Today, at a luncheon at the National Press Club on the future of the Republican Party in Washington, FreedomWorks chairman and tea party strategist Dick Armey slammed former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and other anti-immigration activists for “alienating a ‘natural’ constituency [Latinos] that could help the party win elections.” Armey admitted that as House leader, he made sure Tancredo didn’t have a stage to speak on. The Daily Caller reports:

Former Republican House leader Dick Armey said staunch anti-immigration opponents such as Rep. Tom Tancredo are destructive to Republicans — and are alienating a “natural” constituency that could help the party win elections. “Who in the Republican Party was the genius that said that now that we have identified the fastest-growing voting demographic in America, let’s go out and alienate them?” Armey said, referencing Hispanics, during a luncheon in Washington at the National Press Club.

“When I was the majority leader, I saw to it that Tom Tancredo did not get on the stage because I saw how destructive he was,” Armey said of the Colorado congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate known for his opposition to illegal immigration. [...]

Armey also said “the Republican Party is the most naturally talented party at losing its natural constituents in the history of the world.” “This party was born with the emancipation proclamation and can’t get a black vote to save its life. How do they do that?”

In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired earlier this month, Armey listed Tancredo (R-CO) as representing part of the “tea party tent” that he feels “uncomfortable” with. In 2006, Armey referred to Tancredo as the “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate.”

Armey’s remarks have clearly made “nativist-extremist” groups that are trying to exploit the momentum of the tea party movement nervous. Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) quickly came to Tancredo’s defense and started urging its members to attack Armey’s immigration position. According to ALIPAC, Armey has been fighting to “keep the illegal immigration issue out of the Tea Party movement.” On an organizing conference call hosted by NumbersUSA, callers dismissed Armey as not being a “true tea party patriot,” but also sought tips on how to translate their anti-immigrant views to fit the tea party narrative. “We’ll be a whole lot better off if when [sic] we talk about illegal immigrants we leave off the Hispanic-Latino stuff,” advised NumbersUSA executive director Roy Beck.

More on The Wonk Room.

Today on ABC’s Topline, former top aide to President Bush Karl Rove provided one of the more bizarre attacks on the Obama administration regarding the recent U.S.-Israeli diplomatic spat, claiming that the cause of the dispute arose because White House aides didn’t do “their homework in advance.” If they had, Rove said, they wouldn’t “get caught by surprises like this.” Rove did not explain however, how doing more homework would have prevented a decision that was made by the Israeli government. But as another example of the alleged sluggish work ethic of White House staffers, Rove cited the administration’s handling of the Honduran military coup, which, ironically, he described in terms that one might ascribe to his former boss:

ROVE: We saw it in Honduras. Where rather than monitoring the situation, they [the Obama administration] let a cowboy president try to act in an extra-constitutional way to violate a fundamental principle in the Constitution, all without having done their homework in advance.

Watch it:

This post was co-written by David Min, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Pat Garofalo.

After months of intractable negotiations with Republicans that went nowhere, and growing impatience from Americans irate that regulatory reforms for Wall Street still had not been completed, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) today introduced his latest financial reform bill. Consumer advocates are approaching the bill with caution, as the proposal lacks a stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), such as was proposed by the Obama administration and passed by the House of Representatives.

The Dodd bill instead creates a Bureau of Consumer Protection inside of the Federal Reserve, which has been heavily criticized for its past regulatory failures and for a culture that is seen as apathetic or even antagonistic to the concerns of consumer protection. Much like West Berlin during the Cold War, the Dodd Bureau would be surrounded by a hostile culture, and the loss of even one element of its independence could cause its downfall.

So the key is whether the new Bureau will it be sufficiently empowered and isolated from that hostile culture to be effective. Longtime consumer protection advocate Elizabeth Warren has listed four criteria for an effective consumer financial protection regulator: 1) an independent director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; 2) independent budget authority so it is not prone to the whims of the appropriation process; 3) independent rule-making authority; and 4) independent enforcement powers.

A close reading of the Dodd bill shows that his Bureau largely meets these tests (and, in fact, Warren has cautiously praised the new bill). Here is how Dodd’s Bureau compares to the CFPA included in the financial reform bill passed by the House last year and the Obama administration’s initial financial reform proposal.

Unfortunately, because the Bureau is going to be housed in the Fed, it is going to need every single one of those robust independence measures to ensure that it is not co-opted by a larger regulatory body that hasn’t historically been sympathetic to consumer concerns, and which is already dealing with a number of other major missions, including being designated the primary systemic risk regulator. In this environment, it is easy to see how a Fed-dominated Bureau would be ineffective.

Dodd’s Bureau as currently constructed is a good one, but if any of its key features are watered down, even a tiny bit, it will quickly become a bad proposal. So why go through all of these bells and whistles to establish independence for a Bureau within the Fed? Why not just establish a stand alone agency? And at the end of the day, how many Republican votes have been won by putting the Bureau within the Fed?