CNN's first mistake was putting Rep. Steve King on to comment about Obama's immigration executive order. Is there a finer example of a nativist than King? If so, I haven't seen them.
Their second mistake was Gloria Borger's ridiculous question about whether or not this has "poisoned the well." Borger hasn't looked into that well lately, because if she did she'd see that it's on fire, likely due to fracking fluid in the groundwater supply.
Or crazy Congressmen. David Atkins writes at Digby's place:
What does it mean that a Democratic president is constantly guilty of poisoning the bipartisan well (besides being a meaningless rightwing talking point, of course)?
It means that the Republican Party intends to obstruct absolutely everything and wants to blame the President for it when they do. But it also means the leadership of the GOP that needs it to looks slightly less than totally insane will be unable to control their rowdies.
In essence, the GOP leadership is telling the President that if he does anything at all to help people, the crazies that make up the majority of the GOP caucus will get out of line and do crazy things, and that would be bad.
As if they need an excuse to get out of line and do crazy things? This is why they're in Congress -- to do crazy things. Each and every time they do crazy things they return to their wellspring of crazy donors, who pony up so they can do more crazy things.
Of all the questions Gloria Borger could have asked King, this is the one she comes up with. Is there no journalist who will ask a Republican why they can't pass comprehensive immigration reform when they have a bill right in front of them they could pass tomorrow if their leader brought it to the floor?
Or maybe they could just straight up ask Steve King if his objections to immigration reform are purely the consequence of being a flaming bigot.
Immigration reform isn't partisan. Both parties acknowledge that the immigration system is broken and needs fixing. But only one party is standing between codifying that policy and leaving it hanging, and it isn't the Democrats. When something passes the Senate with a veto-proof majority, perhaps it should actually have the courtesy of a vote in the House, no?
Every single report I tuned into tonight danced around President Obama's challenge to Republicans: "Pass a bill." It's simple enough, but the Bigot Caucus won't permit it. Why doesn't anyone say that?