The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The Big Question: Should Dems tackle immigration or climate?

by Sydelle Moore - 04/23/10 5:08 PM ET

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

How about “none of the above?” Don’t we have enough controversy to debate in the months up to the November election????

Bruce E. Gronbeck, professor of Political Communication at the University of Iowa, said:

Neither. First they need to get at least some bipartisan support for financial regulation, demonstrating that the legislative branch can actually work together on a good day, and then move on to energy. If an energy package including not only nuclear power and “clean” coal but also expansion of green power can be passed with bipartisan input, then maybe, just maybe, climate change legislation can starting percolating. I don’t think that immigration reform is an election year issue capable of collective action–remember what it did to politicians in ’07-’08.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

Immigration or “climate change” legislation? One might as well ask “Scylla or Charybdis?”

How about getting this economy out of what is fast turning into the Second Great Depression? Millions foreclosed, record unemployment, the specter of hyperinflation (food prices already skyrocketing) — and these numbskulls are going on about the mythical-religious “climate change” cult? As for immigration — well, this is a bit more relevent, but of course the Obama administration will take the politically correct route of some kind of amnesty for illegals — and then, watch out!

Look, I realize politics has very little to do with reality: it’s all about politicians grabbing and keeing power, pelf, and privilege. But can’t they at least PRETEND they’re concerned about issues that matter to the ordinary American — or are they living in such an enclosed, self-referential bubble in Washington that they no longer know (or care) what’s real?