Examining the 2012 Campaign Character Narratives: Obama vs. Romney

[Number Nine]

I don't understand? Romney flipflops? Every politician has mutable opinions

The problem is with the public perception of Romney's flip-flopping. Here we have a candidate who has emerged the victor in the primary of a political party that has recently been characterized by an absolutely absurd level of partisanship and fear-mongering rhetoric directed against its political opponents. Romney has, in the very recent past, attached himself to positions that the party (and Romney) are now characterizing as being literally fascist or Satanic. The Affordable Care Act has been characterized in conservative circles (again, literally) as being analogous to Nazism, and yet Romney designed and backed an almost identical policy just a few years ago. It's just not credible that Romney had "just failed to realize" that the policies he supported were identical to the policies implemented by Nazi Germany, and that he is now changing his position after deep thought or consideration of the issues. The only sensible explanation, so sayeth many in the general public, is that he's lying.

 

[russ_watters]

2. He is fantastic at public speaking. (which more or less determines who will be president as nominees from both parties tend to move towards the ideological center)

While Obama is certainly skilled at delivering speeches, it is easier to be elected on public speaking ability if you don't have to talk about anything real. People will have real questions about things that he promised in his first campaign or did during the election and will want to hear answers. If he doesn't give good answers, it won't be such a positive thing.

People are biased to believe things they want to hear and biased against things they don't want to hear. So when I hear him talk, I hear a lot of crap. When some of his major talking points failed or didn't become what he said they would, I wasn't surprised, I just wondered how people could be so blind as to not know they were being swindled.

 

[ThinkToday]

From an objective standpoint, I cannot see any reasonable way Romney will get the presidency. Obama has multiple things going for him:

1. He's a returning president.
2. He is fantastic at public speaking. (which more or less determines who will be president as nominees from both parties tend to move towards the ideological center)
3. The Republican Primaries left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because of the wild amounts of showmanship and one-upping.
4. Romney does have a bad history of having the same opinion on a topic from years before.

#1 So was his mirror Jimmy Carter. It didn't help him. Except Clinton, you have to go back to Truman to find a Democrat re-elected President.

#2 With a teleprompter he is fine, but he suffers the same problems everyone else does when he speaks off the cuff. He can still deliver a sincere sounding message, but just like the 57 States he visited, he can have foot in mouth issues.

#3 It would be hard to top the bad blood spilled between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008. Romney v. Gingrich was close in "ugly", but Gingrich never had the level of support Clinton did in her party. The implication that Bill Clinton was somehow racist will never be forgiven, IMO. They were talking about that yesterday when Clinton was commenting about extending the Bush tax cuts for ALL on the short term.

#4 I seem to recall Romney's critics where beating the drum that was opposite, i.e. flip flop. I could care less what someone's opinion was 10 or 20 years ago. If they have evolved in their thought, that's a good sign for a mature leader. Evolved isn't telling one group in one State "A" and another State a day later "B", which both have a history of doing, IMO.

In the end, I think Romney will win because of what Obama promised in 2008 and didn’t do. Namely, to be a different kind of politician that would bring all sides together as one America, and all the negatives that came from that failure. I have family that voted for him because he is black and it would have been great to see someone with his background, race, and family history renew the dream of Dr. King. Alas, we got a politician whose idea of working together was “agree or I’ll steamroll over you”. He will fail reelection because he and others forgot we have a “representative” form of government. When “they” go to Washington and vote, they are to speak with our voice. The broad support for the stimulus www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...2009/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37 and ObamaCare www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html was not there and in voting for the bills, the Democrats voted against those they swore to represent. Even today when most favor repeal of ObamaCare, the Democrats fight on against the will of those they are SUPPOSE to REPRESENT http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Obama is the only one living Dr. King's dream, the rest of us and our children will live the nightmare of paying the bills for "his" dream.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Here are two news items.

1. According to the White House, Walker survived the recall because he outspent the opposition.
Outspent.

2. Romney raised more cash in May than Obama by $17 million.
Outraised.
I suppose the White House will point out that money doesn't win elections.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would add a fifth factor, and also argue against the claim that the President is "fantastic at public speaking".

The fifth is the electoral college. If you start with the 2008 vote count and starting from that adjust to a certain 2012 voting distribution, you will find that a 50-50 split goes to the President. It needs to go 50.8-49.2 for Governor Romney to win, which would send Virginia into the Republican column for a 275-263 vote. So President Obama starts with a lead of about 1.6 percentage points. (Note that I assume Arizona will return to its historical average now that there is no AZ native running)

As far as public speaking, one thing that the President does not do well is persuade. Unless he can turn that around, I don't see his speeches helping him that much. His surrogates do a better job in that regard, but they also seem to have a knack for going off-message, which won't help him either.

 

[ThinkToday]

Here are two news items.

1. According to the White House, Walker survived the recall because he outspent the opposition.
Outspent.

Don't think so:

"In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential. And when you add in unions’ inherent advantage in ground game, you’re talking about a better-than-even split for Barrett.



Scott Walker won last night because he is a good governor. He didn’t win because of a money advantage, even though Wisconsin rules heavily favor incumbent politicians who are recalled (they can raise unlimited contributions from individuals after recall petitions are filed, whereas opponents cannot take more than $10,000 from individuals). The media’s attempt to pass this election off as a win for big money simply doesn’t hold water."

And that is from a more detailed publication found here http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/06/Media-Spin-Recall-As-Money-Suck

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Don't think so.

The point of my post was the potential for a conflict of spin from the White House. The spin can't be supported by the facts and that is yet another nail in the coffin for this approach.

 

[Astronuc]

Here are two news items.

1. According to the White House, Walker survived the recall because he outspent the opposition.

I don't think this is accurate. There was a lot of money coming into Wisconsin from outside the state. Perhaps the those supporting Walker outspent those who opposed him.

If Walker has cut government expenses and taxes, then perhaps that in itself is sufficiently persuasive to influence independents in his favor. The expectation is that Republicans and conservatives would vote for Walker, and Democrats and non-conservatives would vote against. Those in between could go either way, and would seem to have swung in favor of Walker.

The point of my post was the potential for a conflict of spin from the White House. The spin can't be supported by the facts and that is yet another nail in the coffin for this approach.

I agree.

 

[Astronuc]

As far as public speaking, one thing that the President does not do well is persuade. Unless he can turn that around, I don't see his speeches helping him that much. His surrogates do a better job in that regard, but they also seem to have a knack for going off-message, which won't help him either.

IMO, Obama is a rather poor public speaker, and he is certainly poor at speaking extemporaneously. He's certainly not as smooth as Clinton.

Interestingly, I'm hearing more comparisons of Obama to G Bush rather than to Clinton.

 

[Astronuc]

3. The Republican Primaries left a bad taste in everyone's mouth because of the wild amounts of showmanship and one-upping.

I think the distaste for Obama is greater than the distaste for Romney - among those predisposed to vote for the GOP candidate.

I think the 2012 presidential election will come down to the lesser of two distasteful candidates.

 

[Pkruse]

I just read this whole thread and found it very interesting. But I don't see any compelling reason to favor one over the other in the election. When that happens, I normally vote for the new guy.

Perhaps we need to put NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot. Then if NONE wins, we have another elections with an entirely new cast of players.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I just read this whole thread and found it very interesting. But I don't see any compelling reason to favor one over the other in the election. When that happens, I normally vote for the new guy.

Perhaps we need to put NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot. Then if NONE wins, we have another elections with an entirely new cast of players.

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

 

[ThinkToday]

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

The problem with "a national proportional representation system" is the little states and their issues die. While the Electoral College isn't great, it's better than the population of a half dozen states deciding the next President. However, I would like to see each State have proportional distribution of Electoral College delegates. IMO, 50.1% of the State’s voters should never yield 100% of the delegates to one person.

I'm not a fan of the 2 party system, but it's what we have. IMO, the parties are both controlled by the extremes, which leaves little room for candidates that are in the middle, like most Americans, IMO. I think most of us are in the middle, each with our own few things leaning “extreme”. Unlike many, I like the Citizens United decision. Look at how it (the extra money) was able to drag the Republican selection out. Maybe some talked too much and too long, but at least they were still pushed to talk about issues. We had a chance to see more of the candidates in states both favorable and unfavorable to them.

Personally, I think the drawn out Primaries are the problem. Someone gets the momentum with a few states early, and it makes all the difference. I’d like to see candidates get 3-6 months to hit each State, and then have ALL the primaries done in the span of a couple weeks tops. In that way, the Party doesn’t stack the deck favoring any States and those States ability to determine the outcome of the process. IMO, almost every State primary after March is pro forma, since there is almost no selection left out of the original pool the first States were able to choose from.

Lastly, while candidates getting out shaking hands, stump speeches, kissing babies, etc. is all fine, I loved the debates, and I’d like to see more of them. I’d like to see the debates each focused on a single topic, e.g. defense, foreign aid, Choice, religion, economy, jobs, taxes, Constitutional history/knowledge, etc. By each debate focusing on a single topic each candidate will be forced to spend more than a 60 sec sound bite making their case for/against a position. IMO, the great things about debates are 1) see them have to think on their feet, 2) can’t tell one State “A” and another “B”, since they’re all listening to the same thing, 3) you can see in which area(s) each shine or fade, and 4) if properly done, we’ll have a better sense of the people running. Perhaps, even a modestly funded person can break into the front.

I'm hoping the Obama v Romney debates will set the stage for something a bit more informative. Kind of like the Gingrich v Cain Debate setting.

 

[aquitaine]

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

Here's what I think is a much more serious problem: So you see Lonestar, evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

 

[KiwiKid]

IMO a big problem with most democratic systems is that they practice region voting. Essentially you get stuck with voting for only the big parties and no one else (this problem is worse in the US as you have only two main parties) because anything else is a wasted vote. If we all started practicing a national proportional representation system I wonder how much better our systems of government would be.

I don't know if it would be much better. Proportional representation is being used by quite a few countries, but I'm not sure whether it can be said that these governments are necessarily better than others.

Of course, this may have little to do with PR - which may be good in itself - and more with the fact that there are huge differences between countries.

 

[ThomasT]

IMO, Obama is a rather poor public speaker, and he is certainly poor at speaking extemporaneously.

Why do you say that? Any examples I can view?

He's certainly not as smooth as Clinton.

I agree.

I think the 2012 presidential election will come down to the lesser of two distasteful candidates.

You might be right. It seems that there are certain, significant, numbers of hardcore Obama and Romney advocates, and then about 15% of the electorate that's really difficult to predict. If the 'undecides' are more or less equally dispersed in the demographic spectrum, then it's either candidate's race to win or lose. But if not, then, presumably, one candidate might be an 'odds-on' favorite to win ... depending on campaign strategies and implementation of course.

Currently, I'm betting on Obama. But that might change before the election. Personally, I don't care who gets elected, because I don't think it matters wrt any of the important issues that either will deal with as president.

 

[elegysix]

Currently, I'm betting on Obama. But that might change before the election. Personally, I don't care who gets elected, because I don't think it matters wrt any of the important issues that either will deal with as president.

Then why don't you vote for Ron Paul? I'll be penciling his name in even if he drops out. He's the only candidate I've seen that really tackles the big issues - he actually provides a detailed spreadsheet with all the accounting to show that he will cut the deficit. Something none of the other candidates have done.

Even worse, on the white house website you can find info on the tax revenue and budget - projected out another 4 years or so. Obama's projected tax revenue doubles over the next term, while still having a deficit (incredible! I know) and that doesn't sound good for business.

I'd like to say Romney will be good for us, but I've read through his plans and haven't found good news for the budget or wars. He offers a few minor cuts on spending, a few tax breaks, but a huge boost to military spending - and the foreign policy of war if you ask me. There just isn't enough in his plan to reason that he will balance the budget, and a lot that suggests we'll be going to war. He hasn't provided basic accounting to show that his plan will balance the budget, and I can only reason that's because his plan won't balance it. I don't think it would even be close to balancing it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't know if it would be much better. Proportional representation is being used by quite a few countries, but I'm not sure whether it can be said that these governments are necessarily better than others.

Of course, this may have little to do with PR - which may be good in itself - and more with the fact that there are huge differences between countries.

Exactly, I'm not saying the quality of political parties or government in general would change. But the system itself would be fairer IMO because it would allow other parties to actually stand a chance, ensure that no one's vote is wasted, remove the necessity for tactical voting and generally make people feel like they actually have a say which could reduce voter apathy, increase political participation and reduce social tension arising from a feeling of disillusionment with political process.

This is getting a bit OT though. If anyone wants to continue it would probably be best to branch off to a new thread.

 

[ThomasT]

Read this today:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/children-illegals-deported-immigration/2012/06/15/id/442453

Just some politcal positioning by Obama aimed at maximizing his projected proportion of the Hispanic/Latino vote, imo.

 

[russ_watters]

Wonder if the rest of the electorate will care about him usurping legislative authority/derelicting his duty?

 

[aquitaine]

Wonder if the rest of the electorate will care about him usurping legislative authority/derelicting his duty?

After seeing that happen so many times in the Bush Administration I guess we just got use to it. Sad as that is though...

 

[Vanadium 50]

After seeing that happen so many times in the Bush Administration I guess we just got use to it. Sad as that is though...

But one theme of the President's campaign was "I'm better than the guy in the Oval Office". I would have hoped for more from his supporters than "he may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel".

There's also a difference between the signing statements of both Presidents Bush and Obama (and for that matter James Monroe) - which have no legal effect - and the President saying he's not going to enforce a law he feels is Constitutional (he said so in March 2011) but that he disagrees with. Particularly when that looks like an attempt to win more voters.

Will this win more voters? It's hard to tell. It's certainly true that for every independent voter he loses he needs to pick up one from the base - or vice versa.

 

[russ_watters]

After seeing that happen so many times in the Bush Administration I guess we just got use to it.

Besides what V50 said (Obama said he'd be better), it appears to me that Obama has been much worse on that score.

 

[aquitaine]

But one theme of the President's campaign was "I'm better than the guy in the Oval Office". I would have hoped for more from his supporters than "he may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel".

There's also a difference between the signing statements of both Presidents Bush and Obama (and for that matter James Monroe) - which have no legal effect - and the President saying he's not going to enforce a law he feels is Constitutional (he said so in March 2011) but that he disagrees with. Particularly when that looks like an attempt to win more voters.

Will this win more voters? It's hard to tell. It's certainly true that for every independent voter he loses he needs to pick up one from the base - or vice versa.

Yeah. That election was a choice between someone who said he would do better but didn't and someone who would have been more of the same. Either way we would get largely the same results except on a few wedge issues. I can't help but get the same vibe this time around, regardless of whether or not Robama or Obamney gets elected.

Besides what V50 said (Obama said he'd be better), it appears to me that Obama has been much worse on that score.

But here's the thing, during Bush's first term he had no vetos at all. None. To find a president with a comparable veto record for one complete term I had to look all the way back to John Quincy Adam's presidency (several others that also had 0 vetos died before their first term was up). During this period of something absolutly unprecendented happened and that was the executive branch merged with the legislative branch. I suspect the reason he didn't veto any legislation was because it was all his branch's legislation to begin with. Now, with Obama we largely have a continuation and an expansion of many Bush policies, but without a compliant congress he just runs over them instead. I predict if Romney gets elected we'll see a continuation and expansion Obama's policies, regardless of whether or not congress (or the electorate for that matter) wants to go along for the ride.

 

[Astronuc]

Robama or Obamney

It appears that Romney wants to increase the Defense budget and decrease income taxes. OK - so what (and how much) is he going to cut to reduce the deficit?

 

[Vanadium 50]

so what (and how much) is he going to cut to reduce the deficit?

Obamacare.

 

[Astronuc]

Obamacare.

and what else?

Meanwhile - Unger strike: Obama’s former professor says he ‘must not’ win in 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/unger-strike-obama-former-professor-says-must-not-160604104.html

 

[aquitaine]

It appears that Romney wants to increase the Defense budget and decrease income taxes. OK - so what (and how much) is he going to cut to reduce the deficit?

Well that's what he says, we all know what that means. In any case, given what the potential consequences are of continued runaway deficits, the fact that this is not at or near the top of the campaign, and that no one has a definite plan to do anything about it, indicates pretty clearly that neither takes this issue seriously.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like somebody's moral values really needs to be examined if they were a part of a society that excluded black preachers up until 1978.

And it's not like it was little Mitt Romney as an eight year old kid who didn't know better, he was an adult, yet willingly practiced Mormonism.

I don't think that either candidate will do this country any good. As far as Obama's public speaking skills, I think there's a lot lacking (persausion, as was noted earlier). He's also bad (in my opinion) at holding someone's attention. He may be smooth and have a relatively appealing rythym to his speech, but ultimately it comes down to what he says, and whether or not people want to listen.

Neither candidate seems to have any productive plan for immigration, either. It's such an easy concept (allow more H1-B Visas... for one thing), especially when you consider how many other developed nations, like Canada, have successful immigration laws.

Essentially it comes down to reducing the number of immigrants who come to the U.S. due to having a family member live there (which Democrats won't have anything to do with), and increasing the number of skilled workers who come the U.S.

 

[ThinkToday]

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like somebody's moral values really needs to be examined if they were a part of a society that excluded black preachers up until 1978.

And it's not like it was little Mitt Romney as an eight year old kid who didn't know better, he was an adult, yet willingly practiced Mormonism.

I don't think that either candidate will do this country any good. As far as Obama's public speaking skills, I think there's a lot lacking (persausion, as was noted earlier). He's also bad (in my opinion) at holding someone's attention. He may be smooth and have a relatively appealing rythym to his speech, but ultimately it comes down to what he says, and whether or not people want to listen.

Neither candidate seems to have any productive plan for immigration, either. It's such an easy concept (allow more H1-B Visas... for one thing), especially when you consider how many other developed nations, like Canada, have successful immigration laws.

Essentially it comes down to reducing the number of immigrants who come to the U.S. due to having a family member live there (which Democrats won't have anything to do with), and increasing the number of skilled workers who come the U.S.

And the Catholics still don't allow female priests, Wright & Obama, etc... I sure hope we can get away from religious testing. Unless it reflects substantially on their recent or current governing ability, a candidate's religion should be dropped from discussions. Although we should be able to discuss religion in the context of current events.

I haven't seen Obama do anything that would instill confidence in the business community. This isn't an environment I'd start a business in. There are just too many unknowns with what the government may do next, health care, taxes on small businesses, environment, energy, etc.

I'm hopeful that Romney has enough business ability to get that rolling again. Cut taxes for businesses for dollars spent in the US for expanding and creating jobs, for example. IMO, the key will be creating an atmosphere that's good enough for business to feel comfortable about spending assets to grow the economy here. There entire regulatory environment needs to be turned over. We have government involved in everything. IMO, one way to shrink deficits is to shrink the roll of the federal government and it's unfunded mandates. IMO, we don't need the Depts of Energy or Education, beyond setting basic standards. Companies were making electricity log before there was a DoE. Kids were getting an education long before DoEd, and giving the drop in world rankings, probably a better education. Additionally, the government needs to stop with the property hording http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fiscal/excess-property-map There is no need for the federal government to sit on unused or underused prime properties.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Just a heads up, I wasn't trying to start any controversy or bring religion into this at all. I mentioned that solely because I felt like the issue isn't addressed in the media or public as often as I would personally feel that it should be, but like ThinkToday mentioned, Obama has had similar controversies, and you can find dirty details in everybody's past if you're willing to look hard enough.

Just wanted to make sure that I wouldn't offend anybody with that post. Thanks.

 

[BobG]

Wonder if the rest of the electorate will care about him usurping legislative authority/derelicting his duty?

Only the portion that disagrees with giving young illegals immunity.

Granted, a few people are more concerned with the integrity of the process than the outcome, but most form their opinion of the process based on whether or not it gets them the desired outcome.

This is a winner for Obama. It seems pretty heartless to the average person to deport someone that had no control over whether they came here or not. Especially considering that most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.
Polling Report polls on immigration

Usurping legislative authority to do something unpopular or illegal (violating the Geneva conventions regarding torture, for example) usually has more serious consequences with the public.

On the other hand, it's a small winner for Obama. Most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.

It will help him with Hispanic voters in Colorado, which is very close and which is a must win for Romney - and the folks that have strong anti-immigration opinions are Tancredo Republicans that won't be voting for Obama, anyway.

And it could help Obama in Florida, where Rubio (Republican) has championed a very similar policy. Romney looks a little out of touch with Florida, at least, if he makes an issue of this and Florida is another must win state for Romney that's virtually tied.

It's a small issue, but a small issue that could potentially be the difference in 38 electoral votes in a very close election.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Only the portion that disagrees with giving young illegals immunity.

Granted, a few people are more concerned with the integrity of the process than the outcome, but most form their opinion of the process based on whether or not it gets them the desired outcome.

This is a winner for Obama. It seems pretty heartless to the average person to deport someone that had no control over whether they came here or not. Especially considering that most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.
Polling Report polls on immigration

Usurping legislative authority to do something unpopular or illegal (violating the Geneva conventions regarding torture, for example) usually has more serious consequences with the public.

On the other hand, it's a small winner for Obama. Most people just don't have an incredibly strong opinion about immigration.

It will help him with Hispanic voters in Colorado, which is very close and which is a must win for Romney - and the folks that have strong anti-immigration opinions are Tancredo Republicans that won't be voting for Obama, anyway.

And it could help Obama in Florida, where Rubio (Republican) has championed a very similar policy. Romney looks a little out of touch with Florida, at least, if he makes an issue of this and Florida is another must win state for Romney that's virtually tied.

It's a small issue, but a small issue that could potentially be the difference in 38 electoral votes in a very close election.

In terms of the longevity of the U.S, immigration isn't a small issue at all. Unless it is reformed for the better, the U.S. will be falling behind nations with smarter immigration policies that allow for skilled workers to improve their workforce. It is a small issue in regards to the voters' opinions in the election, but in the grand scheme of things, it's something that definitely needs to be looked at further.

 

[ThinkToday]

Usurping legislative authority to do something unpopular or illegal (violating the Geneva conventions regarding torture, for example) usually has more serious consequences with the public.

Problem is, Obama's oath of office to faithfully uphold the constitution and laws of the US goes out the window when he chooses to ignore immigration LAW. When law enforcement turns to selective prosecution, we have a problem. When the selective prosecution guideline comes from the executive branch just prior to an election, we have a bigger problem. We now have a President which has inserted his election strategy ahead of the LAW of the land for personal gain. And, he didn't do this in his first three years because? Oh yea, doesn't have the election/voter value it has this close to the vote. We are a Republic, which means we are a nation on laws. Perhaps the President's education was more symbolic than substance.

On the compassion side, I don't disagree with the substance, e.g. not punishing kids for the sins of the parents. On the other hand, we have laws, and they must rule until changed.

 

[BobG]

Problem is, Obama's oath of office to faithfully uphold the constitution and laws of the US goes out the window when he chooses to ignore immigration LAW. When law enforcement turns to selective prosecution, we have a problem. When the selective prosecution guideline comes from the executive branch just prior to an election, we have a bigger problem. We now have a President which has inserted his election strategy ahead of the LAW of the land for personal gain.

The motivation for what he's doing (or not doing) is pretty clear. In fact, the only unusual thing he's doing is making sure he publicizes it.

Government officials always have to make decisions about which laws to enforce and how vigorously to enforce them. It's unrealistic to think every law is going to be prosecuted to its fullest extent.

For example, from the Texas constitution:

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

No one in Texas is ever going to enforce this provision because it clearly violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.

And the US will never completely shut down drug traffic from Mexico/Central America in spite of us technically having the capability - at least if we used our military to its fullest extent. The reason being that the military has other things we'd rather have them do than shut down drug trafficking. In fact, for over a decade, we've had a lot of things we'd rather have them do.

And I imagine there are very few cities, if any, that have launched an effort to stop every speeder on the roads (or every drunk driver, for that matter). We pull over just enough token speeders to make other speeders worry a little bit (well, a tiny bit, anyway).

Realistically, how many resources to you want to devote to finding and deporting people that are here illegally, but have no other home of memory other than here (and how large of a tax increase would you support in order to obtain those resources)? It would be easier to track down and deport illegals that have come to the US and overstayed their visas and we don't pursue them very vigorously, either. If they come to the attention of authorities because they committed a crime, deportation is just one extra penalty they could pay, but we just don't go looking very hard for them.

This is an issue that's more rhetoric than anything else. And making sure the public knows this is one law that won't be enforced is just another form of that rhetoric.