These days you can't expect to get substance on TV. Substance rarely has video.

Here's what Obama did in the last week - http://www.whitehous...complete/2012-W25

Here's what Rmoney did in the last week - http://mittromneycen...sources/calendar/

Rmoney's speech to NALEO - http://www.mittromne...ity-all-americans

An effective immigration system can also strengthen our economy, as it has since the nation’s founding.

Unfortunately, despite his promises, President Obama has failed to address immigration reform.

For two years, this President had huge majorities in the House and Senate – he was free to pursue any policy he pleased. But he did nothing to advance a permanent fix for our broken immigration system. Instead, he failed to act until facing a tough re-election and trying to secure your vote.

Last week, the President finally offered a temporary measure that he seems to think will be just enough to get him through the election. After three and a half years of putting every issue from loan guarantees for his donors to Cash For Clunkers before immigration, now the President has been seized by an overwhelming need to do what he could have done on Day One. I think you deserve better.

Some people have asked if I will let stand the President's executive action. The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the President's temporary measure.

As President, I won’t settle for a stop-gap measure. I will work with Republicans and Democrats to find a long-term solution. I will prioritize measures that strengthen legal immigration and make it easier. And I will address the problem of illegal immigration in a civil but resolute manner. We may not always agree, but when I make a promise to you, I will keep it.

Let me speak to a few principles that will guide me.

As I have said many times, it is critical that we redouble our efforts to secure the borders. That means both preventing illegal border crossings and making it harder to illegally overstay a visa. We should field enough border patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence, and implement an improved exit verification system.

Our immigration system should help promote strong families, not keep them apart. Our nation benefits when moms and dads and their kids are all living together under the same roof. But, today, too many families are caught in a broken system that costs them time and money and entangles them in red tape. For those seeking to come to America the right way, that kind of bureaucratic nightmare has to end. And we can do this with just a few common-sense reforms.

As President, I will reallocate Green Cards to those seeking to keep their families under one roof. We will exempt from caps the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents. And we will eliminate other forms of bureaucratic red tape that keep families from being together.

Anything concrete in there? Nope. It's sloganeering.

Obama's speech to NALEO: http://www.whitehous...erence#transcript

Now, once again, the problem is not the lack of technical solutions. We know what the solutions are to this challenge. Just six years ago, an unlikely trio -- John McCain, Ted Kennedy, President Bush -- came together to champion comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.) I, along with a lot of Democrats, were proud to join 23 Senate Republicans in voting for it. Today, those same Republicans have been driven away from the table by a small faction of their own party. It’s created the same kind of stalemate on immigration reform that we’re seeing on a whole range of other economic issues. And it has given rise to a patchwork of state laws that cause more problems than they solve and are often doing more harm than good. (Applause.)

Now, this makes no sense. It’s not good for America. And as long as I am President of the United States, I will not give up the fight to change it.

In the face of a Congress that refuses to do anything on immigration, I’ve said that I’ll take action wherever I can. So my administration has been doing what we can, without the help in Congress, for more than three years now. And last week, we took another step. On Friday, we announced that we’re lifting the shadow of deportation from deserving young people who were brought to this country as children. (Applause.)

We should have passed the DREAM Act a long time ago. It was written by members of both parties. When it came up for a vote a year and a half ago, Republicans in Congress blocked it. The bill hadn’t changed. The need hadn’t changed. The only thing that had changed was politics. (Applause.) The need had not changed. The bill hadn’t changed -- written with Republicans. The only thing that had changed was politics. And I refused to keep looking young people in the eye, deserving young people in the eye, and tell them, tough luck, the politics is too hard.

I’ve met these young people all across the country. They’re studying in our schools. They’re playing with our children, pledging allegiance to our flag, hoping to serve our country. They are Americans in their hearts, in their minds. They are Americans through and through -- in every single way but on paper. And all they want is to go to college and give back to the country they love. (Applause.) So lifting the shadow of deportation and giving them a reason to hope -- that was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do. (Applause.)

It’s not amnesty. It falls short of where we need to be --a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while offering some justice to these young people. But it’s precisely because it’s temporary, Congress still needs to come up with a long-term immigration solution -- rather than argue that we did this the wrong way or for the wrong reasons.

So to those who are saying Congress should be the one to fix this -- absolutely. For those who say we should do this in a bipartisan fashion -- absolutely. My door has been open for three and a half years. They know where to find me. (Laughter.)

I’ve said time and again: Send me the DREAM Act; I will sign it right away. (Applause.) And I’m still willing to work with anyone from either party who is committed to real reform. But in the meantime, the question we should consider is this: Was providing these young people with the opportunity for a temporary measure of relief the right thing to do?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: I think it was. It’s long past time that we gave them a sense of hope.

Your speaker from yesterday has a different view. In his speech, he said that when he makes a promise to you, he’ll keep it. Well, he has promised to veto the DREAM Act, and we should take him at his word. (Applause.) I’m just saying. (Laughter and applause.)

And I believe that would be a tragic mistake. You do, too.

On all these issues -- on the investments we need to grow the middle class and leave a better future for our kids, on deficit reduction that’s fair and balanced, on immigration reform, on consumer financial protection so that people aren’t exploited, whether at a payday loan shop or if they’re sending remittances back to their families -- on all these issues, Washington has a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the country.

Who is talking about actual actions and policies, and who is playing in a theatre?

There's substance out there, and substantial differences between the candidates and the parties. It's a crime that it takes so much work to find them in the press, but don't fool yourself. They're not the same.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

As opposed to Congress being in session 9 days in April - http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/h1122.html ?

Presidents campaign for re-election. They, at least the good ones, also are on the job all the time (phone calls at 3 AM and all that) - Congress, not so much. Film at 11:00.

Of course, Willard's been running for president since 2004, so ...

Cheers,
Scott.

War and state-based police actions (or whatever one wants to call them) are nasty business.

I obviously have no special insight into Obama's thinking on the techniques being used to go after al Qaeda and suspected al Qaeda people. If we are going to go after them with deadly force, it makes more sense to me to do so with drones than with cruise missiles or B-2s.

http://www.globalsec...109-operation.htm

At least with drones, there's nearly real-time video of the target and the chance that a human can call it off if the targeting is mistaken, etc. With dumb bombs and missiles, there's much more opportunity for mistakes, and their target zones are necessarily much larger than with ordnance from a slow-moving, loitering platform.

http://www.iraqbodyc...se/incidents/x020

But obviously in any military-ish conflict (again, whatever one wants to call them), civilians will do most of the dying. :-(

I just wish there was somebody I could vote for that would not make me complicit in murder. It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime. Pity. This used to be a pretty good country.

I understand the sentiment - I really do. But don't let your disappointment blind you to the progress that has been made. We didn't go into Georgia despite McCain's wishes. Our actions in Libya were limited and had a short duration. We haven't talked of marching to Damascus to teach Assad a lesson, and talk of war with Iran has died down.

Compare that to what went on in the 1960s in SE Asia, or in the 1980s in Central America, or in the Bosnian war in the 1990s, and of course in the 2000s in Iraq.

Hang in there.

Cheers,
Scott.