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.

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.

Patriotism as decoration ...

Some candidates wear their patriotism on their sleeve ... or their lapel, to be more accurate. Whether or not they love their country is determined by whether or not they have a flag pinned to their jacket.

Some candidates parade their patriotism around as if it were required by the Constitution. Or as if it were a contest to see who loves America more.

Sometimes I wonder why the race for the presidency often turns into a fight over which candidate loves the country more ... or which candidate hates it more. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard some talking head ask, "Why does Barack Obama hate America?" Of course the question assumes that Barack Obama hates America. It's kind of like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" There's not good way to answer it.

Sen. John McCain has positioned himself as a God-fearing, America-loving veteran, whose record of patriotism could not be questioned. After all, he was a prisoner of war. And that brings with it some assumptions, too. The assumption being that since John McCain was a prisoner of war - and just as importantly, that he was a veteran of war - that he must love this great republic of ours more than some guy whose name rhymes with Osama.

Interesting that four years ago, the same assumptions did not hold true. Democrats figured that nominating John Kerry - a veteran of Viet Nam himself - would give them the patriotic edge over George W. Bush, who not only did not serve ... he disappeared during 'Nam. That edge never held true because of the trump card that Democrats didn't figure on: Republicans are automatically more patriotic than Democrats (at least according to talk radio).

In fact, while George W. Bush's record of non-service seemed okay with the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh ... John Kerry's documented service was was questioned by the same types ... with a lot of help from a group of professional reputational hitmen, "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth."

It was so successful, that the term "Swiftboat" was immediately added to the American lexicon, defined as "successfully lie about someone or something."

At the time, John McCain spoke out against the "Swiftboat" group. Now, he's hired one of them to work on his own campaign. Hmm.

Meanwhile, Gen. Wesley Clark - an Obama supporter - said "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Of course, the GOP and McCain himself were all upset by the comment, demanding a retraction or apology from Clark. You can't, after all, question a war hero.

Funny, the Republican party always comes up with these strange rules: You can't question the president in the time of war. You can't say anything negative about America outside her borders. You can't tell the truth about their nominee if it puts him in a bad light. Etc ...

How long until they start calling Wesley Clark. How long until I hear, "Why does Wesley Clark hate America?"

Not long, I'd guess. After all, he can't be patriotic, he only spent 34 years in the Army.

Speculation as news ...

You'll often hear people say they wish they could be a weatherman; only get it right half the time and still pick up a full paycheck. Heck, you might have said it yourself at some point. I'm sure I have.

But I have a better gig for you, with even a lower success rate necessary. Become a political pundit.

As a political junkie, I probably read more news on politics and the political process than any 10 people I know. Some of these stories are well thought out and make perfect sense. But often times, they are the political pipe dreams of people who have no clue about history or tradition.

In the past 24 hours, for example, I've read stories about why John McCain not only should, but WILL, drop out of the race for president ... and why the odds say that Barack Obama will pick Republican Chuck Hagel as his running mate.

Now I have no crystal ball. I can't say what will or won't happen. But I can tell you that I'd put good money up against either one of those "predictions."

See, while a weather man has to be right half the time, a political pundit only has to be right once. Just once. Ever. And he can for the rest of his life brag about it. Kind of like your buddy who caught that one touchdown in the state championship 30 years ago who feels the need to remind you during every Bills game - in order to legitimize his criticism of JP Losman.

I have no problem with fantasy. (although if Chuck Hagel and John McCain ever appear in one of my fantasies, I'm suing someone. This gentleman prefers blondes, thank you). I do however, have a problem with taking the least likely scenario and turning it into news.

It's as though these media types sit around smoking pot going, "Man, wouldn't it be totally awesome if Barack Obama picked a Republican running mate? Like that dude from Nebraska ... um Chuck Hagel? Yeah, and then he would totally win every electoral vote out there."

Come morning, they wake up with the munchies and vague memories of their conversation the night before ... but the thought lingers ... and even though no longer high, they still think it sounds like a great idea. Except somewhere along the line they forget that it was a half-baked (or all-baked as the case may be) pipe dream ... and write a column proclaiming that it's going to happen.

See, here's the great part for them: If they're wrong, no one remembers or cares. But if they're right, they're some sort of national heroes amongst the talking heads of the political world.

And worse yet, when they do get one right, it legitimizes every other all-baked scheme they've had ... and makes them "go-to" commentators in the future. So when they comment in 2032 Chelsea Clinton is going to choose the ghost of Walt Disney as her running mate, people will buy into it as though it were gospel.

Imagine if the weather man were only right once. Once ever. How long do you think he'd last?