Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) raised a few eyebrows last week when he sat down with Glenn Beck and embraced a new, far-right position on legal immigration. The Republican governor, a former moderate on immigration, took such an extreme position that even some GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate thought he'd gone too far.
Maybe it was some kind of trial balloon? Perhaps Walker got ahead of himself and said something to Beck he didn't fully mean?
Apparently not. The unannounced Republican presidential hopeful sat down on Friday with the Quad City Times in Iowa, where he again expressed concerns about legal immigration to the U.S.
In an interview Friday with the Quad-City Times, Walker said it just makes sense to factor in economic conditions when deciding legal immigration levels.
"A couple years ago, when the unemployment rate was at incredibly high levels and labor participation was low, why would we want to flood the market with more workers?" he asked. "So that would be a time when you would have arguably less." ... Walker did not answer directly whether he thinks immigrants are costing Americans jobs. Nor did he say, when asked, whether legal immigrants are pushing down wages in the U.S.
Walker adopted a similar line talking to a group of voters in Iowa the same day, and on Saturday, the governor used his concerns about legal immigration as an applause line
After saying he expects undocumented immigrants to return to their country of origin -- Walker didn't say how that would happen, exactly -- the Wisconsin Republican told a large evangelical audience, "When it comes to legal immigration, the economy should drive things. And the number one priority in that process going forward should be American workers and American wages. When times are rough, the last thing we want to do is flood the market, put more workers in at a time when workers are unemployed, wages are low. We need to make sure we put American workers first."
In other words, it wasn't a trial balloon -- Walker is evidently serious about this.
Last week, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), usually known for his fierce opposition to immigration, announced a new legislative proposal: the "Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act." The point is pretty straightforward: the Iowa Republican wants to stop federal courts from even considering cases related to marriage equality.
If a state has a ban on equal-marriage rights, for example, and someone wanted to challenge the ban in court, under King's proposal, the case would have to be immediately dismissed. Federal courts, the idea goes, would have no jurisdiction, regardless of the merits of the case.
It's a pretty radical approach to the debate, and so long as President Obama is in office, it stands no chance of becoming law. But on Friday, one of King's colleagues responded to the stunt proposal with a stunt of his own.
On the heels of Rep. Steve King's outrageous announcement Wednesday of his "Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act," Rep. Jared Polis (CO-02) today proposed the "Restrain Steve King from Legislating Act." The bill would prevent Steve King from abusing taxpayer dollars by substituting the judgments of the nation's duly serving judicial branch of government with his own beliefs.
"For too long, Steve King has overstepped his constitutionally nonexistent judicial authority," Polis said. "Mr. King has perverted the Constitution to create rights to things such as discrimination, bullying, and disparate treatment. These efforts to enshrine these appalling values as constitutional rights were not envisioned by the voters, or by King's colleagues who must currently try to restrain his attempts to single-handedly rewrite the nation's founding principles on a bill-by-bill basis.
As best as I can tell, the "Restrain Steve King from Legislating Act" does not exist, at least not yet, though it's hard not to wonder how many co-sponsors it would pick up if Polis filed it with the clerk's office.
When congressional Republicans ignored President Obama's call for universal Pre-K, it wasn't too big of a surprise. GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill have a variety of policy priorities, most of which focus on slashing public investments, not increasing them. The public seemed to like the White House's idea, but it was quickly forgotten inside the Beltway in the face of Republican indifference.
At the state level, however, some policymakers, including many on the right, nevertheless take the issue at least somewhat seriously. Even in Texas, one of the reddest of the red states, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has made this a priority, telling lawmakers in Austin in February, "We must improve early education."
As the Texas Associated Press reported, there's apparently some disagreement on the issue.
Advisers to Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick described a major bipartisan pre-K initiative as socialist and keeping children in a 'Godless environment' in a letter sent to lawmakers Tuesday.
The letter was a rebuke over a preschool push being led by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, whose office responded by defending its plan while not addressing the criticism. It was written by a "grassroots advisory" board of conservative activists that Patrick, a tea party leader, assembled upon taking office in January.
"We are experimenting at great cost to taxpayers with a program that removes our young children from homes and half-day religious preschools and mothers' day out programs to a Godless environment with only evidence showing absolutely NO LONG-TERM BENEFITS beyond the 1st grade," the letter said.
The lieutenant governor's hand-picked panel went on to compare preschool to programs "historically promoted in socialistic countries, not free societies which respect parental rights."
It's important to emphasize that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) says he didn't know what his advisory board was up to and the panel's condemnation was "unsolicited."
ABC's George Stephanopoulos yesterday asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday about his party's 2016 presidential field and just how big it might get. The Georgia Republican threw out a pretty big number.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Nine potential Republican candidates at the Faith and Freedom Coalition forum in Iowa last night. Nine of who knows how many eventual candidates in this race. Let's talk about that now again with our roundtable. And Mr. Speaker, we were just talking just before we came on air, this field could continue to grow and grow and grow.
GINGRICH: This is now maybe the most open field in Republican history. I used to say the most open since 1940, but they've now blown past that. I think we may have 25 candidates.
This wasn't supposed to happen. About a month ago, former Gov. Jeb Bush's (R) fundraising operation -- widely characterized as a "shock and awe" campaign -- was seen as so imposing that it was likely to help winnow the Republican field before it even took shape. "Don't bother running," Team Bush signaled to would-be candidates. "We've already cornered the market on campaign finances."
And for a brief while, it may have even had some effect -- prominent Republicans like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Bob Corker, Rob Portman, and John Thune considered national campaigns, but ultimately decided against it.
In recent weeks, however, we've learned that the 2016 field is likely to swell to unprecedented numbers. Next week, over the course of about 24 hours, three more GOP candidates -- Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee -- are expected to launch their presidential bids. Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) was coy for a while, but he's starting to sound more and more like someone preparing a national campaign. Even Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who was expected to stand aside in 2016, is suddenly moving closer to the 2016 race.
The idea that the Republican field could soon hold a football scrimmage, with 11 candidates on offense and 11 candidates on defense, no longer seems ridiculous.
The presidential campaign is still taking shape, but we've already seen candidates peppered with some unexpected litmus-test questions on issues like evolutionary biology and vaccinations. But last week's inquiry -- "Would you attend a same-sex wedding?" -- was perhaps the most unexpected yet.
The responses told us a little something about the White House hopefuls' tone, but the question itself was telling -- the debate over marriage equality has advanced so far that Republicans are getting pressed, not on constitutional amendments, but on wedding invitations.
Jon Stewart had a good segment on this the other day, noting, "The national shift makes it a lot less acceptable now for Republican candidates to say the kinds of things that they were saying in the last campaign cycle.... Republicans can no longer dismiss gay marriage out of hand. They must engage the question."
But as encouraging as that shift is, what's especially striking is the degree to which the 2016 GOP field hasn't progressed -- candidates appear stuck in the same old debate, repeating stale, discredited arguments while the nation passes them by. Politicoreported on an Iowa event on Saturday featuring nine Republican presidential hopefuls, each trying to curry favor with the 1,000 evangelicals who gathered at the Point of Grace Church in Waukee.
[A] procession of presidential candidates expressed support for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to re-ban gay marriage if the Supreme Court recognizes a right to such unions. [...]
The nuanced answers from many Republican candidates in recent months took a backburner Saturday night, as several of the candidates tried to outdo one another on who could speak out most strongly against a right to gay marriage.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), echoing Rick Santorum's 2011 rhetoric nearly word for word, told the right-wing attendees, "The institution of marriage as between one man and one woman existed even before our laws existed." Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), repeating Rick Scott's 2011 talking points, said an anti-gay constitutional amendment would be "reasonable."
Perhaps my favorite moment came when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) condemned Democrats' "devotion to mandatory gay marriage in all 50 states."
I'm certainly not in a position to speak for Democrats, but I'm pretty sure they want marriage to be voluntary, not mandatory.
On April 24, 1990, just over 25 years ago, Space Shuttle Discovery launched from Kennedy Space Center as STS-31 with the Hubble Space Telescope aboard. Current NASA administrator Charles Bolden was the pilot, accompanied by Loren Shriver, Bruce McCandless, Kathryn D. Sullivan and Steven Hawley.
First up from the God Machine this week is an aggressive push from likely Republican presidential candidates to characterize social conservatives as a "victims" of a secular American government.
If this seems like a cyclical problem, it's not your imagination. Four years ago, Newt Gingrich delivered one of my favorite quotes of all time, warning that if conservatives "do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America," his grandchildren might one day live "in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists." The contradiction was apparently lost on him.
Four years later, it's Rick Santorum reading from a similar script. Right Wing Watch reported this week:
Santorum told [the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins] that, for the first time ever in U.S. history, religious liberty is under assault from a new secular theocratic system:
"For the first time in the history of our country, the government is attacking people, prosecuting people, calling for people to be rehabilitated.... We have the state establishing a new religion, a secular state religion.... We have now the secular church that is being imposed on this country and anybody that defects is subject to persecution and prosecution."
For the record, I haven't seen any evidence of any government agency "calling for people to be rehabilitated." The notion of "secular churches" and a "secular religion" also seem misplaced, if not oxymoronic.
Around the same time, a likely Santorum rival for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee, also told the Family Research Council that the United States is moving toward "criminalization of Christianity" -- which by any sensible standard, is completely bonkers.
This coincided with Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) arguing in a New York Times op-ed that Christians face "discrimination" unless they're allowed to discriminate.
We're dealing with the confluence of a few related storylines: the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on marriage equality on Tuesday; fights over right-to-discriminate laws have dominated national headlines; and the presidential race is beginning in earnest, with leading candidates eagerly embracing the sense of victimization that's common in social conservatism, pandering to the party's religious right base.
The result, evidently, is some over-the-top nonsense about secular churches and making Christianity illegal.
Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post, talks with Steve Kornacki about how the accidental killing of an American hostage in a drone strike on an al Qaeda target exposes the risks and imprecision of drone operations. watch
Steve Kornacki shares highlights of past presidential performances at the White House Correspondents dinner, and talks with Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, about the pressure on a president to take the in good humor. watch
For Hillary Clinton, the symptoms of a political system bombarded with "oppo" research manifested this week in news reports suggesting (though not actually proving) a connection between donations to The Clinton Foundation and the Russian acquisition of a Canadian company with a uranium mine. The charged atmosphere that has followed those stories might be seen as a different kind of...
* Drones: "President Obama pledged Friday that his administration would seek to learn from the mistakes that led to the inadvertent killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of two Western hostages, including an American, in a drone strike against al Qaida earlier this year."
* A rhetorical escalation on trade: "The already bitter fight between the White House and the progressive base over trade policy has turned ugly after President Obama said his critics on the left 'don't know what they're talking about' and compared their arguments to conspiracy theories about 'death panels.'"
* Sometimes, paying hostage takers doesn't work: "The captors of U.S. aid worker Warren Weinstein received $250,000 in 2012 on what turned out to be a false promise that he would be freed, according to a Pakistani intermediary who negotiated directly with al Qaeda for his release."
* One hundred years later: "The century-old wounds over the mass slaughter of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were on full display Friday as Europe took another step toward describing the killings as a genocide and Turkey offered groundbreaking outreach even as it rejected any links to the "sin" of ethnic purges."
* I think they're bluffing: "House lawmakers are threatening to slash Defense Department funding by about $500 million next year if Pentagon officials don't hand over documents related to their probe into a controversial prisoner swap that freed five Taliban detainees in exchange for a captive U.S. soldier."
* The happiest man in Washington today: "Attorney General Eric Holder bid a final farewell to what he predicts will be recognized in the next half-century as a new 'Golden Age' at the Department of Justice, leaving behind a historic six-year tenure as the first African-American man to serve as the nation's top attorney."
* All kinds of odd folks filed anti-gay briefs with the Supreme Court in advance of next week's arguments on marriage equality. Irin Carmon, to her enormous credit, read them all and reported on her findings.