IS the timing of the President's DREAM order "political"? What would have been the consequences

[ProgressiveEconomist]

IS the timing of the President's DREAM order "political"? What would have been the consequences of the Predient's Friday announcement had he made it six months ago, a year ago, two years ago, or three years ago?

IMO, allowing 800,000 undocumented young people who were brought here as youngsters to apply for renewable two-year working papers was possible ONLY if President Obama had some means of holding hysterical Republican opponents of such action at bay. IMO, Mitt Romney's status as sole official Republican candidate for President is that means of keeping Obama's new immigration policy out of extremist xenophobes' crosshairs. Before Romney sealed up the nomination, the President had no opportunity to take the action he took Friday.

According to most election forecasters, Romney needs at least 30-40 percent of the Hispanic vote to have any chance of winning in November. If Romney now denounces the President's order and vows to reverse it in 7 months, he will have ensured his own defeat.

So Republicans who want to win in November are forced to keep their mouths mainly shut about the President's order.

(1) Had the President issued his order earlier this year, in the midst of Republican primaries, what would have happened?
(2) Had the President issued his order last year, before the Republican primaries began, could he have faced impeachment for exceeding his authority?
(3) Had the President issued his order last year or earlier, before the debt ceiling issue was resolved, would Republicans have allowed the US to default on its Treasury obligations to the international public?

IMO David Plouffe was exactly correct yesterday when he said the timing of the President's DREAM order was not a political pander to Hispanic voters. It would have been politically impossible for the President to have taken such action any earlier than he did. Before Romney sewed up the Republican nomination with promises to veto the DREAM Act, the President would have had no way of keeping Republican xenophobes quiet.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[JoePhilly]

1. The timing is irrelevent. The RW would like us to focus on anyting but what it means.

Is it political? Did Obama time this?

Who #$%@#$ cares.

Let the GOP and Romney spin in the wind. The question is, do they AGREE, or do they want to roll this back, YES or NO ... any other discussion lets them hide and babble non statements, as Romney did this weekend.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. If you don't care about the question, then why are you so quick to post?

[JoePhilly]

4. To help others recognize that the question is irrelevant.

Some will happily play the game your question invites.

They need not play that game.

Your question reminds me of when Andrea Mitchell said Obama was ACCURATE when he said the private sector was "fine" ... and then she went on to spend the rest of her show talking about how terrible it was for him to actually say so.

The real issue is always what the effect of a policy is, not the timing, and not the media driven perception. If Dems don't get this, we deserve to lose.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. All your posts here are off-topic

But thanks anyway for the "kicks", you self-appointed arbiter of what "the real issue always is".

[JoePhilly]

10. Welcome to the Internet ... we all get to be the arbiters of what matters.

Which is why you posted your OP in the first place ... to take your place as an arbiter of what matters.

no?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. I read OPs carefully and NEVER jump to SABOTAGE them

If I'm the first to post in a thread, it's usually to help the author advance the thrust of the original post.

If I have nothing to say that's on-topic, I usually just move on to the next thread,

In other words, I have manners and respect others' rights to express themselves, unless they're advocating for the Nazis or KKK.

I realize it takes effort to put one's thoughts in writing, while "any jackass can kick down a barn".

Have you ever heard of "The Golden Rule"? Can you quote it without Googling first?

[OKNancy]

2. My opinion is I don't care if it was political or not

First, it was the right thing to do, and secondly it was a great political move. Obama is a politician and I hope for the sake of the next election that he makes good political moves.

That's why they sometimes call it the "art of politics". This was artful.

[JoePhilly]

5. +1

[Enrique]

7. there was a lot of activism leading up to this

The political calculations changed, but not by themselves, it was activism that changed it. Two years ago, it was all aimed at Congress. The only pressure Obama was getting was from the other side, he had all the incentive in the world to take a tough-on-illegals stance. After the Dream act got blocked, they turned to the president and there have been a lot of protests and a number of talks and now here we are.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. Excellent point. There were forces PUSHING

the President to act, so that as soon the forces holding him back abated, he did the right thing.

[BadgerKid]

12. Funny how RW radio didn't point that all out

this morning. Instead, just the usual blaming the Dems. for failing to achieve and then criticizing them when they do.

[tularetom]

9. I hope it was "political"

It shows me that the President is more than capable of sticking all the crap the republicans throw at him back in their face.

And that he has finally figured out that they aren't going to help him accomplish anything. Even when he proposes something they were originally in favor of. So he's finally decided to use the power of his office to achieve some of the goals he ran on.

If his action was political it was expertly timed and executed. So major props to him.