Immigration controllers for Obama!

Mickey Kaus (in his entry for 2:40 a.m.) says that opponents of comprehensive immigration reform should support Obama for president. His reason: If Obama is elected, moderate Democrats will be loathe to vote for the measure, because it would give Republicans a big stick to use against Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections.

At least I think that’s the reasoning. Here’s the item, maybe you can figure it out:

Time magazine’s “hot shots” breakfast in Denver Tuesday morning showcased Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Rep. Artur Davis, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and D.A. Kamala Harris. 1) Booker and Davis are very impressive. Newsom, who seems kind of goofily egomaniacal, not so much. 2) Oprah BFF Gayle King was there, agreeing vigorously with Booker’s comments; 3) Note to Pete Wehner: Joe “divided loyalties” Klein is not only still alive and employed but appears to be very much in favor at Time; 4) Davis said that although immigration wasn’t a major area of dispute between McCain and Obama, it was “the most toxic issue” in the South, with “as many African Americans” as whites intensely concerned. He predicted it would be a huge issue in the 2009-2010 midterm election, at least if Obama wins. Why? Because the out of power GOP leadership will come to the strategic decision that the way to effectively discredit the Democrats is to unify in opposition to “comprehensive” reform (i.e., including semi-amnesty).

Right. That’s why I’ll be happy if Obama wins. Or, rather, why opponents of “comprehensive reform” should support Obama, even if on paper he’s even more of a comprehensivist than McCain. Davis did not seem eager to hand unified Republicans an issue by voting on amnesty in Obama’s first two years—a sentiment I suspect is widely shared among moderate Dems. … 2:40 A.M.

Paul K. writes:

Kaus has been floating this idea for awhile and it makes some sense to me. A President McCain would be faced with larger Democratic majorities in the congress, but will still want to get something accomplished. What is the one program on which the congress will work with him? His immigration pan. With McCain as cover, the Democrats can pass it and the Republicans will get the blame. (I think uninformed swing voters give the president credit or blame for everything that happens during his term, for example, Clinton gets credit for the Republican congress balancing the budget.)

However, this unpopular legislation is not at the top of Obama’s agenda and he will probably not touch it, nor will the congress push it without a Republican president to take the heat. At least that’s Kaus’s reasoning.

Looking toward November, if Obama gets elected I will feel sick and morose, but sort of curious to see what the ramifications will be. If McCain is elected, I will merely feel sick and morose. So there is the difference, as I see it.

LA replies:

As I said many moons ago: McCain being elected means death. Obama being elected means horror—but also life.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 28, 2008 05:48 PM | Send