Politico:

Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio on Thursday declined to take a firm stance on a newly proposed bill in the state that would require immigrants to carry identification or face a 20-day jail sentence. The bill was unveiled Wednesday by Bill McCollum, the state’s Republican attorney general and a gubernatorial candidate. [. . .] “Arizona is going to want this law,” McCollum said, according to the St. Petersburg Times. “We're better, we're stronger, we're tougher and we're fairer.”

After the Arizona bill passed, Rubio said he had “concerns” that the measure could “unreasonably single out people who are here legally.” But when asked by POLITICO about Rubio’s stance on Florida’s proposal, which is in the same vein as Arizona’s, spokesman Alex Burgos offered a softer stance on the new bill. “He believes the best approach is for the federal government to deal with border security and immigration, and he hopes state efforts like Arizona are a wake-up call for Congress to get its act together,” Burgos said of Rubio.

It's tough to be a Latino Republican - you can't endorse hating yourself, but you can't really reject it either.

Speaking for me only

Via Glenn Reynolds, this Matt Welch piece from the libertarian Reason magazine gave me a chuckle:

The Death of Neoliberalism Pro-market Democrats disappeared just when we needed them most.

[. . .] I come here not to mourn Bill Clinton, nor to give him sole credit for accomplishments that would not have happened without a hostile Republican Congress, but rather to lament the mostly unremarked passing of the political movement that made his economic successes possible. [. . .] Come back, 1990s. All is forgiven.

Freaking hilarious. Is Reason magazine calling for the return of the Clinton tax plan of 1993? The one that raised the taxes of the rich and lowered it for the working poor? The funny thing is too many Dems, in their drive to demonize Hillary Clinton, forgot that Bill Clinton was the last President to raise taxes on the rich and lower them for the working poor. And apparently that amnesia spread to the libertarians at Reason. Too funny.

Speaking for me only

WaPo:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

If you think the deficit is the major issue facing the country, you should oppose this idea.

If you think the federal government needs to spend money to stimulate the economy, this tax cut for millionaires is a very bad idea. Sending the money to state governments so they don't fire policeman, firemen and teachers is the most effective stimulus.

The only reason to support this tax cut for millionaires is if you are in the business of fighting for millionaires - in other words, if you are a Republican.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum digs out this June 4, 2009 report by the NYTimes Stephen Labaton (when everyone was still optimistic about Dem political fortunes) that illustrates how Democrats lost the 2010 election:

President Obama took the opportunity in a bill-signing ceremony last month to remind Congress “to do what we were actually sent here to do — and that is to stand up to the special interests, and stand up for the American people.” But Mr. Obama did not mention that the measure he was signing, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, was missing its centerpiece: a change in bankruptcy law he once championed that would have given judges the power to lower the amount owed on a home loan.

It had been stripped out three weeks earlier in a showdown between Senate Democrats and the nation’s banks, including many that are getting big government bailouts. [. . .] Throughout it all, the banks took advantage of the Obama administration’s seeming ambivalence. Despite its occasional populist rhetoric, the White House was conspicuously absent from weeks of pivotal negotiations this spring.

[More...]

NYTimes:

It was a dramatic but fitting start to an evening that brimmed with political defiance: about 5:45 p.m. Wednesday, as guests began strolling into the Plaza Hotel to celebrate Representative Charles B. Rangel’s 80th birthday party, former New York City Mayor David N. Dinkins turned to confront a heckler. “You know you are attending a party for a crook,” the man yelled.

At that, Mr. Dinkins, bastion of statesmanship and dignity, raised his middle finger at the man, displaying it for all to see, witnesses said.

Mr. Rangel himself seemed to capture the spirit of the event when looked out to the packed Grand Ballroom and shouted, “This damn sure ain’t no funeral, is it?” [. . .T]he state’s senior United States. senator, Charles E. Schumer, and the state’s attorney general and Democratic nominee for governor, Andrew M. Cuomo [. . .] showed up and spoke warmly about Mr. Rangel, steering clear of the ethics charges against him. “He has fought for New York through thick and thin,” Mr. Schumer said, as Mr. Rangel stood nearby on a stage. “We are so grateful and thankful for that.”

[S]igns of loyalty were everywhere. When Dionne Warwick turned to Mr. Rangel and began to sing “That’s What Friends Are For,” the entire crowd joined in with her.

(Emphasis supplied.) I'm with Charlie. Speaking for me only

I'm not sure what this dkos diarist was aiming at with his diary, but I think the important upshot of Left Flank pressure on FDR was that FDR moved to the Left as a result of the pressure. The apocryphal "make me do it" moments. In any event, if President Obama would react to Left Flank pressure the way FDR did, I would be content. Can we expect Obama to give this speech at the 2012 nominating convention?

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up. We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

Speaking for me only

Via kos, What the Florida GOP thinks of Latinos:

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum on Wednesday proposed tougher curbs against illegal migrants in his melting-pot state which he said would go "one step further" than a similar contested Arizona law.

[. . .] "Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens," added McCollum, accompanied by Representative Will Snyder. The legislation will require Florida law enforcement officials to check a suspected illegal immigrant's status in the course of a stop, or a violation of another law. [. . .] Florida, especially its southern portion, is a major U.S. migration destination for nationals from the Caribbean and Latin America, making it a cultural and racial melting-pot.

Feelin' the GOP love Latinos? What Latino in their right mind would ever be a Republican?

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes:

I’m generally skeptical of claims that lack of presidential action is the cause of legislative non-outcomes. In the case of immigration, there was a bipartisan congressional coalition behind reform and the key Republican members of that coalition decided to defect. The president can’t perform inception on Mitch McConnell and make him want to do this.

But on this specific issue, I think there’s reason to believe that presidential leadership would actually be counterproductive. [. . . W]hen Presidents insert themselves into legislative debates, that induces partisan polarization. Immigration has always been an issue that scrambles both parties coalitions, and I don’t think that’s changed today. A more polarized dynamic is only going to make reform harder to achieve. Of course the president would have a role in pushing a bill over the finish line, but success requires a starting baseline of genuine cooperation on the Hill.

I think that is generally wrong (political polarization happens irrespective of Presidential leadership) and it is clearly wrong with regards to the immigration issue.

The GOP hates Latinos and thus hates immigration period. They hated immigration reform when President Bush proposed it and they hated it when President Obama proposed it. Presidential leadership did not cause political polarization on immigration reform. GOP hatred of Latinos caused the political polarization on the issue.

Speaking for me only

This statement by Harry Reid has the Right up in arms:

“I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK,” Reid said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Do I need to say more?” he asked.

The Right was quick to trot out a Cuban-American to rebut:

I am the daughter of Cuban exiles who have seen first hand the failures of liberal and socialist policies in their native country. [. . .] My father looked at the platform of the republican party that endorsed small government, lower taxes, and strong defense, while the democrat party embraced Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, murderers and tyrants, as some sort of folk heroes, and endorsed larger and endorsed larger governments taking power away from the people.

(Emphasis supplied.) As the son of Cuban exiles, let me be the first to say that this is batsh*t insane. The "democrat" party embraced Che and Fidel? In what bizarro world does this person live in? Democrats have consistently denounced the tyranny in Cuba, to the point of imposing a counterproductive embargo on Cuba (JFK) and expanding it (Bill Clinton.) As I say, this is just batsh*t insanity.

Beyond that, the GOP, after a period of seeking to woo Latinos (see Rove, Karl) has now embraced xenophobic policies and statements that are, by any objective measure, attacks on Latinos. But in the strange world of the Wingnut, Che and Fidel are "democrat" stalwarts. The lunacy on the Right regarding Latinos continues.

Speaking for me only

Sen. Ted Stevens was not one of the surviors of last night's plane crash in Alaska that killed five persons.

Ex-NASA chief Sean O'Keefe and his teenage son were among the four survivors. More details on survivors and the crash here.

Stevens, 86, was the longest serving Republican senator in history. R.I.P., Sen. Stevens.

Among his legacies: Bringing to public attention the issue of the Government concealing exculpatory evidence in criminal trials.

This is my view only.

I am a big Charlie Rangel fan. And I do not believe for a second that Rangel's situation has any effect on any race in the country. I do not think Rangel should resign. He did nothing that was corrupt. And I think that Rangel's demand for a trial in the House Ethics Committee is completely appropriate. Let the chips fall. Anyway, here's what Rangel said today on the House floor.

I repeat, this is my view only and I do not speak for TalkLeft.

Lambert writes about the silly rumor running around that President Obama might tap the Secretary of State to be his running mate in 2012.

This is ridiculous for 8 million reasons (most of all Biden really has not mattered), but it got me to thinking about my own pet theory - that the Democratic Party needs Hillary as its Presidential candidate in 2016.

Some folks have taken the Secretary of State's discouraging statements about running in 2016 as the end of the story. I do not. After Hillary leaves the Secretary of State job in early 2013 (yes, she will), she'll be 64 years old. She won't be going back to the Senate and of course she could ride off into the political sunset. But she will know that the 2016 nomination is hers for the asking. But more than that, Dems will need Clinton to have the best chance to hold the White House in 2016. After 8 years of a Dem President, "change" won't be a card Dems can play (Brian Schweitzer could do it if change would be a viable theme for Dems, but it won't be.) Assuming that President Obama is reasonably popular in 2016, Biden will be 74, too old and frankly, he is not good enough of a pol to win. In the Dem stable, only Hillary can do it. Consider the stakes with me on the flip.