Paul Starr writes:

[T]here are good reasons why Obama cannot and should not indulge in a full-bore populism that, in practice, would yield nothing but deadlock and disaster. The Democrats are the party of responsible government, and America needs at least one of those. Rather than play to the crowds and have their programs go down in flames, Democrats need to make progress on the central problems facing the country, and the only way to do that is to make difficult choices that upset some of their own supporters.

This is ahistorical and illogical. Obama has gotten no cooperation whatsoever from Republicans, has faced demagogic attacks from the Right for everything he does and the Dems now face a bleak November, with control of the Congress in jeopardy. And the price of this "non-populism" has been sub-optimal policy.

The strange thing is the Democratic Party has been a populist party in terms of politics throughout its history (sometimes for the worse.) Where does Starr come up with this stuff? Anyway, back in 2006, I argued the inverse of Starr's prescriptions:

At Firedoglake, Karen Russell, the daughter of basketball all-time great and pioneer Bill Russell, urges a boycott of Arizona:

Happy that the Major League Baseball Player’s Association condemned Arizona’s misguided, mean-spirited new immigration law. Racial profiling is important to baseball, where 27% of the players are Latino. I urge the NFL, NHL and NBA unions and all the Major Leagues to join them.

[. . .] We all must work to end Juan Crow now. Let Commissioner Selig know how you feel. Ask him to Boycott Arizona and pull the All-Star Game[.]

Boycott Arizona!

On the ESPN Radio show, Mike and Mike in the morning, a question being debated is 'should MLB involve itself in the Arizona immigration debate?' To me, this is an astounding question. When the NFL pulled the Super Bowl out of Arizona over the rescinding of the Martin Luther King holiday, did anyone question whether it was "appropriate" for the NFL to do that? If they did, I do not recall it.

But to put this in a historic perspective, can you imagine the idea of asking whether Branch Rickey should have "injected" baseball into the political question of segregation when he signed Jackie Robinson? Certainly not today. So how come this is even a question?

Speaking for me only

At Hot Air, Allah Pundit writes:

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that Arizona’s law will be a spectacular success even if it never goes into effect. Look at how much it’s accomplished: It’s derailed the Democrats’ amnesty bill; it’s refocused national attention on the disgraceful state of border enforcement; it’s convinced some illegals that Arizona’s not worth the trouble; and it’s baited bottom-feeders in the media into all sorts of dumb, self-discrediting analysis. All that in just a week, before the law’s even taken effect. That’s some mighty efficient legislatin’ right there.

In a post that approvingly provides an Ann Coulter link, the "bottom-feeders" line is particularly amusing.

If becoming an international pariah was Arizona's goal, there is no doubt SB 1070 is a smashing success. Well done, Arizona.

Speaking for me only

Hundreds of teenage ballplayers arrive every year in the United States trying to make a better life. They come from the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and Mexico and elsewhere, all to play the most American of games. Most grew up in poverty. Few know English. The game welcomes them anyway.

In less than two months, the Arizona Rookie League begins its season. Nearly 140 young players born and raised in Spanish-speaking countries will congregate in Phoenix and its suburbs for their first taste of professional baseball. They may do so as the nation’s most controversial law – the one that says some people who look like them are most certainly not welcome – goes into effect in late July.

[. . .] More than 1,000 players, and hundreds more executives, coaches, trainers and business staff, spend about eight weeks of spring training in the Phoenix area. Latin Americans represent 25-plus percent of major league players, and the percentage in the minor leagues is even higher. The sweeping reform, which critics say invites racial profiling, is almost certain to hit baseball if the federal government doesn’t intervene.

Wonk Room finds the smoking gun:

Wonk Room recently obtained an email written by Kris Kobach, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute — the group which credits itself with writing the bill — to Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), urging him to include language that will allow police to use city ordinance violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate queries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion[.]

This law is intended provide legal cover for racial profiling. That is all it is.

Speaking for me only

Via BarbinMD, Arizona has outlawed mogs:

The Arizona state Senate on Thursday passed a bill making it illegal for a person to “intentionally or knowingly creat[e] a human-animal hybrid.”

No more of this:

Arizona . . . Pssst, it was a movie.

Speaking for me only

A teacher with an accent:

Let me start out with my full disclosures: My parents immigrated to the United States in 1962. When my mother arrived, she spoke no English. My father spoke English, but was not perfectly fluent (to this day his English carries a heavy accent.) If Duncan Hunter had his way, I would be deported. My mother went to college in the United States and became a teacher. She speaks accented English. I am not impartial about what has been happening in Arizona. But I must ask this question: does the State of Arizona employ any attorneys?

The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

Let's leave the merited pejoratives aside. This is simply illegal. Someone in Arizona may want to review Title VII. And Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Laws. The geniuses running Arizona seem intent on bankrupting the state.

Speaking for me only

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. - BTD

Matt Yglesias writes:

That said, the other thing we see here is something that those of us who think Obama is too conservative don’t like to confront. You see a lot of talk about “guts” and being “tough” and “brave” and “bold” but fundamentally we’ve done a terrible job of persuading people in the public that we’re right and there are many issues on which Obama should be more progressive. As Chris Bowers likes to point out, the most credible most beloved messenger on the left is—wait for it—Barack Obama, which tends to make Obama immune to criticism from the left. This is a fundamental problem for shifting the country in a progressive direction. Indeed, in a lot of ways it’s even a problem for Obama himself. But it’s fundamentally a problem of persuasion rather than a problem of Obama’s character.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a strange paragraph to me. It's one thing to argue that Obama is not likely to care about Left critiques. That may well be. But a bigger problem in my view is the idea that critiquing Obama from the Left is somehow a bad thing to do. I think that has been the point a lot of us have been making. Indeed, the premise of Yglesias' point is that Obama is not very progressive in action (a view I not only believe but argued for many years now.) More . . .

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa:

I'm wondering if we look at the map of Congressman [Raul] Grijalva's (D-AZ) congressional district if we haven't already ceded that component of Arizona to Mexico judging by the voice that comes out of him [. . .]

GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter of California:

"Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens," Hunter was asked. "I would have to, yes," Hunter said. "... We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now," he said. "... It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls. ..."

The GOP soul reveals a complete loathing of Latinos.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum misreads the findings of the WaPo poll on FinReg:

I'm a little unsure if this is good news or bad news. It's good that there's generally majority (or better) support for all this stuff, but the majorities aren't all that big. [. . . T]he public doesn't exactly seem ready to hit the streets with pitchforks and torches. Maybe public opinion would be stronger if we could somehow convince them that Goldman Sachs planned to convene death panels?

What Kevin misses is that the partisan divide is already reflected in these poll findings. ("44 percent of Republicans approve of stricter guidelines, joining 75 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents on the issue.")

This is THE best issue the Dems have by far. It is no coincidence that the Dems are having a vote on it today.

Speaking for me only

mistermix at Balloon Juice takes issue with Atrios using the Lucy and the Football line regarding Lindsay Graham and the Obama Administration. Atrios is a snark machine so I think this is less of a question of whether Obama is being Charlie Brown than whether the Obama approach to political bargaining is the most effective one. mistermix writes:

[The Obama Administration] know[s] full well that they’re playing Charlie Brown to the Lucy du jour. Atrios is certainly smart enough to realize this. I’d like to hear his alternative to kissing Lindsey Graham’s a**, because I have no clue what other, better strategy is waiting in the wings.

I do not know if it would work, but it seems to me that a more confrontational approach may in fact be more effective. As booman writes: