Immigration reform may actually happen — or not

I’m really excited this week because there is a new topic in the world of politics. I was getting a bit brain-numb on the topics of gun control and the economy so this new order of business snuck in just in time.

After years of doing not-much on the issue, Congress has decided to tackle the problem of immigration reform. A “gang of eight” — consisting of Republicans Mark Rubio of Florida, Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Michael Bennet of Colorado and New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer — have come together to tackle the issue just as a majority of Americans say they want the issue addressed.

Over the weekend it was announced that a new new Associated Press-GfK poll has found that more than 60 percent of Americans now favor allowing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country. That's a huge jump from just two years ago when  only 50 percent supported the idea.

“We have a long way to go, but this bipartisan blueprint is a major breakthrough,” Schumer said Monday, adding the Senate could pass the bill by late spring or summer.

Democrats, of course, have pushed for immigration reform for a long time. Republicans, it would seem, have decided to join them in this effort because they’re realized that they have a reputation as the “old white-guy party” and old white guys are dwindling in numbers compared to women and minorities.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put in a subtle jab at the GOP, while thanking them for their change in position on the subject. “(Democrats) have been doing this alone,” he said. “It’s good to have some friends and partners in this effort.”

Even Karl Rove is praising this bipartisan effort. In what I would call a rare moment of candor, he even acknowledges that it will “bear some political fruit” for the GOP.

In November, President Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic, while Mitt Romney gained just 27 percent of that demographic. And worse for Republicans, 89 percent of the GOP vote overall was from whites, while 11 percent was from non-whites. Comparatively, Obama’s vote was 56 percent white and 44 percent non-white.

In other words, if the GOP had actually pulled some votes from people other than old white guys, they might have had a shot in 2012. And they’re hoping that if they dust off their image and come out as being more forward thinking on the immigration issue, they might increase their odds in 2016.

And if I can figure this out, surely Chuck Schumer and the brass in the Democratic Party can do the same. Which makes me wonder if they’ll consider putting a poison pill in the eventual legislation — something Republicans will hate — forcing the rank-and-file members of the Grand Old Party to vote it down, thereby allowing the Democrats to claim they fought for immigration reform but they couldn’t win against those dastardly Republicans.

Sadly politics means looking for the bad in everything good.

Scott Leffler thinks immigration reform would be good. But he’s not holding his breath. If he does hold his breath, he’ll update his Twitter — @scottleffler.

GOP will have to pick a side and go with it

It doesn’t seem to matter what you do in life, you’ll always second guess yourself. Maybe you should have stuck with something longer. Or quit something earlier. Maybe you should have taken that job at that place. Or gone to graduate school.

Looking back on life, it’s usually easy to see how you got where you are. It has been a straight line, after all. Even if it didn’t seem it at the time. But when you reached those forks in the road, you had to pick a direction. And you wonder if you picked correctly.

The Republican Party now finds itself at just such a fork.

The “conservative” or “tea party” wing of the party believes that they lost the presidential election because their candidate, Mitt Romney, wasn’t conservative enough. This, they feel, caused “the base” to be reluctant to turn out to vote, which, in turn hurt other Republican candidates and causes.

The more moderate (or liberal, if you will) side of the Republican Party believes that it’s actually those uber-conservative ideals which hurt them in this election cycle. Many have said that they feel they have been painted with a very wide brush that makes them look as though they're uncompromising and hard to get along with.

So you have two sides of a political coin, if you will. And it’s currently in the air waiting to come down heads or tails.

My personal belief is that the tea party wing of the party overplayed their hand and got hurt because of it. When you give ultimatums as they have made a habit of doing, you have only two options: everything goes your way or nothing does. They had gotten used to getting what they wanted and have no idea how to handle the current situation where they may very well get nothing.

That would be all well and good if they learned that lesson. But they seem to feel — as evident from Grover Norquist’s appearance on “Meet the Press” this past weekend — that the problem wasn’t their unwillingness to budge. The problem was that they weren’t strong enough.

Norquist predicted that there will be a huge resurgence of the tea party in 2014 if the president takes us over “the fiscal cliff.” He’s calling for the GOP to stand firm and refuse to cave to the White House’s demands for tax increases as part of a budget compromise.

I’m not sure if Norquist is bluffing or if he really believes that, but I think the GOP has painted itself into a corner and missed the memo that the nation as a whole took a left turn at the last election.

Of course, only time will tell. And when we look back on it, it will all make sense. Hindsight is 20-20, of course.

Scott Leffler can not see the future. This column is intended as entertainment only. All rights reserved. And other legal mumbo jumbo. Call your doctor if you feel more columns are right for you. And be sure to follow Scott on Twitter @scottleffler — as long as your doctor says it’s OK.

The more they talk, the less I listen

Maybe I’m growing into a curmudgeon.

I’m not sure how I feel about that, really. I don’t want to be the old guy yelling at kids to stay off of his lawn. That guy’s crazy.

Yet, I have a feeling that there’s a bit of wisdom embedded in my curmudgeon-ness.

Last week the Republican National Convention was televised for the world to see. I’m not sure how much of the world watched, but I didn’t. Not one bit. I saw clips on the news and watched Clint Eastwood’s “conversation” with Invisible Barack Obama on YouTube, but I made no effort to watch any of the convention live on TV. And I don’t feel guilty about it.

This week, the Democrats have their turn and — likewise — I don’t care. I have no need to watch a bunch of rich people (yes, all Congressmen are rich in my book, not just the GOP) tell me how they’re going to fix the mess they created. Especially given the fact that I don’t even think they believe the words that are coming out of their mouths.

I suppose I could watch for entertainment value, but I get no joy out of watching my country disintegrate before my eyes in high definition. I have a feeling the Dems will have Betty White talk to a stuffed shirt or something — to combat the empty chair theatrics of Dirty Harry — but I’ll catch it on YouTube or something if I have to.

Truth of the matter is, the further along this process goes, the more powerless I feel … the more I want to tell all those clowns in DC (and Albany for that matter) to get the hell off my lawn. They are, after all, just as juvenile as the children I’ll someday be swinging a cane at as they cut through on their way to do whatever it is kids do these days.

While you wouldn’t be able to tell based on the campaign rhetoric and the hateful posts my friends and relatives are making on social media, the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than not alike. They are two sides of the same coin. Scary to think, but Ralph Nader was right — about that at least.

Both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney agree that the ongoing war in Afghanistan is a good thing. They both support the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, the TSA, unmanned drones spying on whoever they determine to be the enemy (including us) the Dept. of Homeland Security and Guantanamo Bay. In other words, they both support the police state — against we the people.

Personally, I believe in freedom, a concept I fear that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have even the slightest understanding of. Asking me to choose between the two is akin to asking me whether I’d like to be drawn and quartered or hanged. It’s time we stopped choosing between the lesser of two evils and started choosing good.

So I make no apologies for ignoring the Hollywood productions put on by the “heads” and “tails” parties. I only wish that come November, more people would tell them to get off their lawns.

Scott Leffler is a curmudgeon. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler. Also, stay off his lawn.

Can the GOP please flip the ticket?

I was a bit confused that Mitt Romney announced (via leak) his new running mate late Friday night. It was as though he didn’t want anyone to know. Friday night is when government types release data they want to hide — not when they announce their running mate for the road to the White House.

The official announcement was no better — a Saturday morning on the penultimate day of the 2012 Summer Olympics — when anyone who might actually be watching TV was most likely watching America win at life. If you wanted to watch the Olympics and it got pre-empted by politicians, would you be more or less inclined to vote for them?

My favorite Mark Twain impersonator and TV meteorologist, Mike Randall, suggested to me via Twitter that maybe the plan was “designed to take over the Sunday news shows.” Maybe he’s right, but I don’t tend to think of “real” people as watching those shows. And really, it’s real people that Romney needs to win over.

That leads me to believe that either Romney is embarrassed by his new running mate … or he’s just really bad at this whole “running for president” thing. Considering he introduced his selection as “the next president of the United States,” I’m inclined to think it’s the latter, which is exactly why I’m excited he’s added Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to the ticket as his VP candidate.

I’m not a huge fan of Ryan’s fundamental principles, but at least I’m aware of the fact that he has fundamental principles, unlike Romney. Oddly, though, Romney announced his disagrees with the thing Ryan is most known for — his budget plan — which conservatives love and liberals hate.

In other words, Romney tried to buy some conservative credibility by partnering up with Ryan, while distancing himself from the thing which would help the most in that aspect. Put another way, Romney wants to ride Ryan’s coattails and denounce his core philosophy — simultaneously.

Again, I say, Romney is really bad at this whole “running for president” thing.

It makes me wish the ticket were flipped. I’d much rather see this a Ryan/Romney ticket than Romney/Ryan. At least then I would know what it stood for — even if it was something I don’t myself support.

Until recently, I had been mentally comparing the Romney campaign with the McCain campaign of four years ago. He seemed clueless and flailing. A decent guy (maybe) who had no idea what to do when put on the national stage and whose handlers should have all been fired.

It has come to my attention, however, that maybe Romney is actually John Kerry circa 2004. He a wishy-washy flip flopper with little charisma and no real plan for the future, hoping to energize his campaign with a younger better looking rising star from within in party.

I went with a friend (and former Greater Niagara News employee) David Winters to see John Edwards speak in Rochester in 2004. He was impressive. He was put together. He was enigmatic. He was apparently too good for the Democrats.

ASIDE: As a reminder, I supported Howard Dean in 2004 then dropped the Democratic party because they freaked out over “the scream.” I didn’t want to be associated with a big bunch of losers. So now I’m a registered Libertarian — a much smaller bunch of losers.

Long story short (I know, too late), it’s nice to see someone with principles in the race. Even if they’re principles I disagree with.

Scott Leffler would have rather written about #SharkWeek but then Mitt Romney went and announced a running mate. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler where you can find the Twitter handles for everyone mentioned in this column.

Rich gay rodeo clowns and the people who love them

I find it mildly interesting that President Barack Obama took the occasion last week to come out in defense of gay marriage — kind of.

But I found the reaction to it incredibly interesting. It is proof that sometimes you just can’t please anyone.

First out of the box was the looney left, complaining that he didn’t come out far enough. They wanted him to declare that he was in favor of gay marriage and offer to draft a Constitutional Amendment which he would then force Congress and the states to approve — at gunpoint if necessary. 

They were disappointed in Obama’s wishy-washy-ness. In essence, what the president really said was that while he doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage, it’s really up to the states to decide. 

Many viewed this as a sellout, in the same way that they viewed Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to be a sellout, as well. But they forget that DADT eventually resulted in the free and clear allowance of gays serving in the military. It was a watershed moment for the gay movement and at the time the left didn’t see it, although the right did.

Once the left was out of hot air, the rabid right jumped in saying that President Obama was out to ruin marriages and turn the United States into a land owned and operated exclusively by homosexuals.

My favorite bit was one where many on the right seemed to state that Obama was jumping out in favor of gay marriage in order to curry the gay vote — as though there were a chance they were going to support Romney — or to raise money from gay marriage advocates. 

Then there were the president’s advisors and prominent elected Democrats who were upset that the president would take such a risk in an election year. They publicly stated that they wished the president would have waited to make such an announcement until after the election, seemingly believing that he has the election in the bag.

Personally, I find the president’s statement to be a bit underwhelming. To find out that there’s a Democrat who supports gay marriage is akin to finding out that high school students can be cruel.

Which leads me to the big reveal on Mitt Romney: When he was in high school he mocked and harassed some kids that he believed to have been gay.

While bullying and harassment are NOT okay, everyone knows that they are prominent in high schools across America. And everyone should know that they used to be even more prominent. So to find out that the boy with the silver spoon used to harass people he viewed as different just isn’t that shocking.

Personally, I don’t care that Mitt Romney used to be a jerk. Short of murder or arson, I don’t really care what any of the candidates did in their teen years. I know that I had certain shortcomings when I was a teen. I grew out of them. I’m sure that to an extent, they did, too.

An argument can be made that “it goes to show character,” but I think that’s hogwash. Mitt Romney proudly displays his character on his shirt sleeve. That’s what we’re voting on: who he is now. Not who he was decades ago.

Democrats support gay marriage. Rich kids can be cruel. And the sun rose today. None of those things are news. And frankly, they only serve as a distraction from the real issues.