Bottom Line on Immigration Reform

From “Immigration reform heads for slow death,” Mike Allen and Jim VendeHei, Politico:

“Republicans walked away from their 2012 debacle hell-bent on fixing their problems with Hispanics. Now, they appear hell-bent on making them worse.

“In private conversations, top Republicans on Capitol Hill now predict comprehensive immigration reform will die a slow, months-long death in the House. Like with background checks for gun buyers, the conventional wisdom that the party would never kill immigration reform, and risk further alienating Hispanic voters, was always wrong — and ignored the reality that most House Republicans are white conservatives representing mostly white districts.

“These members, and the vast majority of their voters, couldn’t care less whether Marco Rubio, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove say this is smart politics and policy.”

So we see the conflict between the GOP winning the House and winning the Senate and the White House.  For now, that conflict is nowhere near getting solved.  Fine with me…
The calculation after 2012 from national strategists like Rove was that the GOP couldn’t waiver on abortion.  In fact, the famous post-mortem the RNC did on the election doesn’t even mention abortion.  The plan was to continue to throw women under the bus and try to bring Hispanics on board, thinking that wouldn’t cost them the Evangelicals the way any moderation on abortion would.  So now there’s really no plan.

McCain’s Abortion Advice to GOP

John McCain says that when it comes to abortion, the GOP should “leave the issue alone” and focus on economic and national security issues.

This is what many of us would wish for the GOP, but it’s not going to happen.

Having gotten the Evangelicals all wee wee’d up about abortion since 1980, when it hadn’t really been a concern for them, it’s tough to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

Evangelicals May Not Like Mormons, But They Really Hate Gay Marriage

When Mitt spoke at the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University today, where he didn’t utter the word “Mormon,” the only standing ovation he got during his address was when he said that marriage is between one man and one woman.  I don’t know that the comment would have generated a standing ovation if President Obama hadn’t just come out for gay marriage.

Before 1980, many Evangelicals didn’t vote.  Their pastors told them that politics was sinful and to avoid it.  Even now, their turnout is always in question.  Will they show up?  They turned out for Bush 43, whom they saw as one of them despite his High Episcopal Connecticut roots, for John McCain, not so much.

In this year’s primaries and caucuses, Evangelicals didn’t support Mitt.  There’s been some concern about whether they will vote for a Mormon in November.  Not that they’ll support Obama instead, ain’t gonna happen, but that they’ll stay home.

But Obama’s support for gay marriage may have done for Mitt what he hasn’t been able to do for himself.  It may have gotten the Evangelicals enthusiastic about turning out.

Enough to change the result?  We’ll see.

If You Support the Buffet Rule, You’re a Sinner!

I’m beyond seeing red, I’m seeing something that isn’t in the normal spectrum, I’m hallucinating with outrage.

I got a mass email from a GOP politician saying that the Buffett Rule (those earning $1 million a year  or more should pay 30% in taxes) isn’t about “fairness” as President Obama says.   Noooooooo, it’s about “envy,” and envy is one of the “Seven Deadly Sins.”

So he wants to muscle the Evangelical base into believing that if they support the Buffett Rule, they are not just making a political choice about taxes, they are sinners, and Jesus is weeping, and they are going to Hell.  He neglects to mention that greed is on that list as well.

The Mafia is more subtle than this!

Reince Preibus and other GOP Powers That Be, I voted for Bush in 2004, I voted for McCain in 2008 (despite the moron running with him), but you have lost me, and I doubt you’ll ever get me back.  And it’s not me, it’s you.

If people are dumb enough to buy this, and Mitt wins, then they get what they deserve.  The one percent will be laughing at them over their Long Island Iced Teas at the Maidstone Club for the next four years.

Evangelicals, Abortion, and Birth Control

With the new-found, misguided GOP emphasis on contraception, I just wanted to remind everyone that when Roe v. Wade was first decided in 1973, Evangelicals didn’t initially make a fuss about it or take up abortion as an issue.  Their attitude was that it was a Catholic thing, and they didn’t much like Catholics.  They saw it as part of the Catholic opposition to birth control, and Evangelicals didn’t have a problem with birth control.

Given the huge issue Evangelicals make of abortion now, it is easy to forget that it wasn’t always like this.

Just as Evangelicals eventually followed  the Catholic lead on abortion, now they are doing the same thing with birth control.  That’s why we hear Gov. Huckabee saying at CPAC, “We are all Catholics now.”

But as the Evangelicals follow the Catholic bishops on contraception, I would ask them to pause and notice that Catholics don’t follow the Catholic bishops.  Do you really want to jump on the bandwagon of a doctrine that Catholics themselves overwhelmingly reject?

Don’t go there.

Those Who Don’t Remember the Past…

Those who don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it, which is what the GOP is doing now.

In 2008, many evangelical leaders publicly lamented that they hadn’t united behind Mike Huckabee to stop McCain.  In 2012, these same leaders don’t like Mitt Romney any more than they did McCain, yet what have they done to unite behind another candidate?  They’ve done way too little, way too late.

Mitt will win South Carolina, and skate to the nomination from there, because of the votes split among Newt and the two Ricks.  If there were one Newt Perrorum, he could defeat Mitt.

Mitt has been running for 2012 since the day he dropped out in 2008.  You think the conservatives/evangelicals would have been running too.

Quote of the Day

“But Santorum may be a bit too much of a sex cop even for many evangelicals, especially younger ones, and even for some of his fellow ultra-conservative Catholics.”*

I don’t agree that he’s a bit much for ultra-conservative Catholics, but he is for normal Catholics who don’t support the Taliban wing of the Vatican.

*Henrik Hertzberg, “Close Calls,” The New Yorker

No Soup for You, No Veep for Rudy

Rick Perry has promised Evangelical leaders that he won’t pick anyone pro-choice for his running mate.  Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008, Rudy is expected to endorse Perry once he gets past his 9/11 Tenth Anniversary ego trip, and there have been lots of whispers among the Great Mentioners that Rudy would be on Perry’s ticket.  Looks like Perry has to find another guy to woo the cross-dressing vote.