July 14-15, 2014
Jul 14 05:08 Institutional blindness, Part I Jul 14 07:22 Harry Reid and Juan Williams Jul 14 11:09 Rand Paul & Barack Obama vs. Rick Perry & Ronald Reagan Jul 14 11:42 Westrom lays out conservative agenda Jul 15 05:05 IFO asks tough questions Jul 15 10:09 SEIU-BMS corruption alert Jul 15 13:35 Torrey Westrom's latest endorsement Jul 15 16:41 Is border crisis hurting Democrats?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Institutional blindness, Part I
Yesterday, I wrote this post to highlight how the media is letting the people down. In this instance, I criticized the St. Cloud Times for their kid glove treatment of SCSU President Earl Potter III. This part especially upset me:
The struggle to fill St. Cloud State University's Coborn's Plaza, high-end student housing, needs to be viewed as an opportunity, not a blame game.
In my commentary, I said that that type of thinking is what helps people continue making terrible decisions. Anytime the media doesn't question decisionmakers' decisions, the media breaks their trust with We The People. That's unacceptable. In fact, it's downright dangerous.
It's aggravating that the Times couldn't even publish accurate information before making their editorial statements:
To the former, from fiscal 2012 through fiscal 2015, the annual subsidy is projected to decline from $1.348 million to $937,800. While that's progress, it only amounts to an annual decline of about $105,000. So how much longer will it take to break even?
Had the Times read my post on that matter, they wouldn't have asked that question:
At the April 30, 2013 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, Patrick Jacobson-Schulte, Associate Vice President for Financial Management and Budget, informed the committee that, even under the best scenario of 100% occupancy, Coborn's Plaza would lose between $50,000 and $150,000 annually.
This brings us to two important questions. First, why didn't the Times learn about this information? Second, why did the Times hesitate in affixing blame on President Potter? They certainly didn't hesitate in criticizing former SCSU President Saigo.
This isn't meant as a critique of Dr. Saigo. Frankly, I didn't pay that much attention to St. Cloud State prior to Potter's administration. I won't use this post to praise or criticize him. I'll just use this post to highlight the fact that the St. Cloud Times frequently criticized Dr. Saigo but they refuse to criticize President Potter. What's up with that?
It isn't like President Potter hasn't made lots of questionable decisions. For instance, he spent $50,000 on the Great Place to Work Institute's Trust Index Survey. Here's what the Trust Index Survey found:
Even after seeing these results, the Times insisted that both sides needed to ask themselves what they can do to make SCSU a better place to work. When 26% of respondents say that management delivers on its promises, there isn't much that the faculty can do to change that figure, with the exception of lying. When 24% of respondents say that "management's actions match its words", it's management's responsibility to fix that crisis.
It isn't the Times' responsibility to say that 'both sides can do better.' It's the Times' responsibility to accurately state that it's President Potter's responsibility to fix the problem. Each time that the Times takes a on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand approach, it lets President Potter off the hook.
More importantly, the Times lets down the community by not giving people the information they need to make informed decisions. Each time the Times deflects attention away from President Potter, it's taking sides. That, in turn, helps him pretend that he's doing a good job.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2014 5:08 AM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 14-Jul-14 07:01 AM
Its time to move up the food chain and reach out to Gannett if for noting else to see if THATS where the hide and seek originated or if its just a localized disease.
Keep up the excellent work Gary!!
Comment 2 by Patrick-M at 14-Jul-14 07:20 AM
Gary
Once again you are providing the hard-hitting journalism that the area needs in regards to SCSU. The Times is the poster child for the 'Officer Barbrady model of journalism - "nothing to see here, move along". I used to enjoy reading the Times (even subscribed) but never again will I pay for this fiction/fantasy.
Comment 3 by Crimson Trace at 14-Jul-14 03:35 PM
Well done, Gary! This is true investigative journalism. The Times investigative coverage of SCSU is an embarrassment. The opinion commentary in the Times fell short. For them to ask how long until they break even is like asking how long until the sun rises in the east. Are they that lazy or are they really an extension of the SCSU PR machine? Jacobson-Schulte's answer is pretty obvious. What part of 100% occupied and losing money don't they understand? How's that big empty science building on the campus coming along? Can you hear the bustling sounds of activity in the building or a mouse fart?
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 14-Jul-14 05:13 PM
I have to believe the Times has seen the same data you cite. So who derails it on its way to the printed page? "Cui bono?" Presumably the Times. One can suppose many reasons, like circulation, ad revenue, access to SC high society. I can even imagine threats like "keep this up and the Legislature will cut our funding even more."
Like it or not, the SCT is just a little too connected to SCSU for the truth's own good. Which is why it's important to have independent voices and research like yours.
Harry Reid and Juan Williams
If there's anything that can be gleaned from Juan Williams' article , it's that he's exceptionally gullible. Here's what I'm talking about:
Last week, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invited me and a few other columnists to his office to deliver a message: The paralyzed, polarized government is not due to the president's failure to win friends in Congress. Nor is it because Reid is a 'dictator.' In his view, the stalled Senate is the result of an intentional strategy pursued by the Republicans.
Reid pointed to constant filibusters by the GOP minority. Republicans also refuse to allow the use of unanimous consent to move along Senate business, he charged.
Reid asserted that after President Obama was first elected, the GOP met with Frank Luntz, the political adviser, who told them to block everything Obama and Democrats tried to accomplish and then tell voters that Obama was a failure and government could not get anything done.
First, let's address the issue of whether Reid is a dictator. There's no question that he is. Since Republicans took over the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, Sen. Reid hasn't brought a single bill passed by the House of Representatives come up for a vote in the Senate. Many of the bills sitting on Sen. Reid's desk got overwhelming support, some getting more than 350 votes in the House.
There's no justification for Sen. Reid's actions.
Second, Sen. Reid's legislative tactics are best described as my-way-or-the-highway. Republicans rarely get to offer their amendments. When they do, which is rare, they're shot down on a party line vote.
That sounds rather dictatorial, doesn't it?
Next, let's tackle the part about Republicans blocking everything President Obama proposed. In 2009-2010, Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate for well over a year. They didn't have the ability to block anything President Obama proposed. Further, there's overwhelming proof that Democrats ignored the people's will. That overwhelming proof comes in the form of the worst "shellacking" in recent midterm election history. It isn't just that Republicans won 63 seats in the House. It's that they flipped 680 seats in state legislatures , too, which helped them flip 19 legislative majorities and 5 governorships.
Wave elections are rare enough. Wave elections of that magnitude don't happen much more than once a century. They only happen when the people get utterly pissed with DC. That's what happened in 2010. Democrats ignored the people on health care reform. People were reading the bills, then reciting them to Democrat politicians at August townhall meetings. Many of those who spoke out had never taken the political process seriously. Many of those who spoke out were women.
Harry Reid didn't care what they said. He passed the ACA, aka Obamacare, anyway.
Most of the people who spoke out for the first time in their lives didn't know Frank Luntz. They didn't listen to Republicans. They attended TEA Party rallies that were filled with like-minded people who simply wanted politicians to pay attention to them. Many of the TEA Party activists that were created were upset with Republicans, too, though not nearly as upset as they were with Democrats.
Finally, people don't need Republicans telling them that HealthCare.gov failed. They didn't need Republicans telling them that the IRS was attacking the organizations that simply wanted their voices heard. They didn't need Republicans telling them that the VA crisis was proof that the federal government is inept.
Reid's frustration led him to announce last week that he is considering a vote to change Senate rules and break the power of the GOP filibuster. After the midterm elections, he wants to expand on the so-called 'Nuclear Option,' approved by the Senate last year. Under that rule, only 50 votes are required to confirm most judicial nominees. Reid is considering applying the same standard to bills.
Reid isn't frustrated. He's pissed that Republicans haven't rolled over to President Obama's demands. Further, the question must be asked how President Obama's policies have worked. Thus far, President Obama's policies have failed, whether we're talking about the economy, the ACA, foreign policy or national security.
Finally, let's look at the destructive role President Obama plays in this mess. Let's remember him inviting Republicans to the White House for their ideas on the Stimulus bill. When Eric Cantor made some suggestions, President Obama brushed them aside, saying that "We won." The tone was set. Harry Reid's marching orders became clear at that point. His job was to shove as many things down Republicans' throats as possible.
Now Sen. Reid is peddling the BS that all he wants to do is legislate. That isn't credible coming from the man who's repeatedly called the Koch brothers un-American, who's lied on the Senate Floor that he has word that Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes in over a decade and who's been President Obama's protector since 2011.
The Senate will be a far better place the minute Harry Reid is run out of office. He's a despicable low-life who isn't capable of doing what's right for the nation. He's only capable of doing what he's told to do by the worst president in the last 75 years.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2014 7:22 AM
Comment 1 by Shoebox at 14-Jul-14 07:33 AM
I wouldn't think that Obama needs new laws to deal with. He has plenty of existing laws that he apparently, hasn't had time to enforce. How about he enforces a few of those?
Rand Paul & Barack Obama vs. Rick Perry & Ronald Reagan
Whether he realizes it or not, Sen. Rand Paul sounds frighteningly like President Obama. Sen. Paul's op-ed sounds exceptionally dovish, starting with this:
President Obama has said he might use airstrikes in the future. I have also been open to the same option if it makes sense.
Notice the qualifier-filled statements from President Obama and Sen. Paul. It'd be surprising if President Obama did anything more than token air strikes. With Sen. Paul, we just don't know, though his record is fairly isolationist and dovish. That isn't the worst part, though. Sen. Paul's intellectual dishonesty is frightening:
Said Perry forthrightly during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2012, 'I would send troops back into Iraq.' Obviously, this is something he advocated long before the rise of ISIS. At the time, Perry urged the United States to return troops to Iraq to act as a balance against Iran, a country my colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham says we must work with to help beat back the extremists.
Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians - or to help Iran fight ISIS?
Why would Sen. Paul ask that question? First, he notes that Gov. Perry made that statement in 2012, when the situation in Iraq was dramatically different. Why does Sen. Paul automatically assume that Gov. Perry's policy would be the same today as it was in 2012? As intellectually dishonest as Sen. Paul's assumption is, that isn't the part that frightens me most. This question is:
How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country, a nation the Iraqis won't defend for themselves?
First, it assumes that Gov. Perry would send in troops, which isn't a safe assumption. Second, it's the wrong question. Why doesn't Sen. Paul understand that troops deployed to Iraq wouldn't be there to "die for a foreign country"? Why doesn't he understand that they'd only be deployed to obliterate a terrorist training ground in the heart of Iraq?
Isn't Sen. Paul bright enough to understand that a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East is a huge threat to the United States, not just to our allies?
This statement is frighteningly fictional:
Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union - the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history - through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.
Sen. Paul, it's time you talked with people in the Reagan national security team. They'd tell you that he didn't miss an opportunity to talk with dissidents jailed in the Soviet Union's gulags. They'd tell you that he beefed up Radio Free Europe to tell dissidents that he was fighting for them. They'd tell you that diplomacy didn't work until Reagan made it clear that he'd counter anything the Soviets would attempt to do.
The negotiations didn't start until Reagan had frightened the bejesus out of President Gorbachev. Once he'd shown President Gorbachev who was the real superpower, then the negotiations started.
Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.
If Sen. Paul meant that Jimmy Carter left President Reagan with a crappy hand, that's right. If Sen. Paul means that there was any doubt in President Reagan's mind that his plan would work and work fairly quickly, the answer to that question is an emphatic no. Reagan knew that the Soviet Union's economy was on the verge of collapse. He knew that putting pressure on the Soviets would put them on the defensive.
Apparently, Sen. Paul doesn't really understand the genius of President Reagan's foreign policy genius. There's no question whether Reagan was a hawk. It's just that his foreign policy strategy was multi-faceted.
Sen. Paul's op-ed is based on supposition, not fact. It's based on something Gov. Perry said in 2012, not this summer. It's apparent that Sen. Paul is as accomplished as President Obama in using strawman arguments. I expect that from this president. From now on, I guess I should expect it from Sen. Paul, too.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2014 11:09 AM
No comments.
Westrom lays out conservative agenda
One thing that I'm finding impressive about Torrey Westrom's campaign is that he isn't afraid to lay out his agenda. This article offers a glimpse into what Sen. Westrom's priorities in DC will be:
Westrom said he has heard from Minnesotans again and again about their concerns with the federal government. He has heard about the Affordable Care Act forcing employers to only offer short-term solutions while they wait for quotes from agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency reaching for control of water ways vaguely connected to navigable waters, and an increasingly invasive National Security Agency.
'It's government overreach,' he said. 'Smaller government runs better.'
While on the campaign trail, Westrom said he has heard a fairly consistent complaint from Minnesotans. 'People are really fed up with the regulations,' he said during a visit to the Leader on Tuesday, before speaking at the Minnesota Republican Women's annual picnic in Hutchinson. 'That has been the dominant theme. I spoke with a 58-year-old woman forced to buy maternity coverage. I heard from a computer parts creator that was told : they had to put up a fence around their building.'
It isn't that Collin Peterson's voting record is that bad. It's that he chaired the powerful House Agriculture Committee but didn't push back against the EPA's regulations. When you're in a position of leadership, people in your district need you to lead.
If Sen. Westrom is elected, there's no question whether he'll fight the EPA against some of these idiotic regulations. I'd bet the ranch that he'll go toe-to-toe with the EPA...and win most of the time. That's just who Torrey Westrom is.
There's no question whether he'd want to start over on health care reform. He's seen MNsure work like crap. Similarly, he knows that HealthCare.gov failed, too. Most importantly, he's heard from people in the district that the ACA isn't affordable. Whether the website works or doesn't is irrelevant if the policies are too expensive.
With an insufficient energy infrastructure in place, Westrom wonders why the Keystone Pipeline hasn't been built. 'It's so common sense I don't know why it isn't built yet,' he said.
Westrom said the pipeline will also help move propane and grain, which will be valuable with rail cars harder to connect to, especially now that the Benson Pipeline is no longer in use. 'I'm worried that the propane crisis could come again, and worse,' he said.
There's the Westrom agenda: regulatory reform, coupled with starting over with patient- and family-centered health care, followed by rebuilding America's outdated energy infrastructure.
Those are three things that the 7th District needs badly. What it doesn't need is a congressman who's resting on his laurels instead of fighting for his district. This November, people in the 7th will have their opportunity to correct that.
Posted Monday, July 14, 2014 11:42 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 14-Jul-14 09:47 PM
Based on what I saw and Heard from Torrey Westom at the MN GOP convention, I am impressed and strongly endorse him.
IFO asks tough questions
This afternoon, I was sent a copy of a letter that Jim Grabowska sent to MnSCU Chancellor Steven Rosenstone about MnSCU's hiring of McKinsey and Co. as consultants. Grabowska is the president of the Inter Faculty Organization, aka the IFO. Here's part of Grabowska's letter:
You can well imagine our dismay this morning when we found out about the $2 million contract that existed with McKinsey to support Charting the Future. We are writing to ask what the firm actually did for the $2 million they collected from Minnesota taxpayers and students. What assessment/criteria lead to the conclusion that the System Office needed a consultant firm to assist staff on implementation? Of specific concern is why it was determined before our collective internal implementation teams were even formed, or allowed to make recommendations for an implementation plan.
What's disappointing (infuriating?) is that the IFO president asked more probing questions in that paragraph than the St. Cloud Times reporters have asked of President Potter since he was hired years ago.
The IFO asked substantive questions that question Chancellor Rosenstone's justification for hiring McKinsey in that paragraph in a respectful fashion. Here's more from the IFO's letter:
From the story in the Pioneer Press, it sounds like consultants were hired on January 2nd, began work in March and finished in June. What could they have done in three or four months that wasn't noticed but was worth $2 million?
I suspected that this consulting contract wasn't legitimate. The fact that the IFO is questioning what McKinsey did to earn the money highlights why they're questioning Rosenstone's decision. There's nothing that I've seen that suggests McKinsey's work product was worth $2,000,000.
In the article, you justify the expenditure by saying students and their families might save $14 million if 10% of the students graduate faster. The problem is there is no indication that the $2 million spent will result in $14 million of savings -- or any savings at all.
In the past decade, MnSCU has spent money by the tens of millions on IT consultants that claimed they would create efficiencies that would result in efficiencies for students -- student tuitions still continued to skyrocket. The only savings we have seen for students in recent years came from the legislative buy down of tuition rates.
As much as this letter is an indictment of Chancellor Rosenstone, it's an indictment of MnSCU's trustees and the chairs of the higher education committees the past few years. This has been a bipartisan failing, with Bud Nornes and Michelle Fischbach failing to conduct proper oversight before Gene Pelowski and Terry Bonoff failed in their oversight responsibilities.
It's a frightening statement that the IFO's oversight of MnSCU outdistances the oversight provided by the MnSCU Trustees and the higher ed committees in the legislature. Combined.
At this point, it's reasonable to ask whether MnSCU serves as anything more than another do-nothing bureaucracy. Further, it's reasonable to ask whether the higher ed committees' leadership pays attention to anything other than appropriating money. I haven't seen proof that they've paid attention to what's happening at MnSCU or the universities.
Taxpayers can't afford this consistent nonchalance from Chancellor Rosenston, the Trustees or the higher ed committee chairs. Their performance, or lack thereof, has been infuriating.
UPDATE: Here's the IFO's letter to Chancellor Rosenstone:
Originally posted Tuesday, July 15, 2014, revised 16-Jul 12:28 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 16-Jul-14 04:22 PM
Great letter by the IFO president. If the CEO of a private sector company did what Rosenstone did by spending $2 million on consultants in secrecy, the CEO would be terminated.
SEIU-BMS corruption alert
Hollee Saville just published this information on her Facebook page:
With breakneck speed, the BMS has set the mail-ballot election for SEIU's attempted unionization of home care providers to begin on Friday, August 1. DHS and SEIU are prohibited from the unfair labor and election practices for which SEIU is often known. If you are threatened, coerced, or harassed in any way, please contact the police and the BMS and please let us know so we can keep a record of it. Please share this information with EVERY PCA you know so that they know that they can vote NO to unionize.
We are trying to set up mailings and phone calls to inform PCAs. If you would like to help with this, please let Hollee know.
Here's the important "fine print":
Ballots will be mailed to each eligible employee at the home address supplied by the State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services, together with a letter of explanation and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope.
Ballots will be mailed on Friday, August 1, 2014, and must be returned to the Bureau of Mediation Services, 1380 Energy Lane, Suite 2, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-5253, in the envelopes furnished for that purpose in order to be counted.
Any eligible employee who has not received their ballot by Friday, August 8, 2014, must personally call the Bureau at (651) 649-5421 and request that a second ballot be mailed to them.
All ballots must be returned to the Bureau office no later than 4:30 pm on Monday, August 25, 2014.
http://mn.gov/bms/ELECTION--HOME%20HEALTH%20CARE%20PROVIDERS%20Order.pdf
To say that Hollee and others aren't sitting still is understatement. To say that the DFL, SEIU and AFSCME don't get it that this will hurt them this November is understatement. I published 4 articles written by child care providers who are Democrats who oppose SEIU's and AFSCME's unionization drive. See here , here , here and here .
After the Harris v. Quinn ruling, SEIU and AFSCME said that the ruling wouldn't prevent them from continuing their organizing drive. This news is proof they meant what they said. The thing is that the Harris v. Quinn ruling didn't say they couldn't organize. The heart of that ruling said that PCAs and others who are quasi-government employees couldn't be forced into paying dues or fair share fees.
This organizing drive is just reminding these small business owners that the DFL doesn't listen to them, that the DFL only listens to the special interests write big checks for their campaigns. The so-called party of the people is really the party of, by and for the elitists and special interests.
This organizing drive is proof that the DFL will always give a higher priority to bigger campaign contributions than it puts on doing the right thing. That's a sickening thought.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:09 AM
No comments.
Torrey Westrom's latest endorsement
About an hour ago, I got this email notification from the Torrey Westrom for Congress campaign:
Sen. Bill Weber Endorses Torrey Westrom for Congress
Cites Westrom's Integrity and Common Sense in Endorsement Statement
(ALEXANDRIA, Minn.) - Today, Torrey Westrom, candidate for Minnesota's 7th congressional District, announced the endorsement of Sen. Bill Weber (R-District 22), who has served with Westrom in the Minnesota Senate and cited the integrity and common sense Westrom would bring to Washington, D.C.
"I am honored to support Torrey Westrom for the Seventh District Congressional seat. His knowledge of the issues, his experience in St. Paul and his personal values make him an excellent choice to represent the people of the 7th District in Washington D.C.," Sen. Weber said in his endorsement statement. "Serving with him in the Minnesota Senate makes me confident that Torrey has the integrity and common sense that is sorely lacking in our nation's Capitol and which is needed now more than ever!"
"I am honored to have the endorsement of my friend and Senate colleague, Bill Weber, who knows that Washington could use a lot more of our Minnesota values," Westrom said. "The 7th District needs a representative who will fight government waste and overreach, while standing up for a balanced budget and common sense policies."
Westrom is a top recruit in the race to replace Collin Peterson, and was named one of the first 'Young Guns' in the 2014 election cycle by national Republicans. Westrom was dubbed 'Collin Peterson's worst nightmare' by the examiner.com , and Politico said, 'Peterson is expected to face a tough race in Minnesota's 7th District.'
It isn't that Collin Peterson's voting record is as far left as Keith Ellison's or Nancy Pelosi's. It's that he's a Blue Dog Democrat until Ms. Pelosi tells him to vote for a bill. That's why he flip-flopped on cap & trade legislation in 2009:
Peterson, the chairman, said Tuesday he voted for the bill only because he knew it wouldn't become law immediately. He had urged support for the bill after winning concessions that he said would benefit agriculture and ease the impact of higher energy costs on rural residents. 'In spite of the fact that they gave me everything I wanted in agriculture: it needs some more work,' he said.
Like I said then, how can a bill still need some work if then-Speaker Pelosi gave him everything Peterson wanted? Taking that sentence literally will give people intellectual whiplash. What's exceptionally understandable is that Cap & Trade would've sent electricity prices skyrocketing for hard-working farmers in the 7th District.
Rather than trying to figure out what Peterson is saying, the 7th would be better off with a straight shooter like Torrey Westrom. People won't need a decoder ring to figure out what Westrom is saying. With Westrom, what you see is what you get. That's just one reason to vote for him.
Yesterday, I wrote this post about Westrom's DC priorities:
There's the Westrom agenda: regulatory reform, coupled with starting over with patient- and family-centered health care, followed by rebuilding America's outdated energy infrastructure.
Those are three things that the 7th District needs badly. What it doesn't need is a congressman who's resting on his laurels instead of fighting for his district.
Federal regulators are hurting farmers in the 7th District. Collin Peterson hasn't fought the regulators. Torrey Westrom will. That alone is enough justification to vote for Torrey Westrom.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:35 PM
No comments.
Is border crisis hurting Democrats?
There are few political analysts I trust more than Michael Barone. I trust Mr. Barone because, in addition to being one of the best number crunchers in the business, he's a superb researcher. That's why I took note of what he wrote in this article :
A new Washington Post story quotes Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke as favoring 'greater emphasis on the interests of these children who are refugees from extreme violence' instead of 'an acceleration of the deportation process at the expense of these children.' But the Post reporters note that 'O'Rourke added that he has been surprised by the anger he has heard toward the immigrants of many of his El Paso constituents, who ?feel like we can't take care of everyone, and these children and their families are gaming the system.'' O'Rourke's district, which includes most of El Paso County, is 79 percent Hispanic.
That's stunning. When Hispanics are upset with the flood of illegal immigrants, that's a sign that this issue isn't hurting Republicans or helping Democrats. Here's Mr. Barone's observation on that:
Democrats are trying to blame the situation on House Republicans' refusal to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. That seems pretty lame: There's nothing in the bill the Senate passed in June 2013 that addressed this particular situation. As this article in the Hill makes plain, perhaps despite the writer's intention, this is a troublesome situation for Democrats whose names are on the ballot this fall.
In past elections, Democrats did a good job convincing Hispanics that Republicans were anti-immigration. That led to Democrats winning the Hispanic vote by a wide margin. The border crisis exposed Democrats as not caring about securing the border. That's hurt Democrats with independent and Hispanic voters.
While the American people generally favor immigration reform in the abstract, they demand fairness and the rule of law. In this influx of illegal immigrants, they're seeing neither fairness or the rule of law. It' more than that, though.
As these illegal immigrants get sent to cities across the country, a nasty case of NIMBYism is settling in:
In the other, Lovelace quotes the chief of staff of the mayor of Lynn, Mass., about how many Guatemalan 'children' were sent there and placed in public schools. 'Some of them have had gray hair and they're telling you that they're 17 years old and they have no documentation,' the official is quoted as saying.
Part of this is due to these illegal border crossers not being children. Another part of this is that cities are getting stuck with the bill from an unexpected influx of people. Mostly, though, they juts don't want to have to deal with the problem. It's one thing when they're someone else's problem. It's another when they're your problem.
If Democrats, including President Obama, don't work towards fixing this crisis, it'll be high profile proof that they're incapable of governing. That's the worst accusation to hit an incumbent with during election season. If people think that politicians aren't interested in or are incapable of governing, the other things don't matter.
This is a tipping point moment for Democrats, especially if they're on the ballot this fall. If they don't provide real leadership on this issue, they'll be hurt this fall.
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:41 PM
No comments.
