Malacandra.me

The new left Right. (No, they don’t really mean it.)

The new left Right

by digby

So, just as the Republicans are planning to attack Democrats who vote to cut Social Security (or possibly just endorse the Chained-CPI) it would appear they're planning to attack Dems from the left on immigration:

A website the committee set up to attack Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff jabs him for “lik[ing] to waste taxpayer dollars almost as much as he likes the strictest immigration laws in the nation he passed as Speaker of the Colorado House.”

Indeed, Romanoff helped pass “several bills that Democrats call the toughest in the nation,” as the AP reported at the time. But the NRCC hit runs into trouble once you finish reading that sentence from the AP: “…and Republicans say don’t go far enough.” Even though the state’s Republican governor signed the bill, “Republicans said the legislation still left glaring loopholes, including allowing benefits for minors.” And this was 2006, long before Arizona’s SB-1070 and its copy-cat laws in Alabama, South Carolina and elsewhere. Since then, the GOP moved further to right on immigration while Romanoff moved left, even earning jabs for flip flopping.

And if the NRCC is attacking Romanoff for being too conservative on immigration, their guy is presumably more liberal on this issue, right? As it turns out, Rep. Mike Coffman, current occupant of the suburban-Denver seat, is no Marco Rubio.

Coffman (perhaps best known for a 2012 birther rant, for which he later apologized), co-sponsored a bill to repeal birthright citizenship; once said “The Dream Act will be a nightmare for the American people;” signed an amicus brief supporting Arizona’s SB-1070 law; and wanted to pass a law making all ballots English only.


Alex-Seitz-Wald, who reported this, concludes:

t’s understandable why the NRCC would want to try to use Romanoff’s out-of-date position against him, considering that as many as 70 percent of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but when your party and candidate is well to the right of the guy you’re attacking, it’s impossible to outflank him from the left and mean it.

I think the operative part of that is "and mean it." They don't. They are just trying to manipulate a demographic they think is "low information" and won't see through them. It's very cynical. But I'm going to guess it won't work for the Latino community the way it works with the elderly, simply because they aren't activated by the subliminal prejudice that activated the seniors in 2010 (if you know what I mean.) In order to persuade people to willfully ignore the facts, they have to already want to. In this case, it's just not believable.

But it can work quite well if Super PACs decide to get into this game as they have in the last couple of cycles. They don't have to defend the Republican record. They can spend millions tearing down the Democrats without the public even knowing who they are. It's very convenient for these sorts of shennanigans.

It should be noted that swing state Dems have it much easier when it comes to the issue of SS and medicare cuts. They can be openly against them, just as their constituents are, while still distancing themselves from the president and the Democratic leadership, which is what they always yearn for. Immigration presents a different set of challenges.