declines to uproot families who've built roots in a community. The tuition subsidy is an instance of government giving a coveted resource to one class of people; a deportation policy that stops short of destabilizing families, but doesn't commit extra tax dollars to them, is not only "humane", it is inherently conservative.

To be sure, there is a constituency in the southern and western primaries that views immigration as a cultural threat, and Gingrich has shown some courage in taking that viewpoint head-on. But its a false caricature of the Republican Party and most conservatives to suggest that the nativist view is monolithic.

***********************

Laura Murphy Director, ACLU Washington legislative office :

Americans don’t want to see families and communities torn apart.

Yet that’s what state and federal governments have been doing in the name of immigration reform. State legislatures in five states have adopted “show-me-your-papers” laws. Thanks to Alabama’s H.B. 56, we now have evidence of how ineffective that so-called method of reform is.

In just two months we have seen an immense amount of damage to the fabric of Alabama’s economy, its schools and most importantly, families. The law has affected citizen and non-citizen Latino children alike, who not only feel unwelcome in their schools, but also in their communities. And many families that are contributing members of society will be ripped apart, as citizen children stay behind when their undocumented parents flee.

Alabama farmers are watching their crops rotting in the fields since Latino workers fled the state for fear of harassment. This has economic ripple effects beyond Alabama.

On the federal level, the Department of Homeland Security has done nothing to stop the cruelty in Alabama but continues to boast about its record deportation numbers. DHS programs have led to racial profiling and have only encouraged other states to pursue policies like the Alabama law.

On the other hand, the Department of Justice is doing what it can by suing Alabama and other states to strike down these unconstitutional laws. The Obama administration should align its policies to make them less damaging and more humane.

Gingrich’s compassion is an appropriate response, not just for the families involved, but for the businesses and communities that are adversely affected, especially during these difficult economic times.

****************

Richard A. Viguerie

Richard A. Viguerie Conservative fundraiser, activist and chairman of ConservativeHQ.com :

Was Newt smart on immigration?

Does anyone really believe that if Mitt Romney is elected President the United States government is going to frog march 10 million illegal aliens straight to the Mexican border? I didn’t think so.

Last night’s CNN/AEI/Heritage Foundation Republican presidential debate on national security showed the limitations of several of the Republican candidates for President on this important constitutional responsibility of the office - and it also showed the political gambler in Newt Gingrich.

During the debate Gingrich refused to play along with the conventional wisdom - as implied or stated by Romney and some of the other candidates - that the only solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to deport the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.

"If you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home period," Gingrich said. "If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids, two grandkids, paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church - I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."

Gingrich cited the plan put forward by the conservative Krieble Foundation as an alternative to the current broken immigration enforcement system or the mass deportation of illegal immigrants.

.......................

Many inside the Beltway talking heads are already counting Gingrich out after last night’s immigration comments, but I am not so sure. Part of the Gingrich brand is Newt’s ability and willingness to look at the hard questions of public policy and propose provocative ideas in response. Only time will tell if last night’s immigration comments will be seen as an honest response to one of the intractable problems facing the next president or a political gamble that proved to be just plain dumb.

*************************

Ex-Assemb. Michael Benjamin Former member of the New York State Assembly (D) :

Newt Gingrich did himself and all of America a great service by addressing the reality of immigration reform. Real comprehensive immigration reform must involve some form of review for millions of undocumented workers and their families. Gingrich offers a good jump off point.

Now, whether he is seeking support from Hispanic or independent voters is another matter. If he is self-sabotaging, then he has found the right artery to slash. Being POTUS probably doesn't pay as well as being the smartest man in the GOP.

I hope Mr. Gingrich continues to tell mature truths to the fringe elements in the GOP. The sooner he gets out of the way, the sooner Rick Santorum gets to sit in the ABR chair.

Santorum can be the surprise Iowa winner, if he takes the ABR chair at the right time. Timing and money will make him the winner in Iowa. Newt can go back to his ivory tower and look down upon the misguided masses.

***********************

Ford O'Connell Republican consultant and chairman of CivicForumPAC :

Now that Gingrich is a GOP presidential co-frontrunner, he has to demonstrate message discipline if he wants to have a realistic shot at winning the nomination. And when it came to immigration last night, Gingrich failed.

In true Dr. John fashion, Gingrich took the right stance on immigration (for the general election), but at the wrong time (heading into the Iowa caucuses). At the very least, Gingrich should have waited until the Florida Republican primary before making his true feelings on immigration known.

**************************

Steve Murphy Democratic consultant; Managing Partner at Murphy Vogel Askew Reilly :

This is not a gaffe. Newt knows the polling and even a plurality of Republicans oppose deportation.

Also, Newt is known to think highly of himself and perhaps he is starting to see himself as president.

He also knows Republicans are going to lose Florida, and Rubio won't help, because he has separated himself from every non-Cuban Hispanic voter by denying he is an immigrant. It is ironic Newt is the one being realistic, given the enormity of his ego. Strange days.

**************************

teven G. Calabresi Professor of law, Northwestern University :

Newt Gingrich is absolutely right that the pro family party cannot be in favor of breaking up immigrant families.

Mitt Romney's demagogue-ing of the immigration issue is despicable and is the main reason why I, at least, have been unwilling to support him in either the 2008 or the 2012 election cycle. With the fading of Rick Perry and Herman Cain as viable candidates, Newt Gingrich has now emerged as the person who Republicans ought to support to be our nominee. As the son and grandson of immigrants, I am proud to support him. Gingrich is very smart and very well read. He will be a formidable candidate.

********************

Clyde Prestowitz

Clyde Prestowitz Founder and president, Economic Strategy Institute :

It was a good move. He is completely right in what he said and most Americans will recognize that. It may hurt him with some of the Republican base, but not fatally and he’ll nee

*********************

Christine Pelosi Attorney, author and Democratic activist :

Newt Gingrich's newest immigration plan is only "moderate" compared to mass deportation or electric fences. He lays out a plan that specifically opposes comprehensive reform and, in a dogwhistle to nativists' ugliest impulses, explicitly calls for English as the official language of the United States. That means, for example, no multi-lingual ballots or court interpreters.

Now I can see where limiting ballot access might appeal to the GOP - but who in the world wants to limit law enforcement, military and intelligence officials from communication with crime victims, witnesses and even anti-terror informants? Last night the former Speaker made a big deal out of supporting the PATRIOT Act and other devices to fight crime and fight terrorism - however, his English as he official language plank undermines that stance. As a former prosecutor, I can attest that multilingual court interpreters are integral to the pursuit of justice.

Newt Gingrich's stance on immigration may be "smart" on GOP politics but it is not smart on crime and must be rejected. If he truly believes that we need every tool available to keep Americans safe, he will backtrack from his plan to limit the multilingual tools we need to communicate with immigrant communities to keep us all safe.

**********************

Donna Robinson Divine Professor of government, Smith College :

Former Speaker Gingrich's stance on immigration is probably much more realistic than the conventional piety the Republican base seems to require.

Speaker Gingrich seems to have decided that as the now favorite alternative to former Gov. Romney, he can afford to put before primary voters an alternative and equally conservative way of thinking about illegal immigration - in other words, as a family matter.

...............

************************

Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute :

The “deport them all” stance is impractical, as well as harmful to sectors of the economy, and it would be wise of Republicans and Democrats to embrace an alternative solution. It’s sad that President Obama has not fought to pass an immigration bill allowing more legal visas.

****************************

Ron Faucheux President of Clarus Research Group, professor and author :

If Gingrich really believes what he's saying on immigration, it doesn't matter if it's smart politics - it's the right thing for him to do.

*****************************

St. Rep. Daniel Patterson Arizona House of Representatives (D) :

I represent a southwestern border county and I think lobbyist Gingrich showed some smarter politics last night on immigration. It seems many voters are tiring of Republican's failed enforcement-only approach on immigration.

The recall this month in Arizona of anti-immigrant hardliner Russell Pearce showed immigration fatigue as a factor for voters, even in a very conservative district.

Newt's position may not help him with a majority of GOP primary voters in some states, but it shouldn't kill him. I noticed DC-insider Newt got strong applause from the GOP debate audience twice when he talked a slightly less harsh approach to immigration.

America needs a secure border and fair, comprehensive immigration reform now, as President Obama and Democrats have been saying, and I think more and more voters agree.

**********************

Christopher Hahn Democratic consultant :

I was pleasantly surprised with Newt's softer stance on immigration, however I'm a progressive and don't vote in GOP primaries.

When Perry took a similar stance at his first debate he took an immediate hit in the polls. Perhaps Newt is playing for Nevada and Florida where Latinos have a small presence in Republican primaries.

*************************

Peter Fenn Democratic media consultant :

Newt is playing for the general election, not the hard core Republican primary vote, plus this has been his position all along. The dirty little secret is that Gingrich does not adhere to many of the tea party positions even though his bombastic rhetoric might indicate otherwise.

*****************************

Ed Espinoza Western states Democratic consultant; former DNC official :

It took a debate on national security for a Republican to finally speak sensibly on immigration, and Newt Gingrich did just that on Tuesday night. Gingrich now becomes the most prominent Republican to say that deportation of 11 million immigrants would break up communities and families, and would be a logistical impossibility.

But in this Republican primary, good policy positions don't necessarily translate into good political standing - and that's just too bad, because we could really use an honest, sensible conversation about immigration in this country. If he loses traction in the polls because of these comments, his undoing will essentially be based on him being the smartest guy in the room. Ironic? Yes! Surprising? Not really.

**********************

St. Sen. Tim Mathern North Dakota State Senate (D) :

Within a decade we will be crying for new workers from other countries and the present efforts of deportation will look silly at best.

Gingrich is smart to steer clear of "deport-them-all" stance taken by the rest of the Republican rivals for the presidency. The chamber of commerce crowd knows there is a long term shortage of workers though our present unemployment rate is high. Gingrich is wise to be attentive to their clout in the final push for a nominee.

********************

Garry South Democratic consultant, The Garry South Group :

Newt, as usual, is smart, but may be too clever by half on this one.

The beginning of Perry's slide was when he defended in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. But Gingrich is now the frontrunner, and is displaying the confidence of a frontrunner in diverging from the common GOP wisdom (if you can call it that) on the explosive topic of immigration.

And although I'm no Newt fan, it was refreshing to hear him at least state the obvious - that we're not going to deport otherwise law-abiding people who have been here 25 years and are part of their communities - while Romney once again stood there shamelessly pandering to the nativist elements in the Republican base. If Romney's the nominee, expect his hardline answer to show up in Spanish-language ads by the Obama campaign.

*******************

Michael Shank U.S. Vice President, Institute for Economics and Peace :

Fiscally conservative Republicans should appreciate Newt Gingrich's plan. Why?

Because deporting America's undocumented immigrants would cost our country's already struggling gross domestic product $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a study by UCLA professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda. However, if America embraces comprehensive immigration reform, we add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over the next 10 years - a much needed boost as we discover flagging third quarter growth.

The choice seems fairly obvious. America can ill-afford the continued noncitizenship of 12 million undocumented immigrants. America can ill-afford piecemeal approaches state-by-state. Gingrich is right on this. He's pursuing what's best for reform and what's best for our economy.

*****************

David Biespiel American poet, director, Attic Institute :

Newt Gingrich is a long-serving warrior in the conservative cause and his position, which is identical to Ronald Reagan's ("I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally") and which he has long framed as a family values position, will have little impact on his support - though, to be fair, it's just unclear how deep and lasting that support will be once primary voting begins.

Like Rick Perry before him (who was burned on the issue because he accused the GOP of being heartless, ignorant, and, well...there was a third one in there somewhere), Gingrich is right on the issue: The United States should not be in the business of deporting 11 million people, many of whom have lived here in a law-abiding and productive manner for over a generation.

********************

Sally Kohn Political commentator, founder and Chief Education Officer of the Movement Vision Lab :

How refreshing! A Republican who actually says what he thinks is moral and correct as opposed to saying whatever will get him elected. Of course, now we know for sure Gingrich will not be the GOP nominee.

***********************

Aaron Mannes University of Maryland scholar on terrorism and international affairs :

It is likely that Newt's stance on immigration will hurt him with "the base." Fortunately for him his major rival has a number of weaknesses with the base as well. Part of the problem is that this base has calcified into a set of impossibly rigid positions that no candidate can realistically satisfy.

However, this position will serve Newt well if he can make it to the general election as it highlights him as an independent thinker and it reflects a more humane side to a Republican Party that is looking increasingly mean-spirited.

********************

POLITICO.COM : New redistricting Map for Texas : Democrats could capture three of the four new seats Texas is gaining in the current round of reapportionment - The New Map will go to the U. S. Supreme Court for a decision

.

The 2010 Census is giving Texas four new seas in the U. S. House of Representatives, the new map may give Democrats and Latinos a boost in next elections.

Republicans will file an emergency application for stay at the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent any election from taking place under this proposed map.

POLITICO.COM
Court won't block new Texas map
By ALEX ISENSTADT
November 25, 2011


Court won't block new Texas map


Some excerpts :

A federal court has turned down a GOP-led effort to thwart a proposed new Texas congressional map, a decision that will send the state’s line-drawing process to the U.S. Supreme Court.

.........

The court-proposed map positions Democrats to gain as many as three congressional seats in Texas, dealing a sharp blow to Republicans who had hoped the state would help solidify their new majority.

Under the plan, Democrats could capture three of the four new seats Texas is gaining in the current round of reapportionment, and would be positioned to compete against one of the state’s freshman Republicans, Rep. Quico Canseco, whose southwestern Texas district would become considerably less GOP-friendly.

................

The court-drafted map is a devastating reversal for Republicans, whose map would have positioned the GOP to win three of the state’s new seats and would have allowed each of the party’s 23 incumbents to run in safe districts.

“This is a big win for Democrats and minority groups in Texas,” said Matt Angle, director of the Texas Justice Fund, which helped craft the legal strategy combating the GOP plan.

............

Another major win for Democrats: The interim plan would enable Rep. Lloyd Doggett and state Rep. Joaquin Castro to run for separate districts – each of which would be safe. Under the Republican plan, the two Democrats would have to run against each other in a primary for a San Antonio-area seat.

Canseco is likely to emerge as a top Democratic target. The freshman Republican has already drawn a top-tier Democratic foe in state Rep. Pete Gallego.

Several other Republican-held districts would also be less safe under the interim plan. Veteran GOP Rep. Joe Barton would see his seat grow less Republican-friendly, as would the Galveston-area seat held by retiring GOP Rep. Ron Paul.

............

Los Angeles Times : Many GOP voters see Mitt Romney as someone whose views on the issues change with the political tide - He always molds his views to suit the political mood, with ambition his overriding principle

.

Mitt Romney, political contortionist, the ultimate opportunist :

One Republican voter said of him: “He’s going to be listening to voices outside. I want someone who can hear his own voice — a clear voice.” (Paul Sancya, Associated Press / November 9, 2011)

Los Angeles Times

Mitt Romney still faces a trust deficit with GOP voters

Mitt Romney may lead the Republican presidential field, but many GOP voters see him as someone whose views on the issues change with the political tide.

By Maeve Reston, Los Angeles Times
November 24, 2011


Mitt Romney still faces a trust deficit with GOP voters


Some excerpts :

"He's not a person we could trust to lead our country," said Angela Cesar, a 41-year-old Republican from Ypsilanti, Mich., who said Romney had changed his position on too many issues. "He's going to be listening to voices outside. I want someone who can hear his own voice — a clear voice."

Steve Holroyd, a 54-year-old chef from Rye, N.H., was initially attracted to Romney's candidacy, but now describes him as evasive: "The more I listen to him, the more he just kind of flip-flops and doesn't know where he stands on anything."

...........

In his failed 2008 bid, when the issue was raised — as now — by opponents, it hit its mark not because of the issues involved but because of what Romney's flip-flops suggested about his character.

The campaign demonstrated sensitivity to the problem in this race: Romney has strongly defended the health insurance mandate that he instituted in Massachusetts, even though it is reviled by GOP voters, rather than reverse himself on it.

..........

For Democrats and the other Republican candidates, the weeks ahead are likely to center on Romney's inconsistencies.

.............

In 1994, when Romney challenged Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, he argued that "abortion should be safe and legal in this country" and that he would "sustain and support … the right of a woman to make that choice." When he ran for governor eight years later, he reiterated that he was personally opposed to abortion but said he would not alter Massachusetts laws on abortion.

But as he contemplated a presidential run, he declared in a July 2005 Boston Globe op-ed that "abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother." Explaining his veto of a bill expanding access to emergency contraception, he said his "pro-life" views had "evolved and deepened" as he had studied embryonic stem cell research and cloning. He has maintained staunchly antiabortion views in both presidential campaigns.

.............

Romney on the source of global warming : During a speech in Pittsburgh captured by the liberal blog Think Progress, he said, "We don't know what is causing climate change on this planet." More often on the campaign trail, Romney says he believes humans have contributed to the rise in temperatures — always adding the caveat that he does not know how much.

............

But it matters to voters like Leonard Silvani, a 58-year-old Republican from Hampton, N.H. Even though he is most concerned about the economy, Silvani said, the shift by Romney on a core issue like abortion is a warning flag.

"It's telling you that what's he's saying and what he does aren't necessarily the same thing," he said. "And that makes me leery."

......

VIDEO : These same activists and many others of different races and colors have to knock on every door and wake up people in every bed in the nation so that they register, fill the forms for early voting and finally a great effort on election day to reelect President Obama

.
Latino Lady Activist to neighbors and friends :  "You have to wake up and get out of bed to vote" !

As a Latino Lady in Mesa Arizona said, we went from door to door and from bed to bed waking up every Latino in our neighborhood and carrying them to the voting booth to oust Russell Pearce ( in early November 2011 ). Finally Russell Pearce was kicked out and Jerry Lewis ( the principal of a school ) entered the Arizona Senate.

******************************

This Latino Lady speaks in a Video here :

Randy Parraz, Chad Snow and  Jerry Lewis, shown in this video here have become national known figures in politics ( because of resisting evil and being civil rights activists ) :

Russell Pearce recalled with help from Latino youth:



Uploaded by WhatABCs on Nov 9, 2011

The future of Arizona, as seen in the latest US Census numbers, will be a youth that is minority, mostly Latino. Today they are working with Republicans, Democrats, and Progressives to ensure a better future for Arizona by helping to recall Russell Pearce!

Russell Pearce recalled with help from Latino youth

The crowd chants in the video : "Si se pudo", "Si se pudo", "Yes, we could"

.....

VIDEO, Ed Schultz makes intelligent comments on the republican debate on Immigration - The consequences of Debating Xenophobia : Did Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney Both Lose on Immigration - What would Mitt do ?

.
What would Mitt do ? ( One Hundred Times ! )

Newt Gingrich may be anything but not a fool. He always makes waves !

Romney may have painted himself in a corner for the General Election - And he has totally flip-flopped compared to his declarations of previous years. He is just an opportunist !.

Ed Schultz, as always has excellent comments.


Representative Jim Moran, Democrat, Virginia, comments : Mitt is prostituting himself to the Tea Party.
 
Steve Murphy ( Democratic Strategist ) says that Newt Gingrich is shrewd !
Michael Eric Dyson ( MSNBC Political Analyst ) is in the right direction !




Uploaded by politicalarticles on Nov 24, 2011

Debating Xenophobia: Did Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney Both Lose on Immigration

*********************

The Atlantic : Marc Ambinder : "Newt's Gift to Obama: A GOP Immigration Rift" - Newt puts Mitt Romney in a difficult spot - Newt moves Mitt Romney to the right , to a place that college-educated white voters question

.

And College Educated White Voters may be the guys that decide the 2012 presidential election :

"Mitt Romney's extreme anti-immigrant views were on clear display. Romney once again went to the right of every other Republican presidential candidate, refusing to agree with others on the stage that tearing apart families is wrong or that we shouldn't implement an extreme and inhumane immigration policy."

The Atlantic

Newt's Gift to Obama: A GOP Immigration Rift

With his "humane" argument, the former House speaker has put the president's chief rival, Mitt Romney, in a difficult spot

By Marc Ambinder

November 23, 2011


Newt's Gift to Obama: A GOP Immigration Rift


Some excerpts :

Now, whether you agree with Gingrich or Romney, recognize that the DNC and the Obama campaign now has a new incentive to see Newt Gingrich become the true face of the GOP anti-establishment opposition to Romney, as ironic as that last phrase is. If Gingrich and Romney publicly argue over immigration, the DNC and Obama 2012 will do everything they can to reproduce this debate before college-educated white voters in Virginia, North Carolina, the Rust Belt and elsewhere. It's a perfect time, because the national electorate is starting to wake up and pay attention to the race. Now is the time when Mitt Romney, the guy who Chicago expects will be the nominee, is at his most tender, most doughy, and most mold-able.

On Tuesday, National Journal's Ron Brownstein helped Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin introduce their latest demographic study of the electorate, which projects that the share of non-whites voting in battleground states in 2012 will jump two percentage points, a boost for President Obama, or a cushion of sorts for any shedding of white voters. (Working class whites will correspondingly drop three percent.)

The demographic battleground, as Brownstein, Teixeira and Halpin see it, will be among college-educated whites, particularly women, who helped put Obama over the top in the Midwest, West, and in states like Florida and Virginia even though, across all the battlegrounds, that cohort gave its vote to John McCain by four points. Mitt Romney does better among these voters than any GOP candidate. And those college-educated white voters could question Romney's compassion if he takes too hard-line a stance on immigration.

.........

Michael Tomasky : Obama isn’t going to get his 2008 levels of the white vote. But he can’t quite absorb white-vote totals that look like 2010. - And he is going to have to fight hard, and smart, to keep them closer to the former than the latter

.

Three Groups : White working-class voters, White college-educated voters and Minorities : almost all members of these three groups have something in common. They’re part of the less affluent 99 percent that should support popular government programs, and calls for a more equitable tax distribution.

Obama can absorb some White Working Class losses and still win the popular vote. But if the losses are too high he would lose the election in November 2012.

The Daily Beast

Michael Tomasky: How Obama Can Get to 270 Electoral Votes

Nov 22, 2011


Michael Tomasky: How Obama Can Get to 270 Electoral Votes


Some excerpts :

Well, now that it’s official that bipartisan compromise has no future in Washington, it’s time for President Obama to put aside once and for all the idea of playing patty-cake with these people and instead focus ruthlessly on getting to 270 electoral votes. The recent debate among pundits has been over the question of whether the path to 270 for Obama runs through Virginia and North Carolina and Colorado (and appeals to “new-economy voters”) or through Ohio and the Rust Belt (and more class-based appeals). 

It’s a silly debate. The answer is both. An important new paper by two leading electoral demographers on the progressive side of the fence makes the case and is well worth your time (it’s 68 pages), as it’s chockablock with fascinating information about changes in the electorate, both nationwide and in several key states—changes that may well decide the outcome next November.

The paper is “The Path to 270: Demographics Versus Economics in the 2012 Election” by Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin of the Center for American Progress. You can probably figure out from the subtitle that the basic story is that demography favors Obama, while the likely underlying economic picture (i.e., still bleak) favors whoever is running against him. But the deeper story here is this: Obama isn’t going to get his 2008 levels of the white vote. But he can’t quite absorb white-vote totals that look like 2010. And he is going to have to fight hard, and smart, to keep them closer to the former than the latter.

Demographically, everything is moving Obama’s way. The study largely splits the electorate into three groups: minorities; white college-educated voters (WCEs); and the white-working class (WWC), which is defined here and usually as whites without a college degree, which for a range of reasons is the best way to identify that group for voting purposes. And the first thing to look at here is not how Obama does with each, but what share of the total electorate each makes up, because, as the man said, demography is destiny.

............

Throw it all in the wash and what does it mean? It means first of all that if the economy stinks, none of this demography will matter and Obama will lose. But it also means that he is going to have to assemble different coalitions from battleground state to battleground state around a message that can rally segments of all three groups. For all their differences, there is one thing almost all members of those three groups have in common. They’re part of the 99 percent. The authors want to see “a sustained posture of defending the middle class, supporting popular government programs, and calling for a more equitable tax distribution.” Sounds good to me.

............

POLITICO.COM : Supercommitee’s failure: Obama blames GOP : "Too many Republicans in Congress refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that were coming from outside Washington".......

.

Obama : "That refusal continues to be the main stumbling block that’s preventing Congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit"

POLITICO.COM
Supercommitee’s failure: Obama blames GOP
By JOSH GERSTEIN
November 21, 2011


Supercommitee’s failure: Obama blames GOP


Some excerpts :

Obama, who has faced past complaints from congressional Democrats that his criticism sometimes lumps them in with the GOP, took a decidedly different tack Monday. He said Democrats stepped up to the plate and Republicans were intransigent.

“To their credit, many Democrats in Congress were willing to put politics aside and committed to reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the costs of Medicare,” Obama said. “Too many Republicans in Congress refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that were coming from outside Washington…..That refusal continues to be the main stumbling block that’s preventing Congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit.”

Obama took no questions, but he did seek to counter the charge that he never stepped up to the plate to offer his own prescription for the cuts the supercommittee unsuccessfully sought.

Criticism that Obama stayed aloof from the process has emerged in recent days from Republicans as well as Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and centrists like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”

“In September, I sent them a detailed plan that would have gone above and beyond that [$1.2 trillion] goal,” the president said. He said the supercommittee also had an array of other plans to choose from, suggesting that the problem was not a dearth of suggestions but a lack of political will.

.............

POLITICO.COM : President Barack Obama may use the supercommittee failure to frame Congress as a do-nothing institution. Obama may also have to make deep cuts to Pentagon spending that his own Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, has dubbed unacceptable

.

In any case the President has now the ball in his hands. The powers of a President are not to be underestimated ( to order spending or avoid certain expenses ).

POLITICO.COM
Supercommittee fails to reach a deal
By SEUNG MIN KIM & JAKE SHERMAN
November 21, 2011


Supercommittee fails to reach a deal


Some excerpts :

The legislative fallout could also be vast. There are a bevy of major programs and tax policies that are set to expire at the end of 2012 that the committee could’ve dealt with that now will have to be handled by regular order in the House and Senate.

The Alternative Minimum Tax needs patching so it doesn’t skewer the middle-class next year. The reimbursement formula for physicians treating Medicare patients needs to be updated. And, once again, unemployment benefits are set to expire. House Republican leadership says those must not add to the debt, and that’s an argument that will be fought during the Christmas season.

For committee members, there are accusations flying. Republicans say Democrats wouldn’t reform cherished entitlement programs without massive tax hikes. Democrats say the GOP wouldn’t raise significant revenue and were unmovable on a tax pledge authored by anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist.

.........

VIDEO, Young Turks, U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's Barnery Frank ( Democrat ) Slams Newt Gingrich on Lobbying for Freddie Mac - Guest hosts Michael Shure and Wes Clark Jr discuss the Great Hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich

.

Hypocrisy is the Great Sickness of the Republican Party ! :

Barney Frank Slams Newt Gingrich on Lobbying & Freddie Mac




Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on Nov 18, 2011


Rep. Barney Frank had harsh criticism of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich over his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae comments and ties. Guest hosts Michael Shure and Wes Clark Jr discuss on The Young Turks.

Frank Slams Gingrich on Lobbying & Freddie Mac

Obama could boost Latino turnout by fighting against SB 1070, with a limited downside if most of the hardcore opposition to the measure is likely to vote for his Republican opponent in any event. Swing voters might disagree with the president on the point but will cast their votes on what they perceive as bigger issues

.
POLITICO.COM
Suing Arizona: The political pros and cons
By JOSH GERSTEIN
November 19, 2011


Suing Arizona: The political pros and cons


Some excerpts :

“Elections are about two things: turning out your base and winning the middle….The calculation is one that obviously the president is not doing as well with Latinos as he did four years ago,” said Quinnipiac pollster Peter Brown. “The possibility that illegal immigration becomes a front-burner issue in the presidential campaign offers, perhaps, the opportunity for him to reclaim his support.”

The Justice Department has denied that political concerns are at play in their decisions about which state laws to challenge. However, a Justice spokeswoman acknowledged that the White House was “consulted” about the decisions to sue.

“These lawsuits were brought by the Department of Justice and reflect our judgment about the laws’ constitutional and other legal defects. The laws challenged thus far clearly conflict with federal immigration law and enforcement priorities,” spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said. “Prior to filing these suits, we appropriately consulted with other Departments in the Executive Branch, as well as with the White House, given the important legal issues raised.”

But the department’s choice of targets has certainly coincided with the Obama campaign’s 2012 electoral strategy. Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina are not states Obama is expected to win - and neither are Georgia and Utah, which have passed similar laws but have not yet been subject to legal action.

On the other hand, several states with major Latino populations that might be fired up by a big SB 1070 fight—places like Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico—are must-wins for the Obama campaign.

“They’re really not concerned with the national vote, but with their core Latino voters and independent voters in states they don’t want to lose,” Chishti said. “My feeling is independent voters, while not approving of the stance Obama has taken opposing 1070, it’s not a huge, critical issue for them…..and if it [isn’t] the Obama campaign would rather appeal for the Latino vote, for whom it is the No.1 issue.”

....................

One critic of the administration’s lawsuits, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, said Obama might benefit from arguing the case in the Supreme Court and then losing it.

“The administration had a political incentive to file these cases to show their left flank and racial identity groups…they’re doing something, but it’s in [the Obama team’s] interest to lose in the Supreme Court so it’s not quite as contentious an issue in these states.”

............

Potentially the most political damage to Obama could be done in Virginia, widely considered crucial to his re-election and a hotbed over the years for anti-illegal immigration sentiment. That sentiment flared again last year when an illegal immigrant from Bolivia who had been ordered deported but never actually removed from the country drove drunk, killing a nun.

.............

Others say that such misgivings about Obama are sure to fade away by election day, as Latinos face a choice between the incumbent and a GOP nominee likely to be far more hostile to illegal immigrants than Obama.

“At the end of the day, they’re going to be confronted with the alternative, which is some people who believe people should be electrocuted if they try to cross the border,” Chishti said. “At that point, it will be irresponsible for the leadership to tell the base to vote against the president or stay home. What’s at stake for the next election for immigration is very high.”

...............

VIDEO, Cenk Uygur, Newt Gingrich Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae Hypocrite, this is the Number One Hypocrite in the World and illustrates what the Republican Party is : a bunch of Hypos serving the Rich and Wealthy

.
Privatize the gains and make the losses public ( paid by the taxpayer ) :

Newt Gingrich was hired to build bridges to Republicans in Congress, he was a lobbyst trying to prevent any regulation to these giants of swindling the American Public. Newt is surpassing Republicans Lou Dobbs and Meg Whitman in Hypocrisy and Lies.

What happens to America that celebrates, lifts and elevates these liars and hypocrites to the Stars ??. This guy wants to save America from dangerous "Communist and Statist" Barack Obama, but he is one of the main actors winning millions for the feat of sinking the Financial System and deceiving the American Taxpayer.

How can this guy know the science of economics when he works to sink the nation in economic matters ??

Newt Gingrich Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae Hypocrite

VIDEO : Mike Papantonio and Ed Schultz : The Ugliness and Stupidity of Super Conservative Judges, even inside the Circuits and Supreme Court - and The GOP's Favorite Things : Racism, Bribery, and Lies

.

This is my favorite political conversation with these wonderful guys : Papantonio and Schultz because of the Fire and Passion against Injustice and against the Abuse of those bad guys who are very Rich or in Power

This exchange of ideas is Old ( one month and a half ) but it is incredible wonderful.

Uploaded by golefttv on Oct 4, 2011

Mike Papantonio and Ed Schultz discuss the biggest news of the day, including Rick Perry's racist hunting lodge, the Supreme Court's upcoming hearing on the healthcare law, and the Koch brothers' illegal dealings around the globe.

Papantonio: The GOP's Favorite Things -- Racism, Bribery, and Lies

********************

William Galston : Obama's Second Term will be won or lost in the heartland stretching from Pennsylvania to Iowa : Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, all voted for Obama 2008

.

William Galston of the "New Republic" and "Huffington Post" and Josh Kraushaar in the "National Journal" preach in favor of the "Heartland Strategy" and decry or depreciate the "New Demography" strategy of Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and possibly Arizona and Georgia (these last two by a big stretch of the imagination and unbounded optimism )

I agree with these two intelligent strategists that the best strategy is the Heartland Strategy of Industrial States, the Rust Belt that has millions of White Workers. Obama has to conquer the minds and hearts of White Morkers ( specially the males ), otherwise he is toast.

But Galston and Kraushaar are very wrong in assuming that Minorities, specially Latinos, can desert and abandon the President in November 2012. They won't, because the Republicans make every possible effort to herd Minorities and Latinos to the Democratic Corral.

The level of Hate against Latinos and Minorities is so high in the GOP that Activists will go from door to door and from bed to bed of Latinos to wake them up and help them to go to the voting booth. Even if Republicans approve millions of State Laws to block these voters.

Huffington Post

The President's Only Chance for 2012

By William Galston

Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
November 16, 2011


The President's Only Chance for 2012


Some excerpts :

The Heartland Strategy -- is this:

The president's team hopes to recreate the "new majority" strategy that expanded the playing field and led to victories in states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada in 2008 and perhaps Arizona and Georgia as well in 2012. This does not seem realistic.

Obama's 2008 miracle victory in Indiana is almost impossible to repeat.

These facts underscore the crucial importance of the heartland states -- especially Ohio and Pennsylvania. As a matter of history and simple arithmetic, is very unlikely that President Obama can be reelected without carrying them both.

Although Pennsylvania is usually 3 to 4 points more Democratic than Ohio, the evidence suggests that Obama is surprisingly weak there and needs to do some real work to shore up his standing in a state that Democrats often regard as being in the bag.

As for Ohio, the last Democrat to take the White house without winning that state was John Kennedy, who did it with electoral votes from Texas and other southern states that Obama will not receive. (The last Republican to win the presidency without Ohio? There hasn't been one since the founding of the party in the 1850s.)

Ohio is pivotal, election after election, because it is a demographic and political microcosm of the country. If a presidential candidate can win a majority there, he or she can almost certainly do so in the nation as well. And that's why both parties should pay close attention to the results of last week's election, in which the Ohio electorate overwhelmingly rejected both Gov. Kasich's assault on public sector unions and the individual mandate at the heart of President Obama's health reform law.

............

TNR : DC court upholds Obamacare : "[The individual mandate] certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race"

.

From The New Republic : Famous Super Conservative Judges of the D.C. Circuit Court uphold Obamacare with fundamental conservative tenets and an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution

The New Republic
How Conservative Judges Just Provided the Most Authoritative Legal Defense of Obamacare
By Bruce Brown
November 12, 2011


How Conservative Judges Just Provided the Most Authoritative Legal Defense of Obamacare


Some excerpts :

The D.C. Circuit opinion upholding the Act rests on two fundamental conservative tenets: an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution and a restrained view of judicial power. Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence Silberman begins his substantive analysis by quoting the text of the Commerce Clause: “Congress shall have Power … To regulate commerce … among the several states.” The legal issue in the case is whether the words “regulate commerce” extend to the regulation of economic inactivity—to force people to take the action of purchasing health insurance. Employing a classically originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, Judge Silberman does not consider what the words “regulate commerce” might mean today, but instead references Samuel Johnson’s 1773 dictionary to determine what those words meant to those who ratified the Constitution in 1789. Johnson defined “regulate” to mean “to prescribe certain measures,” or “to adjust by rule or method.” To “regulate,” Judge Silberman reasoned, “can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market.” Judge Silberman concludes: “There is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument.” To a true conservative, and to most everyone else, a constitutional argument that has no “textual support” in the language of the Constitution is an argument that will lose almost every time.

By grounding its defense of the individual mandate in the text of the Constitution itself, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion is far more difficult to attack than other opinions and commentaries that rely upon vulnerable Supreme Court decisions—such as the famous Wikard v. Filburn—which many conservatives believe should (and might be) overruled by the Roberts Court.

...............

The second fundamental conservative principle upon which Judge Silberman’s decision is grounded is that the judicial power to strike down laws passed by a democratic majority should be sparingly invoked. It would be an “activist” decision to strike down this law which was, after all, passed by a majority of democratically elected senators and representatives, and signed by a president whose electoral platform featured health care reform. In this opinion, Judge Silberman is joined by Judge Kavanaugh, another conservative judge who dissented on jurisdictional grounds but nonetheless wrote: “The elected Branches designed this law to help provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance and quality health care, vital policy objectives. This legislation was enacted, moreover, after a high-profile and vigorous national debate. Courts must afford great respect to that legislative effort and should be wary of upending it.” As Judge Kavanaugh explained, the same argument that would strike down the individual mandate might also doom other reforms—conservative reforms—“on the leading edge of a shift in how the Federal Government goes about furnishing a social safety net for those who are old, poor, sick, or disabled and need help,” such as, for example, the partial privatization of social security.

.............

As Judge Silberman reasoned in his opinion: “[The individual mandate] certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race … . The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins.”

.........