home

Suckers?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:09:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

d-day writes:

TPM reports that immigrants rights advocates and their allies in Congress will not block health care legislation that could include harsh anti-immigrant provisions, so long as they extract a promise on comprehensive immigration reform. [. . ] It’s kind of unclear who’s saying what here. Leadership appears secure that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus won’t block the health care bill. There are some anonymous sources claiming that, as trade, they will accept a promise to move on the immigration bill.

(Emphasis supplied.) A promise from whom? Clearly not Obama, who, we have been told, has no power over the Congress. From Speaker Pelosi? Since Ben Nelson decides what legislation passes the Congress, unless the promise is also from him, it seems an empty promise. As d-day argues, "Given the risk-averse nature of this White House and Nancy Pelosi’s vow not to tackle controversial subjects in the House without the Senate going first, it’s puzzling why the CHC would accept any kind of promise as an iron-clad guarantee to move to a bill." Obviously so. Are the CHC members suckers? I think not. They know they are getting nothing. This is a fig leaf.

Speaking for me only

< Enemy Combatants And Criminal Trials: Is Obama Like Bush? | Comparison Of The House And Senate Health Bills >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Suckers? | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The CHC has known (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Pacific John on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    the score since the beginning, and that's why a large portion of the caucus refused to meet with bho when he sealed the nomination. They already knew they had lost.

    TPM's chorale of Anonymice speaking in one voice (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    I think the Biggest Sucker here is Christina Bellantoni at TPM:

    Democratic leadership aides believe that a firm White House promise of a comprehensive immigration bill will be enough to quell any House dissent.

    TPMDC sources have been telling us that members won't admit it publicly but they are ready to concede on immigration in the health care bill.

    Political aides in the White House have told key parties in Congress that President Obama wants to see a bill this year, and negotiations are under way for how it would be written.

    A source familiar with the negotiations between Congress and the White House told TPMDC the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will demand an agreement from Obama that health care coverage for illegals who earn a path to citizenship will be addressed in an immigration bill.

    [...] Those familiar with the talks say any immigration legislation will include various amnesty provisions to allow for health care coverage.

    Lawmakers want to be careful they aren't viewed as giving up on a key goal, but have said they are confident the White House is being honest that Obama wants to see a comprehensive bill this year.

    A source told us that members who have championed immigration reform "aren't actually conceding, just changing tactics" to secure coverage for illegal immigrants whatever way they came.

    Oh brother. If Obama can get a Nobel Peace Prize for escalating a war, than surely this piece of work deserves a Pulitzer.

    Yep, a little kabuki theater for (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    their constituents. A promise for something to be done soon. A promise that they can run on in 2010 and again in 2012. Kinda of like fixing FISA, the health insurance legislation and DADT and DOMA. We will fix it after the next election and the next and the next.  

    And see--we kept out promise (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    (didn't we????)-transgender appointment to Commerce Dept.  

    Parent
    John Cole's take (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    "Change is happening. We're just arguing with each other about the pace."  (BJ)

    Fierce advocate, Mr. Cole.

    Parent

    Don't forget the lesbian (none / 0) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:51:31 PM EST
    U.S. Marshall that was just appointed. Two appointments. Wow. So  this is the pace at which a self-described "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights works.

    Speaking for me only (as the saying goes) I'd be happier with a little less "fierce advocate" and a little more actual results.

    How long before everyone realizes it really is "just words" from Obama on so many things. This promise from the president to the CHC is worth about as much as the paper I bet it is not written on.

    Parent

    Suckers indeed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 12:15:00 AM EST
    I have no hope left.
    This administration has managed to destroy the goodwill and belief I had in the Democratic party.

    I must confess I viewed the Republicans as near-evil, but the Democrats are quickly turning into Demoncrats.

    I know, I was probably naive. The good thing is that I will never vote for someone just because they have a D before their name, and I will vote against anyone who betrays the ideals the Democratic party supposedly stands for.

    It's amazing how much of this year (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    has involved "getting to no."

    Yep....Suckers.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    if immigrant rights groups buy this "promise",  they must also trust that Blimpy will surely pay them next Tuesday for a hamburger today.

    There really is one born every minute.

    Blimpy (none / 0) (#10)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    The payment-on-Tuesday routine was a favorite in our house when I was growing up. Thanks for the reminder. Nonetheless...I presume that the immigrant rights representatives will make the appropriate decision in their own interests. I would not presume to tell those representatives that native-born me is somehow smarter, wiser, etc. (Seriously, there are lots of interrelated issues within this supposedly singular issue. Listening to some of my Latino friends in the Denver area, I trust the decision of the Congressional group.)

    Parent
    No doubt.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 06:16:36 PM EST
    and they will have to answer to the people that pay the light bill if the groups don't deliver for immigrants.

    Looks like we're all gonna end up screwed in some shape or form from this healthcare bill anyways, welcome to the American experience my immigrant friends, I assure there you there are some perks to be found:)

    Parent

    I'm positive (none / 0) (#15)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 06:30:41 PM EST
    Whether or not it is fashionable to diss health care legislation, what we have found out once again is how difficult any change really is.  I'm positive, very positive that some change seems likely to happen. Expansion to 31 million not presently insured; regulatory changes that have been needed for a long time; opening up of the federal exchange system; subsidization assistance; etc. People want different things; some people want the whole loaf (and that would be great). By my analysis, what we may finally realize in this year is the "half-loaf." And that, friend, is what compromise and building is all about. I find that positive change--and definitely one hell of a lot better than what we have now or what we would have by insisting on the whole. (Lets wait a year and see who feels screwed when all the organized anger subsides?)

    Parent
    I've been wondering why various (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    Dem congresscritters have been saying immigration reform is next on the slate. Did not make any sense to me. Now it does, as a fig leaf. I cannot belief they really want an immigration reform fight in an election year.

    Good point... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    about an immigration bill in a election year...could be evidence of a pre-planned double-cross.

    Parent
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#11)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    Take a look at demographics in the several western states (as well as Florida.) And, remember that turnout in the off-year is key. One way of thinking: If you consider that you have lost the "teapartiers" and the militant anti-immigrant types, why not focus on voter initiatives in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, etc. After all, talk of comprehensive reform is not new (even Bush and Rove talked about it); there is a certain amount of acclimation and--in that view--the antis aren't growing. Recall that it is minority populations that are growing.

    Parent
    Great point if we were talking about (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 07:42:39 PM EST
    a Democratic party that had the intellect and communication skills to make immigration justice argument to the people. We do not have that party. We have a party of intellectual cowards.

    Parent
    oops...hit enter too soon (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 07:44:58 PM EST
    We have a party that backs down when Lou Dobbs bellows and will not fight for their ideas in the public forum. They will put off a fight as long as they think they can get away with it.

    Parent
    Also a good point... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    but now I'm nervous at how they could butcher an immigration reform bill to appease the big money interests.

    Parent
    Suckers? | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment