Archive for November 9th, 2012

Latino power: Suddenly, Sean Hannity wants immigration reform

by:

It is a cold, hard slap in the face to conservatives: 71 percent of Latinos voted for President Obama.

The result: Listen to how some leading conservative voices are tripping over each other to say that the Republican Party should step up and support immigration reform.

And no, not in the way that Mitt Romney suggested — through “self-deportation.” And it won’t help to keep talking about “anchor babies” — a discredited “phenomenon” which has sucked up a lot of time on Fox News.

On Thursday, Fox News commentator Sean Hannity said that he has “evolved” on the issue. In Hannity’s high-speed world, evolution can occur over 48 hours.

“I think you control the border first. You create a pathway for those people that are here — you don’t say you’ve got to go home. And that is a position that I’ve evolved on. Because, you know what, it’s got to be resolved. The majority of people here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home, but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done.”

And then there’s House Speaker John Boehner, who told ABC News Thursday:

“This issue has been around far too long…A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself and others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

Whoa! That was a bit too fast for Rep. John Fleming, R-La., who said Boehner was “getting ahead of House Republicans when he commits to getting a ‘comprehensive approach’ to immigration.”

“There’s been zero discussion of this issue within the conference, and I’m urging the speaker to talk with House Republicans before making pledges on the national news,” Fleming said.

But Grover Norquist, the conservative puppeteer and president of Americans for Tax Reform, is on board. “Republicans should approach it as the party of Reagan and Bush — the party that has historically been pro-immigration.” He’s been on board for a while. Even pre-election.

Immigration is a win-win-win. It can be the tip of an olive branch Republicans extend to Latinos. President Obama can finally fulfill his 2008 campaign promise on immigration reform. And it can provide hope to the 12-plus million undocumented immigrants.

As former California Republican Party chair Ron Nehring told The San Bernadino Sun:

Republicans do not need to support amnesty for illegal immigrants in order to reach out to Latinos,

Nehring said. But he also said Republicans don’t realize the kinds of messages they send to potential voters when they only talk about immigration as a law enforcement matter instead offering reforms to encourage legal immigration.

“They go to the border and they all want to get photographed with the Border Patrol so the can send a message to their Republican constituents that they care about border security,” he said. “They send a very different message to their Latino constituents. They are saying ‘I’m going to make sure that fence is high enough so their grandma can’t join them.’”

Giving $ to Karl Rove: A terrible return-on-investment

by:

Fiscal conservatives, listen up: If you invested money in a political campaign in this cycle, one of the WORST people to give it to was Karl Rove. His return-on-investment — i.e. achieving the desired electoral result: 1 percent.

One. Percent. ….of the $103 miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllion Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC rained on the various campaigns it supported and opposed, according to
the nonpartisan money-and-politics analysts at the Sunlight Foundation.

No wonder the dude was trying to deny reality on Fox News on Election Night. With that kind of ROI, folks who gave to Rove’s American Crossroads may start calling him the same thing former Prez George W. Bush did: “Turd-Blossom.”

Sunlight calculated its batting averages this way: A group’s winning percentage “reflects how much of their money went to support candidates who won and to oppose candidates who lost in the general election campaign.”

So by that measure the best ROI was the Service Employees International Union. The union scored wins on 84 percent of $15 million it spent.

This is going to be earth-shattering for conservatives. Many trusted Rove. As California Republican strategist Tom Ross told us back in April, donors would rather invest in a super PAC run by Rove because “They trust a Karl Rove to make the right decisions for them more than they might someone else.”

But T.B. Rove wasn’t the worst ROI. That dubious title belongs to the National Rifle Association. Their ROI: Zero. OK, it was .81. Virtual bupkis for the $10 million it spent.

Another big loser: The conservative-friendly U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ROI was 6.9 percent of $32 milllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliion spent.

Or, as Donald Trump tweeted: “Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.”

Here are the organizations with the best ROI:

1. SEIU: 84 percent of $15,202,306.
2. SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION): 70 percent of $14,318,192 spent.
3. MAJORITY PAC 69 percent of $34,359,657 spent.
4. WOMEN VOTE! 69% of $6,072,693 spent.

The organizations with the worst ROI:
1. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND: 0 percent of $10,955,688 spent.
2.AMERICAN CROSSROADS: 1 percent of $103,559,672. (However, Rove’s Crossroads GPS had a 13 percent ROI)
3. US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: 5 percent of $31,937,037 spent.
4. AMERICAN FUTURE FUND: 5 percent of $23,613,532 spent.

What did Rove do with all that cash? For starters he spent $127 million on more than 82,000 TV ads for Mitt Romney, according to Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising.

Rove says that President Obama won because he was “suppressing the vote” – i.e. Romney’s vote — with negative ads. Again, Karl seems to be working with a set of fact not based in this universe.

According to this, Obama spent $396 million of Obama’s ads, 85 percent were negative. Romney spent $472 million on ads, 91 percent of were negative.

It is time for Rove to quit — while he’s behind. Then again, he may have lost, he got paid. But because of the lack of transparency of the process, we may never know HOW MUCH Rove pocketed while his clients lost.

National Democratic leader says all-blue U.S. House results in New England is a rejection of tea party Republicans

by:

Robby Mook, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said this morning that New England’s House delegation will remain all-blue because voters repudiated “extreme” tea party.

“After Tuesday night House Democrats are back and the tea party is over,” Mook told regional reporters in a conference call, noting that nine Republican candidates in New England given the appellation of “young guns” by the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, all lost.

“Republicans were sharply rebuked,” Mook said, noting that overall, 16 GOP incumbents were defeated on Tuesday, compared to 14 in 2008.

“The critical success was a complete rejection of not only the Republican party, but the tea party,” said Mook, noting that $21 million was invested across New England by the RCCC.

Mook was particularly proud of Elizabeth Esty’s victory over state Sen. Andrew W. Roraback in the 5th District. Although Roraback ran a fiscally conservative socially moderate race, Mook theorized that he was beholden to the tea party faction that’s taken over the Republican Party.

“The problem is he was going to go to Washington and vote with Republican leadership,” Mook said. “That’s not the kind of leader folks wanted to send to Washington… The soul of the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the tea party. Voters know what they saw in the last Congress. Voters are smart and they saw what was happening.”