Amid crises, Obama declares war -- on Arizona

[futurebeachbum]

From the article at the San Francisco Examiner:

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president's agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer's call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border.
....
First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department's intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. "It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us," Brewer told Fox News' Greta van Susteren last week, "they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens ... of another nation."

But they didn't.

You'd think after 8 years of 'W' I'd be used to the fact that Administrations basically screw up every thing that they do. I don't know why I'm surprised.

 

[30ashopper]

It's all about the votes in November. Business as usual in Washington.

 

[futurebeachbum]

It's all about the votes in November. Business as usual in Washington.

I don't understand how that gets votes.

Most of America wants the borders secured and immigration fixed (including a lot of the President's blue collar support.)

How does the Administration overtly signaling that they have no intention of dealing with immigration or securing the borders get votes in November?

 

[BeachSiO2]

I don't understand how that gets votes.

Most of America wants the borders secured and immigration fixed (including a lot of the President's blue collar support.)

How does the Administration overtly signaling that they have no intention of dealing with immigration or securing the borders get votes in November?

It's not about getting votes. It's about preserving votes. This will help secure the Hispanic vote. I am not saying that the Hispanic vote would have switched to the GOP, they might have just stayed home. The Dems need them to vote.

 

[futurebeachbum]

It's not about getting votes. It's about preserving votes. This will help secure the Hispanic vote. I am not saying that the Hispanic vote would have switched to the GOP, they might have just stayed home. The Dems need them to vote.

He might preserve some of the Hispanic vote, but Black voters are pretty unhappy about illegal immigrants.

 

[BeachSiO2]

He might preserve some of the Hispanic vote, but Black voters are pretty unhappy about illegal immigrants.

I don't disagree, but what are the chances that more black votes would be lost on this issue versus Hispanic votes. It also puts the GOP in a tough spot, especially in border states like Texas where the Hispanic vote is upwards of 30%. Not to mention that larger corporations and Chamber of Commerce's will be supportive of the administration's move putting more pressure on pro-business R's. It's a risk, but strategically I think it's a good move for Dems.

 

[futurebeachbum]

I don't disagree, but what are the chances that more black votes would be lost on this issue versus Hispanic votes. It also puts the GOP in a tough spot, especially in border states like Texas where the Hispanic vote is upwards of 30%. Not to mention that larger corporations and Chamber of Commerce's will be supportive of the administration's move putting more pressure on pro-business R's. It's a risk, but strategically I think it's a good move for Dems.

It puzzles me why Hispanic voters who have gone to the trouble to come here legally (or be born here) would be so in favor of illegal immigration. The porous border causes a lot of the drug violence issues in Mexico and many of those legal or native Hispanics are in competition with illegals for jobs and benefits.

I guess its all part of the "Reconquista" effort.

 

[happy2Bme]

"We, the people" voted for this dipstick! And, as usual, when everything goes awry, we blame the one we voted for for failing to live up to our realistic/unrealistic expectations. I'm not defending current leadership, or any prior leadership either. Nor am I defending or brow-beating one party over another.....I'm just pointing out that "we" need to do a better job of not being caught up, every four years, in believing (like love-struck schoolgirls) the medial-fueled hype that purports that "our new and improved candidate" (who looks good, but is still a dipstick) is better than the previous candidate (who we are now convinced is a dipstick). That said, I still think that an ineffective, pompous, and logically incompetent pathetic government/governmental leader is still better than anarchy. But, of course, I could be wrong......

 

[futurebeachbum]

"We, the people" voted for this dipstick! And, as usual, when everything goes awry, we blame the one we voted for for failing to live up to our realistic/unrealistic expectations. I'm not defending current leadership, or any prior leadership either. Nor am I defending or brow-beating one party over another.....I'm just pointing out that "we" need to do a better job of not being caught up, every four years, in believing (like love-struck schoolgirls) the medial-fueled hype that purports that "our new and improved candidate" (who looks good, but is still a dipstick) is better than the previous candidate (who we are now convinced is a dipstick). That said, I still think that an ineffective, pompous, and logically incompetent pathetic government/governmental leader is still better than anarchy. But, of course, I could be wrong......

While its true that the final candidates have been consistently bad and lackluster, under the current system, the public has little or no influence on who the candidates they chose from are in the primaries. For a candidate to make the primary he/she has to have significant 'investors' behind them.

We all know what they have to do to secure and keep those investors financing them. That's why you wait 57 days after an investor causes an incident to address it or apologize to them from your Committee position on TV

We are screwed well before the election system rolls around.

 

[happy2Bme]

While its true that the final candidates have been consistently bad and lackluster, under the current system, the public has little or no influence on who the candidates they chose from are in the primaries. For a candidate to make the primary he/she has to have significant 'investors' behind them.

We all know what they have to do to secure and keep those investors financing them. That's why you wait 57 days after an investor causes an incident to address it or apologize to them from your Committee position on TV

We are screwed well before the election system rolls around.

I agree with all that you say.....we're left to choose from one doof or another. It is up to us to decide the lesser of the evils. Great system, huh?