On CNN, Candy Crowley, no enemy of the Democrats, is looking at Obama's announcement that he is going to wait until after the elections to take action on immigration. Of course supporters are trying to blame congress, but it reinforces the point I'm coming to believe. Fanaticism and zealotry can be bad, but those who are only conveniently behind something are worse. Being against Hispanic immigrants because you hate Hispanics would be bad. Exploiting and toying with Hispanics only for political gain, however is much worse, After all, the racist can be reached. But the person who claims disgust at racism, only to exploit an ethnic group for personal gain? How do you reason with them?
Representative Tony Cardenas, being interviewed by Ms. Crowley, is good enough to blame Obama's advisers, almost as if it's a forgone conclusion hat Obama has absolutely no leadership qualities and is a slave to his advisers. Later, on the round table, LZ Granderson* invokes one of modern liberalism's most common defenses: everyone else has always done it (played with people's lives and toyed with national well being for political gain). When you have to assume an unacceptable premise to defend someone, that person has, somewhere in the past, jumped a serious shark.
*As a pundit, it's Mr. Granderson's job to defend at all costs. But I am a little tired of hearing another modern liberal defense of Obama that he invoked when the issue of ISIS came up: American's just don't understand nuance. That is, we're still the ignorant masses unable to fathom the breadth and depth of the first person in history who God prays to every morning.