“The Nazi comments . . . they are awful,” she said, her voice dropping. “Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that . . . and then to have them call me Hitler’s daughter. It hurts. It’s ugliness beyond anything I’ve ever experienced.”

Guess what? Them tears was crocodile tears. Totally fake. As fake as the script she made up for that performance:

Gov. Jan Brewer said in a recent interview that her father died fighting Nazis in Germany. In fact, the death of Wilford Drinkwine came 10 years after World War II had ended.

During the war, Drinkwine worked as a civilian supervisor for a naval munitions depot in Hawthorne, Nev. He died of lung disease in 1955 in California.

So her father wasn’t a soldier, never fought in Germany, and died in California long after the war ended. How did the governor respond when she was confronted with these facts?

Surprise, surprise!

Officials with the governor’s administration said her statement should not be taken to mean that she was claiming her father was a soldier in Germany during the Nazi regime.
[...]
“She wasn’t embellishing the story at all,” (spokesman Paul) Senseman said Tuesday. “You’re reading something into this that isn’t there.”

(When I wrote this post last night, I had to stop here, because at this point I was literally speechless. But this morning I have managed to recover.)

Brewer and her spokespeople have been treated to howls of derision over this incident. But once they decided that their basic stand was going to be that Brewer had not misrepresented her father’s war record, they had only two choices.

Go with the statement they put out, or offer some Ph.D. level parsing, along the lines of:

When Governor Brewer said “my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany”, it should have been perfectly clear to everyone that she meant “My father, who never served in the military, died ten years after the war due to health issues arising from the toxic fumes he inhaled at the ammunition factory he worked in during the war that we fought against the Nazi regime, which, just in case anyone is confused about the issue, was the regime in Germany (and not Italy or Japan, or anywhere else, for that matter).”

I guess they felt that might lead to even more derision than they are facing now.

Just four years ago, 62 U.S. senators, including 23 Republicans, voted for a comprehensive immigration reform bill that included a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. That bill was co-authored by Arizona Republican John McCain and Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy. President Bush strongly supported it. The Republican supporters also included such conservative senators as Sam Brownback of Kansas and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The 39 Democratic supporters included a freshman senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

That bill offered a three-step approach to reform that remains the most plausible template for consensus. It would have toughened enforcement of immigration laws, devoting additional resources to guarding the border and policing employers who hire undocumented workers. It established a guest-worker program to regulate the flow of immigrant labor. (Under an Obama amendment, that guest-worker program would be suspended whenever unemployment reached 9 percent.) And it provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who pass a background check, pay a fine, and learn English.

The bill attracted substantial support from business, religious, and civil-rights groups. The measure almost certainly could have attracted the necessary 218 votes to pass the House. But it died when House GOP leaders refused to bring it to a vote because they concluded that it lacked majority support among House Republicans.

Since 2006, Republican support for comprehensive action has unraveled. In 2007, Senate negotiators tilted the bill further to the right on issues such as border enforcement and guest workers. And yet, amid a rebellion from grassroots conservatives against anything approaching “amnesty,” just 12 Senate Republicans supported the measure as it fell victim to a filibuster. By 2008, McCain declared in a GOP presidential debate that he would no longer support his own bill: Tougher border enforcement, he insisted, should precede discussion of any new pathway to citizenship.

That view has since solidified among Republicans. For months, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have been negotiating an enforcement-legalization plan that largely tracks the 2006 model with some innovative updates, including a “biometric” Social Security card to certify legal status for employment. On balance, their proposal appears more conservative than the 2006 bill.

Yet it has been stalled for weeks because Graham had demanded that a second Republican sign on as a co-sponsor before the legislation is released, and none stepped forward.

It’s a very telling narrative. But what struck my eye was this incidental observation: “The measure almost certainly could have attracted the necessary 218 votes to pass the House. But it died when House GOP leaders refused to bring it to a vote because they concluded that it lacked majority support among House Republicans.”

This was what liberals like to call a bipartisan bill. The very epitome of bipartisanship, actually, according to us. Neither party could have passed it on its own. Yet, it passed in the Senate because 39 Democrats and 23 Republicans came together. And it was poised to pass in the House too, due to a similar coalition of both parties. Yet, House Republicans smothered it in its cradle without any qualms at all.

As I read this passage, all of a sudden a lot of things clicked into place, and started to make sense. We’ve obviously been wrong all along about what Republicans mean by bipartisanship.

Since January 2010, Republicans have been shouting themselves hoarse about the lack of bipartisanship displayed by Barack Obama and Democrats. There are a lot of things Obama can be rightly accused of — and we haven’t exactly flinched from the task here at 1115 — but accusations that he has not displayed bipartisanship have always seemed utterly ludicrous. But that’s because we simply didn’t understand what bipartisanship means to Republicans.

Bipartisanship isn’t lawmakers from both parties coming together to support and pass a bill that reflects a pragmatic fusion of ideas from both sides of the aisle. No, bipartisanship is graciously allowing the other party to vote with you when a bill reflects your party’s agenda closely enough that it commands majority support within your own party. And the real proof of bipartisanship lies in pulling the plug on any bill supported by both parties if it doesn’t command majority support within your own party. That’s what demonstrates real commitment to the idea that bipartisanship only consists of allowing the other party to support your party’s agenda.

Now by this definition, you will note, Obama and the Democrats can indeed be said to have simply not demonstrated bipartisanship. Since January 2010, they never once pulled the plug on any significant piece of legislation that didn’t command majority support among Democrats in either the House or the Senate. Of course, that may have been because that situation never arose; there was no significant piece of legislation that didn’t command majority support among Democrats in either the House or the Senate. But that’s just a matter of detail. The fact, the incontrovertible fact, remains that not once did Obama and the Democrats show us real proof of bipartisanship.

And they have repeatedly been guilty of bending over backwards to incorporate Republican ideas into their bills, when what they’re supposed to do is graciously allow Republicans to vote for purely Democratic bills.

(Of course, it can look a little confusing at times. For example, even though Democrats have consistently engaged in long and exhausting negotiations with Republicans, and bent over backwards to incorporate Republican ideas into their bills, Republicans have consistently accused Democrats of crafting bills all on their ownsome, with no input from Republicans, and then inviting Republicans to vote for the bills. This, of course, is precisely the Republican definition of bipartisanship. And yet, every time the Republicans accuse Democrats of such behavior, they claim that Democrats are not being bipartisan.

You’ll notice that I said “can look a little confusing”, not “does get a little confusing”. Because the explanation is perfectly simple. From time to time, Republicans show their love and respect for Democrats by using their definition of bipartisanship.)

This morning, TPMMuckraker picks up the story — with “a major hat tip to ThinkProgress” — and rebroadcasts it, with an update. ThinkProgress‘s seven states are now up to ten. The official TPMMuckraker description of their list — by Zachary Roth, who wrote the post — is: “At least 10 other states — many inspired by Arizona — are talking about enacting similarly draconian legislation.”

And the list includes the same wild exaggerations that were contained in Andrea Nill‘s ThinkProgress post:

• Colorado: Scott McInnis, the presumptive GOP nominee for governor, said this week that if elected, he’d try to pass something “very similar” to Arizona’s bill.

• Georgia: Nathan Deal, a former congressman and GOP gubernatorial candidate, also has said he intends to propose similar legislation to Arizona’s.

• Maryland: A Republican state legislator has said he plans to send a survey to state lawmakers and gubernatorial candidates to get them on the record as to whether they support Arizona’s approach.
[...]
• Ohio: Two Republicans — one a state legislator, the other a county sheriff — sent a letter recently to Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, asking him to work “to assure legislation is passed that will mirror” Arizona’s. Strickland has been non-committal.

By what stretch of the imagination can any of these instances be described as the state talking about enacting the legislation? Is there a sudden outbreak of reading comprehension disease among liberal blogs?

Josh Marshall, plugging the post on the TPM home page went with “ten other states are poised to pass or debating Arizona-style immigration laws.”

Really, Josh? When a gubernatorial candidate in Colorado says he intends to propose similar legislation to Arizona’s (if he wins the primary, and is then elected), that means Colorado is “poised to pass or debating” that legislation?

To borrow a phrase from Keith Olbermann: “Have you no shame, sir?” Or sense, for that matter. (Funny, how Olbermann has single-handedly turned “sir” into an insult word in our political lexicon.)

Top Line hosts Rick Klein and David Chalian asked Cantor where he stood on the law four times, but the Virginia Republican refused to go on record either way. At one point, Cantor tried to dismiss the questioning, calling it “a false choice,” without any real explanation as to why:
CHALIAN: How is that a false choice?!

CANTOR: Because no one is going to accept the lawlessness. First and foremost, we are a country of laws. Now are you asking whether I think that America is a country of opportunity? Absolutely. Are we a country built on immigrants? Absolutely.

CHALIAN: I’m asking you if you agree with Marco Rubio that the law goes too far. That’s what I’m asking.

CANTOR: Listen, I can tell you this, I am for making sure that America remains a country that stands for freedom and opportunity for everyone and that means we ought to concentrate on enforcing the law and making sure that we enhance legal immigration so that we can continue to grow and prosper so that we can get America back to work.

He blathers as well as George Bush ever did. In the real world, that and a dollar bill buys you four quarters. In the Republican Party, it buys you young-and-energetic-leader status.

A Republican Texas lawmaker plans to introduce a tough immigration measure similar to the new law in Arizona, a move state Democrats say would be a mistake.

Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball said she will push for the law in the January legislative session, according to Wednesday’s editions of the San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle.

“The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established,” said Riddle, who introduced a similar measure in 2009 that didn’t get out of committee. “If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn’t have to take this action, and neither would Texas.”

The Arizona law would require local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status — and make it a crime for immigrants to lack registration documents.
[...]
State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat and former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, called the law “extremely damaging and hateful.”

Van de Putte predicted failure for any similar measures in Texas and said the GOP would suffer politically for such a move.

Asked about the Arizona law, GOP Gov. Rick Perry and his Democratic challenger, Bill White, emphasized through spokespeople that immigration is a federal responsibility.

Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights Project, predicted any similar effort in Texas would fail because Texas has “a different relationship with the Hispanic community.”

“You can take the political temperature by just looking at Rick Perry being quiet,” Harrington said.

I would have thought Texas has too much pride to settle for “Me too!” status.

*** Update, 6:33 a.m. ***

Since wild exaggerations seem to be becoming a pattern at ThinkProgress, I have to say that they’re up to their usual tricks again.

The headline reads: “REPORT: Following Passage Of Arizona Law, At Least Seven States Contemplate Anti-Immigrant Legislation “.

The list includes:
• Georgia, because “Nathan Deal (R), who is running for Governor, wants to propose legislation that mirrors Arizona’s.”
• Colorado, because “gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis (R) said that if he were governor, he would seek to pass something “very similar” to what Arizona enacted.”
• Maryland, because “State Delegate Pat McDonough (R) “plans to start sending a survey to every candidate for the General Assembly — along with the candidates for governor — asking them whether they agree with Arizona’s approach.””
• Ohio, because “Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones and Ohio Rep. Courtney Combs (R) sent a letter to Gov. Ted Strickland asking him “to employ” his “leadership role” “to assure legislation is passed that will mirror” Arizona’s.”

It’s far from clear how Andrea Nill, who wrote the post, counted seven states. Her list includes five cases that could arguably qualify to be called states contemplating anti-immigrant legislation (Utah, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma). So she’s passing off two of the above four items as examples of a state contemplating anti-immigrant legislation.

That, to put it mildly, is a hell of a stretch.

At what point do people stop taking ThinkProgress seriously, especially their headlines?

The Cedar Rapids Gazette tells all:

“I think we should catch ‘em, we should document ‘em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going,” said Pat Bertroche, an Urbandale physician. “I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I microchip an illegal?

But Bertroche’s creative spirit had not yet waned. He went on:

That’s not a popular thing to say, but it’s a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under.

Aha! So what Bertroche has in mind is “microchipping them” before they tunnel under the fence and get here? Unfortunately, he didn’t say which countries we should invade in order to microchip their citizens.

Actually, to be fair to him, he may not envision invasion at all. Maybe he just wants us to drop Special Forces troops in unspecified foreign countries, to discreetly engage one-on-one with anyone who looks like a potential illegal immigrant, and microchip them without anyone even realizing he’s been microchipped. A chain of massage parlors might be a useful front. As also houses of prostitution.

(Bilbray’s eagerness to defend the Arizona law doubtless has something to do with his membership in the cult of Tancredo.)

And when Bilbray opened his mouth to defend the law, what he brayed was the astonishing thesis that trained professionals can spot illegal immigrants simply by how they’re dressed, and by their behavior:

Chris Matthews: …like what, like what? Give me a non-ethnic aspect that would tell you to pick up somebody.

Rep. Bilbray: They will look at the kind of dress you wear, there’s different type of attire, there’s different type of …right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes. But mostly by behavior it’s mostly behavior, just as the law enforcement people here in Washington, DC does it based on certain criminal activity there is behavior things that professionals are trained in across the board and this group shouldn’t be exempt from those observations as much as anybody else.

I don’t know about spotting illegal immigrants — which may simply reflect deficiencies in my training — but I know for a fact that galloping stupidity can be detected by dint of observation.

Actually, it doesn’t even require training. It’s not a matter of observation, so much as measurement. All you do is measure the distance from the sole of the foot to the top of the head. And express it as a proportion of the subject’s height.

In serious cases of galloping stupidity, the proportion drops way below 50%. That’s because, just like Bilbray, for example, the foot is found to be lodged deep in the mouth, while the head is stuck firmly in the business end of the alimentary canal.

Okay, maybe I exaggerated. Our freeways may not be full of such cars, but this is a real problem in states like Arizona. And we know this because it isn’t just people like Lou Dobbs who are saying it. We know this because a United States Senator told us so:

O’REILLY: Now, next week, the governor is going to sign, we believe, a very stringent state law that gives the police in Arizona very, very broad authority to question people. And a lot of people say it’s going to be racial profiling. You’re going to look for Hispanics, question them, to see if they’re here legally or not. And it’s just not fair. And you say why?

MCCAIN: I say that the federal responsibilities have not been fulfilled. Therefore, the states are acting — the state of Arizona is acting and doing what they feel they need to do in light of the fact that the federal government is not fulfilling its fundamental responsibility to secure our borders. Our borders must be secure.

O’REILLY: But what about the racial profiling? You know that’s going to happen has to happen.

MCCAIN: I hope — I would be very sorry that if some of that happens. And I regret it, but I also regret the — really, it’s not just the murder of Robert Krantz.* It’s the people whose homes and property are being violated. It’s the drive-by that — the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway. Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe.

I can only treat this as confirmation of my hypothesis that John McCain is suffering from a rare, degenerative brain disease. (If anyone else has an alternative explanation, I’m all ears.)

* Apparently, a reference to Robert Krentz, an Arizona rancher allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant who fled to Mexico.

*** Update, 3:35 pm ***

McCain’s campaign has cleared up the whole issue.

Apparently, when McCain made this statement on Monday, he was just repeating what Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu would say today. Read it, and judge for yourself whether I’m exaggerating.

Our bill will be to immigration reform what the public option was to health care reform.

Really? It’ll be the rock that immigration reform founders on?

Judging by the story of Thomas Warziniack, it takes something suspiciously like divine intervention.

You can be born and brought up in the United States, with papers and everything, even a birth certificate. Doesn’t mean diddly-squat when the immigration gestapo decide that you’re an illegal immigrant. Because you probably don’t walk around with your original birth certificate in your back pocket. And judging by the story of Thomas Warziniack, they probably don’t look twice at even a notarized copy.

If you thought we were a nation of laws — except for minor aberrations like waterboarding, and secret CIA prisons, and indefinite detention without trial or habeas corpus — think again. The immigration gestapo is, quite obviously, not bound by anything resembling what we like to think of as our laws.

Thomas Warziniack was born in Minnesota and grew up in Georgia, but immigration authorities pronounced him an illegal immigrant from Russia.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held Warziniack for weeks in an Arizona detention facility with the aim of deporting him to a country he’s never seen. His jailers shrugged off Warziniack’s claims that he was an American citizen, even though they could have retrieved his Minnesota birth certificate in minutes and even though a Colorado court had concluded that he was a U.S. citizen a year before it shipped him to Arizona.

On Thursday, Warziniack finally became a free man. Immigration officials released him after his family, who learned about his predicament from McClatchy, produced a birth certificate and after a U.S. senator demanded his release.

“The immigration agents told me they never make mistakes,” Warziniack said in an earlier phone interview from jail.

Certainly don’t need to be bound by laws or legal niceties if you never make mistakes. Can’t argue with that.

It’s still interesting, though, to tot up exactly what Warziniack was put through.
— first of all, he was presumed to be guilty (of being an illegal immigrant)
— no question of even the most elementary investigation, of course (hey, when you never make mistakes…)
— forget Warziniack’s self-serving protestations of innocence; even court rulings are irrelevant to our immigration gestapo.

Do please spend a moment thinking about what would have happened to Warziniack if McClatchy hadn’t a) stumbled upon his case, and b) chosen to inform his family.

A nation of laws, indeed!