Posted on 06/25/2012 9:31:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
NBC News political director Chuck Todd said Monday the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law "is probably the worst of all outcomes if you’re Mitt Romney."
Such was said on MSNBC's Jansing and Company moments after the announcement (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Chuck Todd on Supreme Court Immigration Ruling: 'Worst of All Outcomes If You’re Mitt Romney'
After discussing the issue with NBC correspondent Pete Williams, Jansing said, "We’ve been talking about the incredible political implications of this ruling for both sides in an election year when the Latino vote is going to be so critical in so many key battleground states."
Jansing then introduced Todd as well as Andrea Mitchell asking, “Chuck, as you heard from Pete, a little bit of something for everybody. Is it the joy of victory or the agony of defeat for the White House do you think?”
Todd responded by immediately flipping the question to how the ruling impacts Romney.
“Well, politically I want to talk about this in terms of Mitt Romney,” Todd said. “Politically, this is probably the worst of all outcomes if you’re Mitt Romney, because you’ve talked about there’s some parts of the Arizona law that you thought were a model.”
With a smile on his face Todd continued, “It was specifically not this part of the law that actually that they would take issue with that they said was necessarily a model.”
After some additional elaboration about the ruling, Todd said, “I think it puts Romney in a much more difficult position.”
Todd then speculated how other states might now adopt their policies to what the Court approved Monday adding, “And that in itself is still something that offends a lot of Latinos, and it is not necessarily the type of story or the type of political issue that the Romney campaign wants to be talking about for another three days.”
“Any day they’re talking about immigration,” Todd said, “is a bad day for their campaign.”
Did you notice that Todd never uttered a word about how this impacts Obama despite that being the question from Jansing?
Same was true for Mitchell who also only defined this matter from how it helped Democrats and hurt Romney.
What else should we expect from a so-called “news network” described last week by conservative talk radio host as “an annex of the Democrat National Committee?”
I would disagree with that. Illegal immigration is a jobs issue and any day Obama sides with illegal immigration is a day the alternative candidates including Romney should assail him for giving jobs and benefits to illegals.
Scotus was a disaster today in saying basically that a president could enforce law at his own whim and states just have to suck up the invasion of their territory.
I'd also appeal to union workers and be screaming loud and long to construction, transportation, and service workers that Obama sold them down the river by giving their jobs to illegals.
Why do I get the sense that Todd would have provided the exact same “analysis” no matter what the SCOTUS had ruled?
> Chuck Todd, the tool for the Democratic leftist party and husband of a Democratic operative.
Must be quite a sham marriage then, as the Gaydar is pinging quite rapidly at the moment from that pic.
Totally agree. This immigration decision is another club to beat Obama over the head with. 75% of Americans want immigration enforcement. This turns into more votes for Romney not O. This is another nail in the O re-election.
I have gotten to the point that when one of these clowns say something like this, I immediately think the opposite.
Blah! Blah! Blah!....Another lib-tard off the reservation!
This is reassuring. If Todd thinks it’s bad for Romney, it’s probably good for Romney.
It sure is
My thoughts exactly when I saw the headline.
John Roberts - The latest in a long series of disappointing Republican appointments to SCOTUS.
With worse hair.
Exactly. I have no doubt he had those talking points long prepared, with only the pertinent info to be dropped in for currency.
That would be the perfect counter to this ruling. However, it seems the republicans have gone soft on this issue except for a handful.
Roberts cast a vote with the majority, which preserved part of the law. Had he gone against it, the vote would've been deadlocked at 4-4 (Kagan recused), defaulting back to the 9th Circuit Court, which issued a stay on the immigration status check. Roberts' vote preserved at least something out of it.
The one that concerns me is... as usual... Anthony Kennedy. After all the showmanship during the argument phase, I have a nagging fear he's going to swing with the liberal side on the Obamacare case.
Thursday's ruling will be a hugely pivotal moment for the future of this country. I'm not optimistic the ruling will come down in favor of freedom. If Obamacare is upheld, we're screwed unless Obama somehow loses in November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.