Only an angry minority supports the "popular" immigration bill?
Forty percent (40%) of American voters say that President Bush is doing a good or an excellent job on taxes. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% say the same about his handling of the economy.
At the other end of the spectrum, just 15% say he is doing a good or an excellent job on immigration. [Emphasis and link added.]
Fifteen percent. That is getting down near the percentage who think their automatic garage door is sending them semaphore signals from outer space. ... Isn't this finding is flat incompatible with the idea that, "A majority of Americans support our proposal," as John McCain asserted this week, or that it is opposed only by a "very intense minority" of conservatives? What has George Bush's handling of immigration been other than the pursuit of McCain's bill? ... Update: Alert reader C.W. notes thatsome of the disapproval of Bush probably reflects voters unhappy that he'd apparently (at the time) failed to get an immigration bill through, though he was campaigning for its revival. But another Rasmussen poll at about the same time showed only 20% wanted the Grand Bargain revived. ... 12:42 P.M.
Yes, John Edwards does seem like the obvious Dem presidential candidate to seize the gaping, near-irresistable opening and oppose the immigration bill, as MyDD's Tarheel--alertly flagged by Blogometer--argues. I was hoping for Obama. But Edwards is losing. He needs to make a move. And if you really care about incomes at the bottom of the distribution--which is what I thought Edwards' campaign was all about--then you can't not oppose this bill, I think. ... Tarheel notes that the immigration bill
is hugely unpopular. Most americans outside the blogosphere heavily oppose it. Union workers seem unhappy with it. Americans (outside the blogosphere) instinctively don't believe in rewarding illegal behavior with citizenship. This would bring lots of free press for Edwards and distinguishes him from others on the Democratic side. I'm fairly certain this wouldn't lose any votes in Iowa or NH or SC.
Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."
At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in "younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill."
[E.A.] a) 'Feeling the heat'! b) It's of course in the interests of the bill's backers to make it seem as if opposition only comes from "talk radio," and not, say, from the AFL-CIO--or from ordinary non-radio Democrats and Republicans, for that matter; c) Is that Rush you're talkin' about? d) Is Lott still smarting from the lack of support he got from the GOP grassroots after his appalling Strom Thurmond comments? e) Is he making a play for Strange New Respect? f) Wasn't it Lott who criticized as "not helpful" Bush's bashing of GOP opponents of the bill? I think it was. g) Isn't the obvious pro-bill strategy to let the opposition calm down, not stir it up? h) I thought it was John McCain who didn't know what was in the bill. ...
Update:Instapundit sees a pattern ...
A year ago, Trent Lott was saying he was "damn tired" of PorkBusters, and now the GOP is all about fighting the pork. Difference? They lost an election by listening to him. Now what will they be saying after the next election?