Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016


This should be the Republicans’ year.

Democrats need to defend 20 U.S. Senate seats, seven of which are in states Mitt Romney won, even as he lost to President Obama by nearly 5 million votes. The GOP only needs to win six of those seats to take control of the upper house of Congress.

In 2012, the party of Romney underperformed its presidential nominee by more than 6 million. Republican House candidates took in 1.4 million fewer votes than Democrats. But thanks to redistricting and the way Americans tend to gerrymander themselves, the GOP kept a large majority in the House.

For a while last year, it seemed possible that the “Suicide Caucus” in the House could lead Republicans down such a far-right path that they could threaten their majority.  After a 16-day government shutdown that sent the party’s disapproval ratings to all-time highs, Democratic groups were releasing polls showing that a House takeover was possible. However, as the problems with rolled into the second month and the gap in the news left by the government reopening was filled with cancelation stories — that often turned out to be badly reported or bogus — that storyline quickly withered.

Since November, the story has been that Democrats would need a miracle to keep the Senate. Yet recently polls have shown again and again that the Senate is a pure toss-up. Republicans trail slightly in the generic ballot polls and President Obama’s approval rating has been edging back toward 50 percent. And in states where Republicans thought they would have easy Senate pickups — like Arkansas, Alaska and North Carolina — the Democratic incumbents are still leading in the polls.

Democrats — with the right breaks and get-out-the-vote efforts —  could easily keep the Senate.

But for the sake of argument, let’s indulge in a little speculation — some might call it “fan fiction.” Here are five things that could magically align to radically transform the political landscape and give President Obama a friendly House for his last two years as president.

Screenshot via Senator Ted Cruz YouTube channel

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Annemb

    An excellent article throughout. It caught my attention totally. The five ways need to be more broadly advertised.

    Also, Social Security and M/Care which I (others) and employers paid into throughout my (our) employment are NOT “entitlements” as the TGOP so fondly calls them: “…In a speech on Tuesday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) expressed support for Ryan’s voucher plan for Medicare. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) had introduced a budget that would immediately privatize both Medicare and Social Security — to “save” them, of course.

    Strangely, the plans like those from Ryan, Rubio and Paul that “save”
    Medicare and Social Security tend to be paired with plans to cut taxes
    on millionaires and billionaires…” The Constitution is clear about taxes.

    The GOP sold its soul to the tea (treasonous party) and will pay the price — its demise. How sad! …and we are paying the price.

    • ralphkr

      Sorry, Annemb, but SS & Medicare are definitely entitlements. If you meet the criteria you are ENTITLED to collect the benefits just as when you purchase life insurance your beneficiaries are ENTITLED to funds when you die or when you pay for health insurance you are ENTITLED to benefits if you get sick.

      • Annemb

        Social Security and Medicare are retirement and health insurance programs. My bosses and I contributed to Social Security over the years and I have contributed to Medicare. THESE ARE NOT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. THEY ARE INSURANCE.

        YOU ARE WRONG!

        • ralphkr

          Pay attention, Annemb, your statement about you & your boss contributing to SS over the years PROVES that SS is an ENTITLEMENT. Your contributions ENTITLE you to collect. Programs that you are able to collect from without having to pay into, such as welfare, are NOT entitlements. To keep it simple, Annemb, ENTITLEMENT is a legal term denoting that you have a legal right to something that you have EARNED in one way or another whether it be purchase, inheritance, or service.

          • Annemb

            I fully understand the definition of “entitlement.” Also, I worked ten years for lawyers who handled Social Security and M/Care, and not once did they refer to either program as entitlements.

            However, the TGOPs have put a completely different twist / definition to the word which is not only inaccurate, but meant to denigrate and somewhat demean recipients of Social Security and Medicare.

            This is money my employers and I have deposited into Social Security for my retirement and money which I deposited (and still do) into M/Care. I stand by my posts.

          • ralphkr

            Since you fully understand the definition of “entitlement” then you know that both SS and Medicare are Entitlement programs. Your latest post also reveals that you know that the Republicans have bastardized the meaning of the term entitlement. By the way, the first person to use the term entitlement for SS in Congress (many decades ago) was a Democrat testifying in support of SS.

            I have also deposited money into SS but shall never collect any because I spent too many decades in jobs that were not under SS (military, LEO, etc.) but I have a far better pension and health insurance (albeit more expensive) than SS and medicare. I hope to never collect SS since for every dollar I would get from SS my pension would be reduced by slightly over $2.40 (what a deal).

          • Annemb

            I have not applied for my husband’s pension, because it would do me no good in that I would lose money.

            The Maine legislature in the past, voted that our Social Security be reduced if we receive any retirement benefits / pension by that same amount. So, instead of having a few extra dollars we are “punished” if we receive money from retirement.

            Thanks for your post.

          • Are you sure about that? There is a provision where that kicks in when you have say a teacher who has not ever paid into SS. The teacher retires after 30 years, then works another 10 years at a job and pays SS. Now is that fair to get full benefits because you have 30 years credit where you contributed noting, and therefore get a reduced benefit.

          • Annemb

            No, it isn’t fair.

            What you say makes sense, but two years ago when I worked on the 2012 Dem Platform Committee in Maine I questioned this stipulation because I don’t think it’s right. I was told that the Maine legislature decided some time ago for whatever reason which I forgot, hat those on Social Security cannot collect retirement.. that if we do, they’ll deduct the same amount from Social Security that we collect each month. I’ll check into it further because the law may have changed in the last two years.

          • Russell Byrd

            In every case I have heard of, “full” benefits would not be paid by SS. Some benefits would be paid, but full retirement after ten years is just another right-wacko red herring (i.e., lie) designed to make SS easier to dismantle. Sorry, but the capitalist way does not stand for anything even if you paid every penny in yourself. They feel they should also get a cut for managing YOUR money in the open market. If they lose it all, they still got paid, and you work until you die.

          • The whole thing is screwed up, why it is not based on the amount of funds you contribute plus employer, do not know. The GOP is after all retirement, once I saw an article that it burns them up to see someone getting thousands of dollars a month and not working. For contributing 40 years at the 12+% your monthly should be at least $6,000 a month.Instead it is $2500 a month.
            The reason the Unemployment and economy is so messed up is that 40 years ago most people retired once they hit mid 50’s. So what does that do, The company has an open slot to promote and hire a newbee. And what does the retiree do, He usually goes back to his roots, and starts a new buisness, opens a restarant, or moves to the family farm. This is small town USA, which is being destroyed. And contributes to the small town economy, I know so many people that did this in 70/80’s.
            In the past 20 years, I know about 30 people that retired, it used to be 30 a month at the large company that I worked in 73.

          • Russell Byrd

            My sister has 31 years in the Army Reserve. The first four was active. She also worked for the Army as a dual status employee. That is, she had to be in the Reserve at the same time to keep her job. Now she is a civilian auditor for the Army. Yet, if she retires, she ONLY gets to have one of the pensions she paid into. Thanks to those fair minded Repubs. Now is that fair.

      • Allan Richardson

        The problem is that the WORD “entitlement” has both a TECHNICAL meaning and an EMOTIONAL meaning. The technical meaning is exactly what ralphkr describes, in that fulfilling the conditions makes you entitled to the money or benefit in question (as opposed to, for example, you fill out an application and if they “like” your story today and have enough left, they may “allow” you to get it). But the right wing’s EMOTIONAL meaning of the word is something you are NOT actually entitled to receive, but you and others got together and lobbied legislators to give you, so you get to game the system and be lazy and unproductive. In truth, the benefits that best fit THAT description are the tax breaks and TAX REBATES that some of the largest and most profitable corporations, and some of the wealthiest individuals, receive WITHOUT creating any jobs for American workers as they “promised” to do.

  • DAK27

    I for one certainly hope the GOP looses the House and the Dems take 10 seats in the Senate. Then the President can (and he’d better) take a sharp left turn and go for the whole nine yards.

    Single payer health care
    Out of Afganistain 100% (no trainers or advisors or anyone left in-country)
    Transportation and bridge repair
    Raise the min wage
    Raise SS payments to reflect actual costs today
    Jail all the bankers who caused this mess
    RAISE TAXES ON EVERYONE MAKING OVER 500k a year by 25% and if it is over 1 million a year, the rate goes to 50%. Over 5 million a year and it is 75%.
    ALL income is taxed. If you have a dollar today you didn’t have yesterday, it is income and should be taxed.
    CLOSE ALL tax loopholes
    Nix the Keystone pipeline and tell Canada to ship it across THEIR country, not ours.
    Prosecute all the GOP lawmakers who did nothing for the past 6 years but lie, cheat and steal and send them to Gitmo as terrorists. No trial, no lawyer, no nothing (just as the GOP likes it for others, let them see what it is like)

    • Most Americans are in agreement of the issues you list, but the major devisive issue is our right to own firearms.

      • tobyspeeks

        Who’s stopping anyone from owning firearms? Responsible mandatory background checks for all gun purchases and a ban on high capacity clips is not banning gun ownership.

      • Siegfried Heydrich

        A quick look at your posting history tells me that you’re just another gun troll. Believe it or not, while it may be the single most important thing to you, it’s way down on the list of really important issues for most people.

      • Independent1

        So you think what’s important to a lot of people is adding themselves to the list of those who just increased the probability that they will be killed by a gun??? Really!!

        Because that’s about all that owning a gun does, is increase the chance by almost 5 times, that you or someone in your home will be killed by a gun – quite likely the gun that you own.

        See this from the medical education department of Utah (a red state by the way):

        The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in
        three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage
        practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in
        the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a
        gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It
        would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

        Note the last sentence of observations from many studies:

        It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

      • Allan Richardson

        The paranoid fantasy of “confiscating firearms” prevents any reasonable way of keeping them out of the hands of maniacs or “future criminals” (i.e. law abiding citizens who may be tempted to kill if a gun is close by during an argument). Look at automobiles: has anyone ever attempted mass confiscations of automobiles, trucks, or other vehicles? And if a “Second Amendment” for cars had prevented the imposition of ANY licensing requirements to drive them, or ANY registration or insurance requirements, or ANY enforceable traffic laws, how many more traffic deaths per year would have occurred than we have already had?

        I am thankful that the British soldiers never tried to take the colonists’ WAGONS away from them!

        • Russell Byrd

          Thanks Allan, I went out to the “back 40” and chained the old buggy to the nearest oak tree. Them dastardly Brits aren’t getting my wagon!

  • FT66

    There is one issue if campaigned on vigorously will bring those who don’t vote during mid-term elections and republicans be attracted to vote for Dems, that is: RAISING MINIMUM WAGE. This issue affects low income voters,whether one is Dem, Republican or Independent.

    • DAK27

      It might, but I doubt it. The GOP base is too stupid to realize the Republicans don’t give 2 shits about anyone who isn’t a multi-millionaire and certainly not if they are a woman or a person of color no matter how much moola the person has, but the GOP knows one thing. Their base hates Obama more than anything else and would cut off their nose to spite their face. The only reason we still have a Republican party is hatred. Hatred of any who are not white. Hatred of any who are not male. Hatred of any who are not Christian. Hatred of anyone who is not wealthy and willing to buy a politician. Hatred of anyone who isn’t JUST LIKE THEM in thought and deed, and most especially they hate America. The GOP of today is the American version of the Taliban.

  • The GOP’s ace card is the 2nd ammendment, noone seems to get it. As long as the Democrats continue to go ballastic over firearms, House will stay GOP, and Senate will go to GOP.
    The American people will vote against their interests and never let the Democrats rule the legislative and executive, because the very 1st thing to be eliminated will be the right to own firearms.
    and Ms Clinton is also toast for 2016.

    • Siegfried Heydrich

      The gun nute would never, ever vote for anyone but another gun nut. What, this is news? They’re part of the Fox demographic, so they’re already factored out of the equation.

    • jmprint

      Pete you shouldn’t understand the power of women.

    • STMBT

      Boy you are an IDIOT! I see the NRA and the rethuglan party has you brain washed. I am a 72 yr old gun owner and I can tell you that the government has NO intention of taking away any ones guns. but the NRA keeps telling everyone that government is going to take away your guns only so you can keep sending them money to stop them (the government) how dumb is that? don’t you realize that the NRA is nothing but a lobbying group for the gun manufacturing company’s.
      And as for Hillary Clinton! she will be the next President. the rethuglan party has no one that could beat her. I suppose that you would vote for Ted Cruze? well that will never happen. he wasn’t even born in this country ( the birther thing remember?) and not only that the rethuglan party will NEVER nominate a minority to represent there party! you ought to change party’s DUDE cause you are on the losing side.

      • DUDE, I do not call 240 GOP / 193 Dem a losing side in the House, with 53 D/45 R in the Senate, We shall see come November.

        • Independent1

          Tell me, with all those numbers you just quoted, what did the American Mafia (aka the GOP),

          • You are preaching to the choir, and are correct, all I am saying to the Democrats, Leave the 2nd ammendment alone and it would be a slam dunk.

          • Independent1

            No one is looking to change the 2nd Amendment. But you have to understand that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give you the right to purchase and own, ANY GUN YOU WANT!!

            In fact, the 2nd Amendment, DOES NOT even give you the right to own a gun unless you are involved in a militia. Owning a gun is a privilege just like owning a car and SHOULD BE regulated in exactly the same way.

            See this from ex Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens:

            For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

            When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

            It’s only because the current right-wing biased bunch of idiots on the Supreme Court bastardized the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in 2008, that people like yourself have the misguided notion that the 2nd Amendment gives you THE RIGHT to own a gun WHICH IS NOT TRUE!!

            And even the right-wing Supreme Court conceded that it DOES NOT give you the right to own ANY GUN you want and for WHATEVER PURPOSE YOU WANT!!!!!!!!

            So wake up, no one is trying to take A RIGHT that you have BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!!!!

          • Russell Byrd

            First, it would be helpful if you understood what it actually says. Then if would be even better if you understood that any lunatic that wants a gun should not have a gun. We need a method to prevent that whenever possible. Even one life saved would be valuable to that person and their loved ones.

            Most of “us” liberals here are gun owners. We are just responsible gun owners that do not worship our guns on our knees. They serve us, not the other way around.

    • midway54

      On what grounds would the Democrats seek to eliminate weapons and how successful would that project be?

    • ThomasBonsell

      Maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with the Fifth Amendment so that you can see it protects the Second Amendment. The Fifth says that no private property (a gun is private property) can be taken by the government for government use without just compensation.

      That means if government were to take your gun it must be for government use (can’t be discarded or melted down) and it must be paid for. If that be the case, you just go down to your local gun shop and buy a newer gun of the same model. Where’s the problem to be alarmed about?

    • charleo1

      Well, at least you know which side of your bread’s got the butter on it. The truth is, the GOP has forever been the Party of big money, tax loopholes, and deregulation. And wherever, and whenever they get the opportunity, they allow the corporate types to run roughshod over everybody else. The wages of ordinary Americans always take a big hit. The economy is usually pumped full of hot air, to make it look like they are financial wizards. And then, when it goes bust, the only ones not hurt, are the ones that had all the money coming out of their wazoo in the first place. It sounds like I’m exaggerating. But, their record says different. See if this isn’t true. They always wind up costing the Country a ton of money, running up the debt, and when the smoke clears, the Country has absolutely nothing to show for all the heartache, except a raging hangover. And don’t look to them for an aspirin either. Since that would be Socialized medicine. And that would, aside from punishing the rich, would also kill what they little they left of the economy, the last time they were thrown out of office. Now that’s a lot to put up with, just because they told you, and you believed them, that the Dems wanted to eliminate the Second Amd. And take all the guns away from everyone, except of course, the black booted thugs, which will then come to every red blooded American’s door, and drag Dad off to the Gulag. Tell them to show you where a Dem has ever proposed such a thing. To eliminate the Second Amd. Not the black booted stuff. The NRA just made that stuff up.

      • Russell Byrd

        The NRA is a little too close to those “black boots” themselves for my comfort.

        • charleo1

          You’re right! They are scary people. But the whole lobbying industry is scary. And a big contributor to the paralysis in Washington as well. If the politicians themselves were honest about it, they’d tell you there are things right now, that should be done, that would both lower the debt, and improve the economy. Adjustments Congress used to make all the time. That are now impossible, because of the constraints put on Congress by these very wealthy, and powerful groups. There’s Norquist with his, “Citizens for tax Reform,” He famously makes candidates, and incumbents sign a pledge to under no circumstance raise taxes without his approval. And his approval when given, is restricted to only those down the income scale, and the Middle Class. Corporations, hedge funds, Wall Street? Never! And, cutting subsidies, Grover will tell you, is the same as a tax increase. Fixing the immigration system would save 100s of millions in border security costs
          each year. But, there are too many factions lined up
          on both sides, that don’t want anything changed.
          Or, are forbidden to compromise at all, with those changes that must be made. The VA is a disgrace, and in crisis. A real scandal. But, the big emphasis in an election year is of course, on Benghazi.

          • Russell Byrd

            On Benghazi, my first thoughts were that this was going to be an “institutionalized” scandal all the way until election day. Most people in this country that are not committed Teabugs, (or is that Teabugs that need to be committed) are half sick with these fakers and tired of paying them to do nothing but harm. I figured that the Pubs were just that crazy and that this could very well back fire on them.

            Then I read several articles, including some on MJ and Memo. Several writers think this is just to stir up the “base” to raise more millions in contributions. Like these thieves need the money. That far from miscalculating about public reaction, they know the average person is sick of them. They just do not care. They see that it is better to buy elections than it is to run on a platform and earn the vote. I suppose, low voter turnouts keep rewarding them for this conceit.

          • charleo1

            Absolutely spot on, on every description. And, once
            again, it’s all about massaging that hard core group,
            that sit in their gerrymandered districts. It’s who
            they’ve pandered to, since they bagged the House
            in 2010. It’s where the debt ceiling debacle came from. The voting to repeal ACA over, and over. Closing down the Govt. and all the rest of it. It’s cost taxpayers billions. But, like you said, they don’t care. The constituency they are playing to want to see Obama impeached. That’s their wet dream. It’s all they care about. In fact these yahoos have believed so completely in everything evil they’ve ever heard, or, read on the internet about Obama. They can’t see why they don’t just impeach him.
            And this all could be put to rest, if people would
            just turn out, and vote. They don’t, and then they
            think they were right along. And it will become insufferable!

          • Russell Byrd

            I agree, and you have it all in a nutshell in your last paragraph. If everyone did their duty, we would be rid of this vermin.

            I like the fire in your delivery too. That helps clear my depression away. Things are not really all lost, are they? Thanks.

          • charleo1

            If I helped your depression, knowing I did so,
            helped mine. But, you know what they say, and
            it’s true. Every dog has it’s day. And right now the
            kooks, which have always been around, are having
            theirs. I think some of these billionaires play at, and
            with politics, like some people golf, or fish. Take
            that Adleson prick, that owns all the casinos. He
            put 20 million in Newt Gingrich’s campaign, just
            so he’d stay in, and keep pissing off Romney.
            It’s hilarious! And they are all such sniveling little
            shills to these guys. They’ll call them all out to
            Vegas, or the Kochs have these ritzy digs in Aspen.
            And they just come running, to get their marching
            orders. Complete with the lies they’ll need to tell
            their clueless supporters. Who then come on here, and spit them back at us, like they came from God.
            But I think in many ways, we just have to trust the
            American people are not blind. That they can see,
            or will come to see what’s going on, and deal
            with it in the proper manner. I don’t know when, or
            how. But, to me, that’s what living in, and preserving a democratic system comes down to. Everyone having enough faith in the collective wisdom of everyone else, that the proper course for all of us, will eventually be taken. That said, crossing your
            fingers, and hoping for the best, is also a fine American tradition.

          • Russell Byrd

            W-O-W . . .

          • Russell Byrd

            I suppose what you have said is really why I see our nation as on its last legs. At least, until we go ahead and “de-annex” those red states that are the worst offenders. Not only would that restore some stability, but it might also have some vengeance value as well. What would those red states do when the Federal “teat” is no longer available. ALL of those states, including Texas eventually, will wind up looking like Bangladesh.

            In the meantime, these fringe crazies are tearing the nation’s guts out. They always hate something or someone, they always have a problem with something or someone, most of them are paranoid as can be and scared of their own shadows, BUT they always vote. So 10-15% of the population can run the nation with just a little help from the rest of the right-wing base.

            So, if any politician shrugs off the “big” money interests, and tries to do the right thing, he will be naked as the proverbial Jaybird. The fat cats will feed him to the crazies and he will be done. While this effects all Repubs completely, or to a large extent, it also is increasingly become true for Democrats as well. No one can stand up to the Kochroaches, for instance, without getting flayed alive with a multi-million dollar smear campaign. I fear we are already to late to fix this.

            As for the VA, the situation is sad and angering, but as the right only wants to keep cutting, the Democrats are not going to help much there either. If the Democrats have to endure the cuts, they usually cut across the board, and the Repubs have proven they do not care about anyone, veteran or otherwise. So where do we go from here?

  • ExRadioGuy15

    DAK27 compiles a pretty impressive list. But, what we really need is for the Democrats to take at least a dozen seats in the US Senate and take a simple majority in the US House, so that one huge thing can be accomplished: impeaching and removing the Fascist Feckless Five Con majority of the Supreme Court….

  • James Bowen

    Legalizing illegal aliens has almost no support among the public whatsoever, so far as people are paying attention. These polls are pushed by business groups that want to increase immigration and media groups that have a strong editorial stance in favor of amnesty. Not surprisingly, polls put out by anti-amnesty groups show that most Americans do not want legal status for illegals. All other indications, such as Congressional constituent feedback, reveal a public that, so far as it is engaged, almost totally opposes any legalization of illegal aliens.

    • Independent1

      James, it’s one thing to oppose immigration reform, it’s another to lie about it. Fact is, a majority of Americans is in favor of immigration reform that would allow illegals currently in the country citizenship.

      Rasmussen is the most unbiased and most accurate poll. And here’s a couple things their surveys have demonstrated:

      Here’s One:

      A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a comprehensive immigration reform plan that would give legal status to those who entered the country illegally but have otherwise obeyed the law – if the border is really secured to prevent future illegal immigration. Twenty-five percent (25%) oppose such a plan, while 19% are undecided about it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

      The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 31-February 1, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

      Here’s another:

      A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 80% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a child who is brought here illegally but later earns a college degree or serves honorably in the military should be given a chance to obtain U.S. citizenship. Just 10% disagree, while 10% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

      • James Bowen

        As I said in my last post, these polls are often commissioned by business groups that want to increase immigration or media groups that have a strong pro-amnesty editorial stance. Polls commissioned by restrictionist groups show the opposite. What a polls says appears to depend on who is doing the polling, so the next logical step is to look at other indicators of where the public stands. Those indicators show a public that is almost unanimous in opposition to legalizing illegal aliens. Well over 99% of what Congressmembers hear from their constituents on immigration is solidly in opposition to amnesty/legalization. Last July, Rep. Tom Cotton said that of 1800 phone calls he had gotten on immigration, 12 supported legalization and 1788 opposed. According to, NumbersUSA, an immigration-reduction organization, consistently beats pro-amnesty groups like La Raza, America’s Voice, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in web visitation, often by an order of magnitude or more. Finally, if one looks at the comment threads for immigration stories in major newspapers or on major news networks such as NBC, it is pretty obvious that most of the readers oppose legalization. Outside of the push polls like the one you mention, there is no evidence whatsoever that significant numbers of Americans support amnesty, and there is plenty of evidence that a very large number of Americans do not.

        Finally, do you really believe that 80% of Americans favor allowing illegal aliens, people who are effectively foreign invaders, to serve in our military? I can’t think of anything more foolish or stupid than that. That would be like a fox guarding the hen house. Just by being in the country illegally, these people are already in violation of the oath that servicemembers take upon enlistment.

        • Russell Byrd

          Still practicing your racism, I see.

          Do 80% want to allow foreigners in our military. We generally always have. Anyway, we need someone to do it. YOU WON’T.

          • James Bowen

            We have historically allowed aliens to enlist in the military in limited numbers, but not illegal aliens. Even if illegals were allowed to enlist, they would be very limited in what billets and ratings they may hold since they would not be able to get security clearances (as is the case with legal aliens). Like I said, illegal aliens by their very status already violate the oath that servicemembers take.

            By the way, I am a LCDR in the U.S. Navy Reserve. I spent six years on active duty, including the better part of three years on the U.S.S. Memphis (SSN-691).

          • Russell Byrd

            Wrong again, Bozo. Yet, since fact and truth, and especially reason and reading comprehension seem to escape you, I will not bother with the argument. By the way, I personally know differently than your BS.

            What was important to me is the fact that you are still a stinking racist. I could not care if you were a BMF, for that matter. I find it hard to believe you were an officer. Cook maybe. With your attitude I doubt if you would last a month in combat. Too much of a big fat slob that likes pushing people around.

            How’s that for a starter. 🙂

          • James Bowen

            It is a fact that we do not allow illegal aliens to enlist in the military, and for very good reason. Aliens who have not violated our laws are allowed to enlist under certain circumstances.

            You also didn’t think I was a graduate student in physics either, and by your own admission you found out that I am.

          • Russell Byrd

            The facts still remain that you changed your story TWICE to increase your “authority” over me. In other words, you LIED. YOU HAVE NO INTEGRITY. And you continued to do so. You continued to try to run the discussion in a totally lopsided manner. You failed to defend your point of view at all. You just kept asking the same failed question.

            What If I kept asking you why you were so queer? Then I never answer any of your questions except when I felt like imparting a few lies? Hmm?

          • Russell Byrd

            The problem with your disgusting and extensively god-like perception of yourself is you fail to understand the obvious. WHY would I think you were not a graduate student?

            Simple and obvious. You are not only dishonest, but you do not talk like a man with much sense at all. You do not even have any redeeming human traits one would expect. You may be good with math and math theory, but you do not understand simple reasoning.

            So gloat if you must, and I know you will, but the answer is simply that you just don’t appear to have the skill set of an intelligent man. An idiot savant can do your math equations, and can carry on a conversation with the same skill that you do.

            So gloat, but I misidentified you because you are a lying idiot.

  • midway54

    What a great photo: A demagogic crackpot in the foreground and a shrieking airhead behind him. These two so very well demonstrate what kind of characters the plutocrats are using to deceive the vulnerable mental midgets and misguided rednecks into voting the rightwing political lunatics into the Congress.

  • Pamby50

    For us to take the house & keep the senate, we have to go vote. All of this means nothing without voting. As I was watching the protests across the country against fast food places, I was wondering if they are all registered to vote. If not, they need to be. Of course the GOP can’t stay away from their talking points. Bengahzi, cut medicare, cut social security, no to raising the minimum wage, no immigration reform, and let’s keep attacking women.

  • dtgraham

    “But thanks to redistricting and the way Americans tend to gerrymander themselves, the GOP kept a large majority in the House.”

    The way Americans tend to gerrymander themselves? So, Jason figures that Americans pretty much did it to themselves by the way they tend to concentrate in various areas of the nation. The Republicans, after 2010, really had little to do with it huh.

    Congressional representation is supposed to go by population demand and not by physical area. A lot of people crowded into one smaller area simply get more Congressional districts to cover the demand. One Congressperson can only serve so many constituents, regardless of the geographic size of the district. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Not so much any more, but that’s the way it used to be and for good reason. Rocks and trees in sparsely populated areas don’t really need representation.

    • Russell Byrd

      But, as with a very real proposed plan in Ohio, Repubs have wanted to do redistricting by square miles. I doubt if that plan will gain much traction, but it was strongly proposed after Karl Rove’s “shocking” failure to deliver Ohio to Mitt.

      • dtgraham

        I’ve also heard of a movement on the right to have Presidents elected by the number of congressional districts won and not by the popular vote in each state. In many of these GOP controlled states after 2010, you have a lot of Democratic voters cracked and packed into fewer districts with a sudden growth of more lightly populated new GOP districts. You’d end up with Republican Presidents in the future who have a minority of the vote. I haven’t kept up with what’s happening with that.

        • Russell Byrd

          Interesting, or is it depressing? I think we agree that Repubs want minority rule. That would remedy the obvious disadvantages they are, and will increasingly, experience.

          Voting by bank and investment portfolio worth, and by property values. One Koch = 50 billion votes. Yay, yay, he wins by a landslide, . . . pooh. I know they would if they could. Repubs have no respect for one man, one vote.

        • Electoral College is being dismantled and it is by both GOP and Democrats. It is a brilliant system, many states now have a splitting of the electoral vote, and that is wrong. Especially in primarys.