I think it's more about substance than tone. For instance, Greg links to Marco Rubio "dumping on immigrants" in 2008. I looked for something of a hostile tone but the only thing there was a generic, tone-free statement of his position against amnesty. Merely holding that policy position constitutes "dumping on immigrants"? To those who think immigration law should mean something and be enforced, there doesn't seem to be an acceptable tone to express that to hardcore anti-enforcements.

Yes, there are plenty of stupid, tone deaf statements made--I'm not referring to those (which play into the hands of anti-immigration law demagogues). I mean what appears to most as the overreaction which greets anything less than 100% agreement with the anti-enforcement agenda or use of a disfavored word (alien, illegal, etc.) Even people like Cecila Munoz get the vitriolic treatment! However politely a pro-enforcement politician makes his case, anti-enforcements are going to accuse them of lacking civility, fostering hate, etc. A politician should heed the call to consider tone when it comes to immigration, but some of these critics simply aren't reasonable. Let's face it, you're never going to satisfy the Roberto Lovatos of the world.

may be due to some of the highly publicized gaffes made by the Texas Governor.

The President's support is getting closer to the levels he was at early in his presidency