Yesterday, Mitt Romney told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials that crafting a permanent, comprehensive immigration policy is difficult, but he's ready to work on it. This morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said the issue is "truly complicated," and there's plenty of blame to go around.
As Benjy Sarlin reported, "President Obama offered up a fiery rejoinder: Reform is simple. And the Republicans are blocking it."
For Obama, the talk about immigration policy being complicated and difficult seems misguided, if not ridiculous. If the framework for comprehensive reform was crafted by conservatives and liberals working together, and the DREAM Act was written by Republicans and Democrats working together, then what's needed is not more time to work through the complexities -- what's needed is fewer GOP extremists who stand in the way of governing.
"Just six years ago, an unlikely trio, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, President Bush, came together to champion comprehensive immigration reform," Obama said. "I, along with a lot of Democrats were proud to join 23 Senate Republicans in voting for it. Today those same Republicans have been driven away from the table by a small faction of their own party. It's created the same kind of stalemate on immigration reform that we are seeing on a whole range of other economic issues and it's given rise to a patch work of state laws that cause more problems than they solve and are often doing more harm than good."
The message appeared to be well received. The video is well worth your time.
Leave a Comment:
Obama really whacked Mitt and the GOP on this, with good reason.
Bam! Nothin' but net.
The President nailed it and bitchslapped Willard.
Romney dissed Obama's "short-term" solution to immigration reform saying he will have a "long-term" solution.
Okay, Mitt! What is your long-term solution?
I am skeptical when a politician says he/she has a better plan but refuses to tell us what it is. We elect our leaders based on their plans and what they will actually do. These guys are hoping we'll ignore that and elect them based on whether they have a pretty face, great hair, have a better family or even that they have more experience. Experience means nothing if we don't know HOW they will use it or WHAT they will do to solve a problem.
Although, I must admit, these no nothing, do nothing, no substance guys seem to get elected and re-elected time after time. What does this say about voters??