RAHM EMANUEL-- THE WRONG SPOKESPERSON FOR DEMOCRATS ON IMMIGRATION, ON HEALTH CARE, ON TRADE... ON EVERYTHING

This morning's NY Times trumpets a new S-CHIP vote tomorrow, one that tightens eligibility requirements so as to make certain that any children whose parents are undocumented will be unable to get health care. The new bill tightens eligibility for the program, generally barring the use of federal money to cover illegal immigrants, childless adults and children of families with incomes exceeding three times the poverty level: $61,950 for a family of four. "The bill addresses all of the concerns that were expressed by our colleagues and by the president," explained Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "We hope the Republicans will take yes for an answer." Fred Upton (R-MI), one of the almost 4 dozen Republicans who voted to override Bush's veto last week, said the changes improve the bill enough to sway more Republicans. Hey, maybe they will even get reactionary Democrats Jim Marshall (GA) and Gene Taylor (MS) aboard this time.

So more compromising from Democrats on a bill so overwhelmingly favored by the public that it is probably guaranteeing that no Republican can be elected to the White House, no matter which one of the pathetic pygmies™ wins that party's worthless nomination. In fact on issue after issue, Democratic values are informing a vision of a better America. It's a shame that our own pygmies, narrow partisan hacks, refuse to embrace them and ride them to victory. Nancy Pelosi is making a strategic mistake in having the detested Rahm Emanuel publicly speaking about the S-CHIP bill. He's hated by the immigrant community, by grassroots Democrats, by progressives and by Republicans. K Street, of course, loves him (as do the worst, Machiavellian, side of the Clintons).

And let me tell you how concerned Rahm Emanuel really is about health care for children. When he found out that mentally unbalanced Republican congressman Mark Foley (FL) was molesting young pages, he forgot to go to the police-- or even to the floor of the House to denounce him. Foley was breaking into the boys' dorm after midnight, shit-faced drunk, and Rahm hightailed it down to Florida to recruit a Republican, Tim Mahoney, luring him with a very appealing prospect. He and Hoyer promised to get the pesky Democratic challenger, Dave Lutrin, out of the way if Mahoney would switch the R to a D on his registration card and run for what was bound to be a soon vacant seat. He did and the news of Foley's proclivities for young men and boys oozed out into the media, perfectly timed. [Rahm went to hide under the same rock as Denny Hastert (R-IL), John Shimkus (R-IL), Tom Reynolds (R-NY), and John Boehner (R-OH), 4 Republicans who were covering up for Foley for their own partisan reasons.]

As I mentioned Monday, Emanuel addressed a training session for a couple dozen favored Democratic candidates. Afterwards several of the candidates mentioned to me that the low-point of the weekend was Emanuel's demand that they inoculate themselves against Republican attacks on the immigration issue by "moving to the right" on that one. Many of the candidates bought right into his scare tactics. Others remembered that his scare tactics last year-- that any Democrat perceived as being against the war would lose-- were disastrous. Candidates who did buy in, like Lois Murphy, Christine Jennings, Tammy Duckworth, and Patty Madrid, lost. Candidates who ignored his out-of-touch and self-serving directives, like Carol Shea-Porter, Jerry McNerney, Bruce Braley, John Hall, and Patrick Murphy all have the word "Congressmember" before their names today.

The funny thing about Emanuel-- whose Chicago district is 25% Hispanic-- is that I doubt he really cares one or way or the other about the policy issues inherent in this far-reaching and serious debate. Sure, the NAFTA bill he helped Clinton force down Democrats' throats in Congress caused much of the problem but... that isn't Emanuel's concern. His concern is getting Democrats elected and he doesn't care what it takes. If they have to abandon Democratic values and principles... well, he doesn't have a clue what those are to begin with. He caused quite a stir when he decided to kick off his inoculation campaign in the Washington Post Tuesday, blaming Niki Tsongas' near-loss not on what a crappy, middle-of-the-road and uninspiring candidate she is but on... immigrants. Spouting Republican talking points for them, Emanuel did all he could to negate Democrats' hard-earned advantage with tens of millions of Hispanic voters. "This issue has real implications for the country. It captures all the American people's anger and frustration not only with immigration, but with the economy," he babbled mindlessly. And now he's made it a crusade. Maybe Nancy Pelosi ought to tell him what California Governor Pete Wilson's same brilliant arguments did for the GOP in California.

Yesterday Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration Forum, hit back-- hard. Democratic candidates who want to win need to inoculate themselves from Emanuel, not from finding a reasonable and comprehensive and humane solution to the immigration problem so horribly exacerbated by Emanuel's NAFTA and Bush's complete incompetence. Emanuel may want to go pirouetting around the country spouting nonsense and stirring up ethnic hatred about how "immigration is the third rail of American politics," when, clearly, it is Rahm Emanuel and valueless Democrats like him that are the third rail of American politics. For a cowardly and craven Republican like John McCain it's a third rail; for Democrats, it's a winner.

“Rep. Emanuel threw immigrants under the bus because desperate House Republicans are planning to run nasty ads about Democrats and immigration,” Sharry said.

Sharry also compared Emanuel to Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who is leading an effort to offer a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who complete high school.

The headline of Sharry’s press release said: “Senator Dick Durbin Leads the Senate Democrats into Battle on Behalf of Immigrants. Rep. Rahm Emanuel Leads the House Democrats, Er, Nowhere.”

Comprehensive, humane, realistic immigration reform is a winner for Democrats. Rahm's path is the path to disaster at the polls. Emanuel-style immigrant bashing-- not as blatant as Tancredo's but, in effect, the same thing-- was a tremendous loser for Republicans in 2006 when commentators and pundits-- and Emanuel-- were yelling that anti-immigrant stands were smart politics. How did that turn out?

Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) hit opponent Bob Casey early and late for Casey’s support for the Senate comprehensive bill passed on a bipartisan basis last May. Santorum suffered the biggest defeat of any Senate incumbent in this election cycle, losing by 18%.

Katherine Harris repeatedly invoked Senator Bill Nelson’s (D-FL) support for the Senate bill in her comeback attempt. She lost 60% - 38%.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) was attacked by his opponent, Tom Kean, Jr. (R) for the Senator’s support of comprehensive immigration reform. He won going way, 53% -47%.

Senators Cantwell (D-WA) and Stabenow (D-MI) were attacked for their votes in support of allowing legalized immigrant workers to claim credit for social security taxes paid when they had been undocumented. Both won easily.

Senator Carper (D-DE) was opposed by a one-issue candidate, former INS official and noted immigration restrictionist Jan Ting. Accused of supporting “amnesty,” Carper won 70% - 29%.

In Arizona-8 Republican Randy Graf lost to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords by 54% - 42%. This was a closely watched race for a toss up district along the U.S.-Mexico border in a state in which immigration is the number one issue. Graf made the prophetic statement, "If this issue can't be won in this district [by hard-liners], the argument can be made that it can't be won anywhere in the country."

In Indiana-8, House Immigration Subcommittee Chair John Hostettler (R-IN) was one of the featured Republicans in the summer “field hearings” held by House Republicans to stir up voters on the immigration issue. He lost by a wide margin.

In Arizona-5 hard liner J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) is the author of the book “Whatever It Takes” about illegal immigration, and refused to vote for HR 4437, the controversial Sensenbrenner bill, because he thought it did not go far enough. Hayworth was upset by comprehensive reform advocate Harry Mitchell 51% - 46%. Two years earlier Hayworth won re-election by 21 points.

In Colorado-7, the race featured hard liner Republican Rick O’Donnell trying to replace another Republican, Bob Beauprez who vacated the seat to run for governor. O’Donnell was featured in a front page New York Times article arguing that immigration was the biggest issue in his district and that his views were much more popular than those of his comprehensive reform advocate opponent, Democrat Ed Perlmutter. Perlmutter won 54% - 42%.

In Arizona incumbent and Democrat Janet Napolitano, an early proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, was attacked repeatedly by her opponent Len Munsil for being soft on illegal immigration. He proposed a half a billion dollar border security initiative as his signature issue. Napolitano won 63% - 35%.

In Colorado Republican Bob Beauprez staked his campaign on attacking his Democratic opponent, Bill Ritter, for being soft on illegal immigration. He lost 56% - 41%.

In numerous states Democratic incumbents and candidates came under fire from their opponents for being soft on illegal immigration and for supporting in-state tuition for undocumented students. In every case – Kansas, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Maryland – the pro-immigrant candidate won and the attacker lost.

In California, Arnold Schwarzenegger took a different tack from many in his party. He moved to the center on immigration: he stopped applauding the Minutemen, he apologized for his support of Proposition 187 in the past, he dragged his feet on approving the deployment of his state’s National Guard for border duty, and loudly criticized the Republican Congress for not moving on comprehensive immigration reform. He was rewarded with a huge victory that included 39% of the state’s large group of Latino voters.

So much for the conventional wisdom that being for comprehensive reform would turn out to be a loser and that being a hard line hawk would be a winner.

Senator Durbin and Emanuel are both from Illinois. Durbin is a thoughtful statesman; Emanuel is a disgraceful hack. Watch this video of Durbin attacking Tom Tancredo's bigotry and hatred but very consciously not mentioning Emanuel at all. And Tuesday night Emanuel's diktat to Democratic candidate's spilled over into the campaign to replace Denny Hastert in IL-14. Emanuel's sorry shill in the race is a reactionary multimillionaire Blue Dog, Bill Foster, who was invited to attend last weekend's session and, predictably and enthusiastically, embraced Emanuel's demand that Democrats move to the right on immigration. A local reporter at the campaign's first debate highlighted the different approaches.

They disagreed on immigration reform, with Bill Foster [the Blue Dog] promoting a national identification card so the U.S. can "remain a nation of laws," John Laesch calling for a "more humanitarian stance," and Jotham Stein calling for a "path to citizenship" for the millions of illegal immigrants already here.

"I disagree that we are a nation of laws. I think that we are a nation of hope," said Laesch, holding a rolled-up copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Throughout the night, Laesch's comments drew the most applause from the crowd.

UPDATE: EMANUEL FOR VP?

I guess if Hillary really wanted to think of the very best way to ensure a Republican victory she could do what that silly, clueless Safire just predicted on Meet the Press and name Emanuel her VP nominee. But since she actually wants to win the presidency, my bet is that Safire, as usual, doesn't have any idea what he's talking about when he ventures outside of the realm of grammar. I think Safire has lost his mind, poor man. He's even come up with a Hillary and Rahm bumpersticker: Invade & Bomb with Hillary & Rahm. Don't hold your breath-- unless you're a right-wnger; then, by all means... be my guest.