Cross-Posted At Daily Kos

The media loves John McCain. They love portraying him as a maverick, as a straight-talker who never panders.

Now, it’s standard for candidates to play themselves up using positive labels and positive rhetoric, but this is one of the few times the media has bought the spin hook, line and sinker.

Too bad for our political press–and John McCain–that reality has a well-known liberal bias. When you scratch the surface of the gilded facade McCain has erected around himself, you’ll find a long history of flip-flopping, pandering and confusing rhetoric.

Remember, John McCain campaigned for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the fact that Bush’s dirty tricks denied McCain the GOP nomination in 2000. McCain knew he would need to win the approval of the GOP establishment if he was ever going to have a shot at being President, so he turned around and embraced the same people who smeared him so horribly before. That’s not being a maverick–it’s selling out.

Think Progress brings us some more of McCain’s pandering:

– Pander On Tax Cuts: In 2001, McCain was one of just two GOP senators to vote against Bush’s destructive tax cuts. Now, however, McCain makes a point of touting his support for making Bush’s tax cuts permanent.

– Pander On Stimulus: For the past few months, McCain has been declaring that passing an economic stimulus package is at the very top of his agenda. Yet when the Senate voted earlier this month on a generous bill providing increased assistance to seniors and veterans, McCain skipped the vote. The bill fell just one vote short of passage, a victory for the far right.

– Pander To Karl Rove: In the 2000 presidential campaign, Karl Rove launched vicious smear tactics against McCain on behalf of Bush’s campaign. Recently, however, McCain has embraced the right-wing political operative. He said that he has “always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics” and specifically refused to condemn Rove’s partisan smears.

In addition, check out this Think Progress piece on yesterday’s vote to ban waterboarding:

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding

Not only that, but McCain’s baffling justification is far from straight talk:

The bill yesterday would have restricted the CIA to the Army’s rules for interrogating detainees. McCain believes that the CIA should have a freer hand. That includes the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

[...] At the same time, he stresses that the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act, the bill he himself sponsored, prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and treatment that “shocks the conscience.” He hasn’t said which [techniques] meet that description. But he trusts that the Justice Department and CIA will arrive at a “good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible.”

Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave a taste of what that “good faith” interpretation is when he testified before Congress. What “shocks the conscience” depends on the circumstances, he said. Waterboarding might very well be OK, he argued, if the situation were dire enough.

But McCain says that waterboarding is torture. And as he says in his statement below, “It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding ’shocks the conscience.’” So he disagrees with the administration’s “good faith” interpretation. But apparently he still has faith.

Confused? It’s certainly not a position that’s easily summarized.

[Emphasis Added]

And McCain has also flip-flopped on immigration, while the media has been reluctant to report his shifting stance:

In endorsing Sen. John McCain’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The Baltimore Sun asserted that McCain has “stood his ground” on “immigration reform.” However, while McCain now says that border security must be addressed first, he previously said that border security could not be disaggregated from other provisions in the legislation on immigration reform. Similarly, the San Antonio Express-News claimed in its endorsement of McCain that his “advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform” is among the positions that may “be attractive” to “independent voters”; but McCain has said he “would not” vote for his own comprehensive immigration reform proposals.

It’s clear that, if John McCain was ever a maverick, he isn’t one anymore.

The question is, when will the media end their bizarre hero-worship and begin to report on the facts instead of the McCain hagiography?

I wouldn’t hold my breath…

UPDATE: More from Steve Benen:

* Pander On Immigration: McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now, to make the nativist elements in his party happy, he’s against it.

* Pander to U.N. Critics: McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now, to pander to U.N. critics, he opposes it.

* Pander to Abortion-Rights Opponents: McCain used to say he would not support a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Now, to pander to his party’s base, he’s said the opposite.

* Pander to the Religious Right: McCain condemned radical TV preachers like Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance” in 2000, but once he began running for president again, he pandered to the religious right by cozying up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* Pander to Iowans: McCain was anti-ethanol before the 2008 campaign. Once on the trail in Iowa, he became pro-ethanol.

* Pander to South Carolinians: McCain was against official promotion of the Confederate flag, but in 2000, hoping to curry favor with South Carolinians, pandered shamelessly on the issue, and later conceded that his position was one of “cowardice.”

“McCain refuses to pander”? Given his record, I think he refuses to stop pandering.

[Emphasis Added]

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, when 24 states will cast their first votes in Election 2008: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho Democrats, Illinois, Kansas Democrats, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana Republicans, New Jersey, New Mexico Democrats, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia Republicans.

On the Democratic side, the polls show Clinton with a clear lead, but Obama is gaining momentum (and has a significant fundraising advantage). Tomorrow won’t crown the Democratic nominee, but it will put a lot of delegates into play, which could help or hurt either campaign.

Clinton is leading both nationally and in several key Super Tuesday states (such as delegate-rich New York and California). Tomorrow’s stakes are very high for the Clinton campaign–she has to pull off a decisive victory and walk away with a several hundred delegate margin over Obama to be considered the winner of Super Tuesday. Otherwise, her performance will seem disappointing and–though she may walk away with more delegates than Obama–her win won’t nearly be as large as her poll numbers would suggest.

The Obama camp, on the other hand, is looking for either a slim loss or a tie with Clinton; either scenario would be a major upset considering the massive leads Clinton once enjoyed and the slim leads the currently holds. This is the scenario Obama’s campaign manager has laid out:

We fully expect Senator Clinton to earn more delegates on February 5th and also to win more states. If we were to be within 100 delegates on that day and win a number of states, we will have met our threshold for success and will be best positioned to win the nomination in the coming months.

A performance that exceeds those benchmarks, while unlikely, would put is in a surprisingly strong position heading into the rest of the February contests.

If Obama can pull this off, it will be seen as a major upset and he’ll live to fight on through February–which is, as Kos describes it, “tailor made” for him:

For Obama, his task for Tuesday is simply to survive. He needs to finish within 200 delegates of Clinton to keep it close, because the rest of the month is tailor made for Obama — Louisiana primary and Nebraska and Washington caucuses on Saturday, February 9th, Maine caucuses on Sunday February 10, the Beltway Primary on February 12 — DC, Maryland, and Virginia, and Hawaii and Wisconsin the next Tuesday, February 19. Of those states, only Maine might prove kind to Hillary (though we haven’t had any polling since October of last year, when Hillary had a commanding 46-10 lead). The rest — 563 delegates’ worth of contests, will favor Obama heavily.

Of course, this is all speculative. Obama needs to either beat Clinton or stay close to her tomorrow to stay in the race–otherwise, Clinton’s lead will be extremely steep, and even a favorable February might not be enough to help Obama.

It’s worth noting, though, that Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign is raising the spectre of a brokered convention. A brokered convention would spell trouble for Clinton–she was the national front-runner for much of the race, holding substantial leads in multiple states; to be ground down to the point where she can’t pick up enough delegates to be the nominee would symbolize how much support she has lost over the weeks. Perhaps that explains the recent reports of pro-Clinton, anti-Obama push-polling that has been going on in the past few days.

On the Republican side, polls show McCain with a lead and Romney with some late momentum. At this point, it’s McCain’s nomination to lose–his lead in the delegate count and his lead in the polls makes him the undisputable front-runner, and Romney’s tenuous place at the front of the GOP pack is slipping fast.

The prospect of a McCain candidacy is dreaded by much of the GOP, and it has the potential to split the Republican Party–remember, much of their base isn’t a fan of McCain, who has alternated between slavish support for the Party and token opposition to them.

In an effort to staunch McCain’s rise–or at least taint him in the general election, should he be the nominee–a number of Republicans (particularly the Romney camp) are highlighting McCain’s history of hostility and instability. AMERICAblog has more:

“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,” Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. “He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”

Romney, of all people, has documented some of McCain’s more out of control moments in the US Senate:

Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX).

“Presidential hopeful John McCain - who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper - erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday. In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed, ‘F— you!’ at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation. ‘This is chickens—stuff,’ McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday. ‘You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.’” (Charles Hurt, “Raising McCain,” New York Post, 5/19/07)

Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) An “A**hole”, Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, “I Didn’t Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger

“Why can’t McCain win the votes of his own colleagues? To explain, a Republican senator tells this story: at a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)

Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.”

“Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’ (Grassley and McCain had no comment.)” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)

In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A “Scuffle” With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor.

“In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, ‘Is the senator about through?’ McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his ‘courtesy’ (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn’t part friends.” (Harry Jaffe, “Senator Hothead,” The Washingtonian, 2/97)

Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer.

It was election night 1986, and John McCain had just been elected to the U.S. Senate for the first time. Even so, he was not in a good mood. McCain was yelling at the top of his lungs and poking the chest of a young Republican volunteer who had set up a lectern that was too tall for the 5-foot-9 politician to be seen to advantage, according to a witness to the outburst. ‘Here this poor guy is thinking he has done a good job, and he gets a new butt ripped because McCain didn’t look good on television,’ Jon Hinz told a reporter Thursday. At the time, Hinz was executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. … Hinz said McCain’s treatment of the young campaign worker in 1986 troubled him for years. ‘There were an awful lot of people in the room,’ Hinz recalled. ‘You’d have to stick cotton in your ears not to hear it. He (McCain) was screaming at him, and he was red in the face. It wasn’t right, and I was very upset at him.’” (Kris Mayes and Charles Kelly, “Stories Surface On Senator’s Demeanor,” The Arizona Republic, 11/5/99)

Among the conservative base, one of McCain’s biggest sabs in the back has been his stance on immigration, which has garnered significant ill-will for the Arizona Senator–even in his home state:

Sen. John McCain’s run for the presidency is gaining momentum across the nation, but the campaign is meeting disapproval in one of the most unlikely places: his home turf in Arizona.

In a straw poll vote two weeks ago of 721 Republican leaders in Maricopa County, the major population center of the state, a majority ranked McCain as the least acceptable Republican candidate for president.

The reason, Republicans say, is his record on illegal immigration.

“We feel betrayed and let down by our senior senator,” said Russell Pearce, a Republican representative in the statehouse who has written a number of tough laws against illegal immigrants. “I will not support a candidate, I don’t care how many medals he has on his chest, when he won’t do the right thing for America.”

The anger grows out of McCain’s role since at least 2006 as the prime Republican leader of a comprehensive immigration legislation that would have given the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. a path toward citizenship.

This may be the one issue that resonates the most with the GOP base, and it serves as the latest reminder to the GOP of McCain’s repeated stabs in the back–though this hasn’t hurt him in the primary, it could very well hurt him in the general as immigration-opposing Republicans decide to stay home on election day.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney could very well be in the waning days of his Presidential campaign. Since McCain won South Carolina, Romney has been lagging in the delegate count; a singificant loss on Super Tuesday could put him far behind McCain, a position that he would be hard-pressed to pull himself out of.

Despite pouring huge amounts of money–both the campaign’s and his own–into his campaign, Romney just can’t seem to get a strong enough foothold among the GOP faithful. Tomorrow’s loss–depending on how large it is–could be for Romney what Florida was for Giuliani.

In about 24 hours, the results from Super Tuesday will start coming in. I have an evening class tomorrow, but I’ll be here afterwards bringing you coverage.

And if you live in a Super Tuesday state, make sure to get out there and vote tomorrow, regardless of who you support (yes, even if it’s Mike Gravel).

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder makes his predictions:

According to campaign sources, polling and stealing off other analysts, Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Obama has an edge in Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois.

Tossups: California, Connecticut, Democrats Abroad, Arizona, Missouri, Delaware, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts

And Kos makes his:

    CLINTON  OBAMA       CLINTON  OBAMA

AL    51     47      AK    42      58
AZ    54     44      AR    62      36
CA    46     48      CO    48      50
CT    47     49      DE    51      47
GA    37     60      ID    45      54
IL    30     69      KS    51      49
MA    51     47      MN    49      48
MO    53     46      NJ    54      45
NM    52     48      NY    57      41
ND    46     54      OK    57      41
TN    59     39      UT    42      57

It’s official:

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose forceful opposition to illegal immigration vaulted him to national prominence, plans to announce he is abandoning his long-shot bid for the presidency, a person close to Tancredo said Wednesday.

The five-term Colorado congressman planned to make the announcement at a news conference in Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Tancredo or his campaign.

Tancredo’s campaign would only say he planned a “major announcement” Thursday.

Tancredo has consistently polled at the back of the nine-person GOP field.

Tancredo was little more than a gimmick, an extremist single-issue candidate who failed to get more than 2% of the vote at any time. In fact, if you look at his numbers, you can see that his support flatlined somewhere in the 1-2% range.

In that regard, Jonathan Singer brings up some good points:

If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaigns on anti-illegal immigration screeds during the 2005 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, then why did they lose both contests? If the Republicans were so smart to focus on immigration during the 2006 midterms, how come they lost their majorities in both chambers of Congress and seats in races in which a hard right, anti-immigrant Republican went up against a Democrat moderate on the issue? If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaign to hold the Virginia legislature this past fall on immigration, why did they lose the lower chamber? And if Tom Tancredo was so smart to run a presidential campaign on the immigration issue, why is he dropping out in ignominy?

[...]

Tancredo may have had some successes in convincing his Republican brethren, both within the Congress and within the presidential field, to follow him off the cliff on this issue. Along these lines, Tancredo has been remarkably able at helping make his party unelectable in a lot of areas of the country (and perhaps across the country as a whole — we’ll have to wait til next fall to see if that is true). But aside from this, he has no success, whatsoever. Hard line immigration legislation isn’t likely going to pass any time soon, and the Tancredo brand of anti-immigration rhetoric has only yielded more deadlock on Capitol Hill — deadlock that has allowed the flow of unlawful entry into the United States. So congrats Mr. Tancredo. Your political career has been really fruitful.

The GOP seems to be banking on using immigration to propel themselves back into the majority, but they’re just spinning their wheels. Anti-immigrant sentiment has played a significant role in a number of Republican defeats in recent years. And now, a GOP presidential candidate who has based his entire candidacy on opposition to illegal immigration stagnated at the bottom of the pack, raising pathetic amounts of money and basically just showing up to the debates.

Considering that Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the United States, the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot every time they pull their nativist rhetoric out of the closet. Between 2004 and 2006, the Democratic Party’s share of the Hispanic vote increased by a whopping 16%, playing a huge role in our midterm victory. A few election cycles from now, the Hispanic population of the United States will be so large–and (hopefully) so attached to the Democratic party–that a lot of red states could turn into swing states or even blue states.

If anything, Tancredo has proven that–while immigration is on America’s political radar–his particular take on it isn’t. While he may try to parlay his failed Presidential run into a future campaign, his radical anti-immigrant stance will only continue to hurt his party. Will the GOP wizen up and ditch radicals like him, or will they contribute to their own marginalization by welcoming Tancredo with open arms?

Only time will tell…

The rumor on the ground is that Rep. Tom Tancredo will be dropping out of the GOP Presidential race tomorrow.  Marc Ambinder has more:

The scuttle is:

Rep. Tom Tancredo will drop out of the presidential race tomorrow and endorse either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson…. neither of those candidates know who, just yet.

But the scuttle is probably wrong. Tancredo has been critical of all his opponents, and, given his issue’s saliency, he does not need to endorse. His party sounds like him, now, on immigration.

Tancredo is a one-note right-wing extremist–the only reason he’s running is to push the GOP to the far right on immigration.  I’m not sure if he’ll drop out–it makes sense for him to stay in for as long as possible so he can continue pressuring the other candidates. Anyway, it’s so close to the primaries that it makes little sense to drop  out now.

Then again, Tancredo could duck out to avoid a humiliating defeat in the primaries that would hurt his political future. He could parlay his Presidential run into a future candidacy–former GOP presidential candidate Jim Gilmore, for instance, is running for Senate in Virginia.  This would make sense, considering that it’s rumored Tancredo is hoping to challenge Sen. Ken Salazar in 2010.  Quitting now would give him a relatively high profile, a decent enough fundraising base and devoted  (though not large) following, all of which could be of use to him in the future.

We’ll have to see what happens.  His exit won’t really affect the dynamics of the GOP primary, but if the rumor’s true then I doubt this will be the last we’ll see of Tom Tancredo.

Recently, Ron Paul broke the one-day fundraising record for a Republican Presidential candidate, raking in approximately $5.2 million dollars. Political Wire has more:

“Most of the donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a “money bomb” timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The last fund-raising blitz, which took in 40,000 donations, was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccessfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.” The record take means Paul will likely lead his rivals for money raised during the fourth quarter.

Paul’s supporters will tell you to “Google Ron Paul;” in light of his recent fundriaising success, let’s give that a shot and see what he actually stands for–Orcinus has the definitive account, and it’s nothing less than appalling:

• Ron Paul wants to deny women control of their own reproductive systems–despite calling himself a libertarian, he doesn’t seem to mind government intrusion when it comes to abortion. (H.R.1095 H.R.777 H.R.1548 H.AMDT.1003 (A024) H.AMDT.380 (A022) H.AMDT.312 (A011) H.R.4984). Not only that, but Paul wants to eliminate the legal distinction between a zygote and a person (H.R.2597 H.R.1094 H.R.776 H.R.392).
• Paul wants to prevent the federal courts–or even federal precedent–for being used by those who have been discriminated against due to religious beliefs or sexual orientation. His bills would also prevent cross-state recognition of gay marriage (H.R.300 H.R.4379 H.R.5739 H.R.3893 H.R.1547 H.R.4922 H.R.5078). He also wants to limit the court system’s ability to hear abortion cases (H.R.1545 H.R.1546 H.R.2875 H.R.3400 H.R.3691 H.R.15169).
• Despite claiming to be a libertarian, Paul opposes allowing people to express their freedom of speech by burning the American flag (H.J.RES.80 H.J.RES.82).
• Ron Paul wants to repeal workplace safety and health legislation, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act (H.R.2310 H.R.13264). And so much for giving power to the people–he wants to make it easier to decertify labor unions (H.R.694). In addition, Paul also opposes the minimum wage (H.R.2962) and wants to destroy Social Security (H.R.2030 H.R.4604).
• Paul opposes pro-democracy voting reforms, even after the disastrous 2000 election (H.CON.RES.48 H.CON.RES.443). He also opposes the motor voter laws, which make it easier for people–particularly poorer people–to register to vote (H.R.2139).
• Ron Paul wants to gut anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation (H.R.1247 H.R.1789) and eliminate corporate oversight (H.R.1204). For someone who seems to support giving power to the people, the only people he wants to help are the already-powerful.
• Paul wants to repeal anti-discimination laws (H.R.3863 H.R.5842 H.R.4982), as well as eliminating birthright citizenship (H.J.RES.46 H.J.RES.42), which is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
• Ron Paul wants to repeal or severely weaken environmental protection legislation (H.J.RES.104 H.R.3735 H.R.4423 H.R.2504 H.R.7079 H.R.724), as well as promoting offshore oil drilling, building more oil refineries and mining for coal on federal land (H.R.2415 H.R.4004 H.R.393 H.R.4639 H.R.5293 H.R.6936).
• Paul, who portrays himself as pro-peace, opposes dismantling ICBM silos in the United States (H.R.1665 H.R.3769) and supports keeping the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court (H.R.1154 H.AMDT.480 (A010) H.R.4169 H.CON.RES.23 H.RES.416). He has also tried to limit the impact of international law on the United States (H.J.RES.1028 H.J.RES.492 H.CON.RES.49 H.R.4118 H.R.1658), going as far as trying to withdraw America from the U.N. (H.R.1146 H.R.1146 H.AMDT.285 (A038) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.190 (A024) H.AMDT.191 (A025) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.306 (A006) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.138 (A010) H.R.1146 H.R.3890 H.R.3891 H.R.6358 H.R.14788). In addition, Paul supports withdrawing the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (H.J.RES.566) and wants to re-establish U.S. ’sovereignty’ over the Panama Canal (H.CON.RES.231 H.RES.1410 H.R.2522).
• Paul wants to weaken our education system by using federal power to interfere with state efforts to improve standards for teachers (H.R.966 H.R.1706 H.R.4653).
• Once again pandering to the powerful, Paul wants to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, including those who inherited their fortunes. In addition, he wants to disproportionately burden the poor and working clas by imposing a flat tax (H.J.RES.23 H.J.RES.14 H.J.RES.15 H.J.RES.45 H.J.RES.81 H.J.RES.116 H.R.5484 H.R.2137 H.R.1664 H.J.RES.23 H.R.6352 H.R.4569 H.R.15619). Paul also wants to force us to pay our income tax every month, eliminating withholding (H.R.1364 H.R.4855).
• Paul also wants to abandon the dollar, creating 50 state currencies instead (H.R.2779 H.R.3931).

So, I Googled Ron Paul, and I found a record of conservative, pro-corporate, reactionary policies that are to the far right of even the Republican Party. And keep in mind that I didn’t include some of Paul’s crazier aspects, like his obsession with the gold standard or his desire to “protect” American troops from wearing the insignia of the U.N. or any “foreign states.”

I don’t know what his followers see in him, but it seems that they have been taken in by Paul’s campaign rhetoric, which doesn’t match his record in Congress at all. Personally, I wonder if they would support him so vehemently if they followed their own advice and Googled Ron Paul. Either that, or this country has far more deep-pocketed right-wing extremists than I thought.

Or, as Paul Waldman calls it, The Plutocrats v. The Theocrats:

After months of tedium and mindless chest-thumping, the race for the Republican presidential nomination finally got interesting over the last couple of weeks. And the way it did so highlights the fundamental rift threatening the future of the GOP: the divide between the party’s corporate/anti-tax wing, which includes the people who write the checks, and its social conservative wing, which includes the people who get bodies to the polls. It’s the plutocrats versus the theocrats, and at the moment it’s hard to tell who’s going to win.

[...]

And the plutocrats had such high hopes for Romney, who is truly one of their own: to the American aristocracy born (his father was a corporate CEO and Michigan governor) and with a successful career in business, Romney gives the sense that he plans out his breakfast with a Powerpoint presentation. (”Today’s waffles will proactively impact forward-oriented goal actualization while incentivizing value-added synergisms. And there will be syrup.”)

The plutocrats couldn’t care less whether Romney’s recent conversion to hard-right social conservatism was sincere. He can blather on all he wants about activist judges and border fences; what’s important to them is the tax code, whether the National Labor Relations Board keeps its Bush-era affection for union-busting, and whether agencies like OSHA and the FDA remain regulatory panda bears, lolling about in the grass munching bamboo without worrying their little heads about the safety of workers and consumers. When it comes to these matters, the plutocrats know Romney is their guy.

But they don’t quite trust Huckabee, who, as Sarah Posner has noted, has shown troubling flashes of sympathy for ordinary people and had a mixed record in Arkansas, both raising and cutting taxes at various times. Perhaps in order to appear more of an anti-tax fundamentalist, Huckabee is advocating eliminating all current federal taxes in favor of a national sales tax, an idea so ludicrous no one bothers to debate it.

But as of yet, Huckabee has not pledged allegiance to the de rigueur Republican tax fantasy that cutting taxes ultimately leads to an increase in revenues. Rudy Giuliani has climbed aboard this express train to Stupidville, saying in a recent television ad, “I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues. Democrats don’t know that, they don’t believe that.”

[...]

These voters [the theocrats] are less than entirely pleased with what they’ve gotten from all their hard work over the last few elections. Every two years, they’re promised that if they work their little hearts out, they’ll finally get those constitutional amendments banning abortion and putting the gays in their place. But even George W. Bush, who worked harder to convince the religious right that he was their man more than any GOP nominee ever has, didn’t power up the time machine and take us all back to the bliss of the 1950s. But he worked hard for those tax cuts — you bet your life he did. The plutocrats got showered with riches, and the theocrats got lines from hymns dropped into speeches. As Bush himself famously said, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — can’t get fooled again.”

[Emphsais Added]

And, thus is the nature of the Romney-Huckabee battle, and thus is the nature of the crumbling conservative coalition.

The Republican party relies on the Christian right as footsoldiers–they carry the Party’s message out to rural America, they preach GOP gospel from the pulpits, and on election day they turn out to the polls in large enough numbers to get Republicans elected.

But, in the end, the Christian right gets a lot of talk and nearly no action in return. Why? Because the GOP cares more about money than ideology. Sure, they’ll pander to the wants and needs of the Christian right, but when it comes down to it they spend their political capital on tax cuts for their wealthy buddies, Wall-Street-pleasing Social Security privatization, free trade, and other giveaways to the top 1% (of which the theocrats are usually not members).

Look at recent years–the GOP controlled all three branches of government, yet they never gave the Christian right their day in the sun. Abortion is still legal, and it’s likely to stay legal for a long time. There was no constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and the 2004 state-level gay marriage bans will eventually be overturned. Immigration reform will not happen without a path to citizenship, and so on.

Simply put, the theocrats have been lied to. Year after year, the GOP promises them the world, yet once in office they stab them in the back and spend their time stuffing their pockets. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Christian right is quickly learning that they aren’t part of that group of friends, and that the GOP has taken advantage of them for far too long. The Christian right is revolting, hoping to exact revenge against the faux-conservative plutocrats who have taken advantage of them for so long.

The Republicans have created a monster that they can no longer control. The Christian conservative footsoldiers have stopped listening to their plutocratic masters and are bucking the party orthodoxy–they’re determined to make Mike Huckabee their candidate, much to the chagrin of the moneyed Romney campaign. And while plutocratic money can certainly get people out to the polls, it’s not nearly as effective as theocratic zealotry.

The plutocrats are afraid. They’re worried that Huck–who couldn’t care less about stuffing their pockets, but who really does care about Armageddon and the end times–will become the standard-bearer of their party. What will they do? What can they do? Will they support him? Will they abandon him? Will they find someone else?

In the end, there is poetic justice in this–the Republican Party, which has become dependent on the dogmatism of the Christian right, is now being consumed by that same burning zealotry. Will the GOP be able to survive a revolt by the monster that the Party believed–in all hubris–they could control forever?

Unsurprising news from Think Progress:

Tomorrow, Univision will be hosting a GOP presidential debate at 7 PM EST. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is boycotting the event, and yesterday put out a statement criticizing the other candidates for attending:

“It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language,” Tancredo said, in a press release e-mailed by his campaign to reporters. “So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? Pandering comes to mind.”

“America has been a melting pot of people from all over the world but it can not survive as a nation if our immigrants do not assimilate. A common language is essential to that goal. Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual but it has perilous consequences for a nation. As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign.“

Tancredo’s thinly-veiled scorn for immigrants–an attitude held by much of the Republican Party–is both bad policy and bad politics. Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the U.S., particularly in key states such as Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.  In future years, the Hispanic populations of those states will decide their elections.

And Tancredo’s backwardness is good for the Democratic Party–between 2004 and 2006, our share of the Hispanic vote jumped between 10%-15%.  Hispanic voters are crucial to our govening majority, and they will continue to play a role in Democratic politics for a long, long time.

So, whenever Tancredo opens his mouth, he shoots the Republican Party in the foot.  (Though, I have to give him some credit–he was the only Republican one to show up to the NAACP’s Presidential Debate. Go figure.)

Yahoo News reports on several days of rioting in France:

Riot police deployed late Tuesday across a north Paris suburb bracing for a possible repeat of youth riots that have left 120 police injured, as the government vowed zero tolerance for the “criminals” behind the violence.

For two nights running, young men have hurled petrol bombs and bricks at police, torching cars and buildings in the town of Villiers le Bel, where on Sunday two teenagers were killed in a motorbike collision with a police car.

[...]

Two nights of violence have left five buildings damaged by fire in Villiers, just north of Paris, including a tax office, a supermarket, a library and a nursery school, as well as 63 cars. Fifteen people have been arrested.

This is the event that sparked the immediate violence:

An initial investigation appeared to confirm the police version of Sunday’s incident, according to which the two teenagers — aged 15 and 16, neither wearing a crash helmet — were riding a motorbike that careered into their car.

But relatives of the two youths and some other local people appeared convinced that the police had caused the accident and fled the scene without treating the victims.

But these riots–like the 2005 riots– have a much deeper root:

Police and politicians say the French suburbs remain a “tinderbox” two years after the 2005 riots, which exposed France’s failure to integrate its large black and Arab population, the children and grandchildren of immigrants from its African colonies.

“This is no place for human beings to live,” said local resident Boniface Gabo, pointing up at his grimy tower block. “Make no mistake, every hundred kids who grow up here are a hundred lost kids.”

France has incredibly backwards immigration laws–unlike the United States, people who are born in France are not automatically citizens unless their parents are citizens.  Thus, there are a lot of people who were born and raised in France yet are considered illegal immigrants because their parents or grandparents were illegal immigrants.  There is an entire generation of second-class citizens who are as French as anyone else in the country, but who are legally barred from taking part in the only society they’ve ever known.

This isn’t just a French problem–much of Europe has issues with immigration and racism that aren’t being dealt with.  Immigrants are becoming vital to the economies of much of Europe–particularly considering Europe’s stagnant or declining birth rates–yet there is significant resistance to allowing those immigrants to integrate into society.  The amount of racism towards Arabs, North Africans and Muslims is absolutely staggering, yet countries continue to elect anti-immigrant zealots like Nicholas Sarkozy and the Swiss People’s Party who are just going to ignore–or exacerbate–the problem.

These is a timely warning to the anti-immigration zealots here in the United States. We have 12 million illegal immigrants in out country who we cannot ignore or throw out–denying them rights, pushing them underground, making them second class citizens, denying them jobs and places to live and a chance to become citizens is only going to make the situation worse.

Yet, I don’t think we’ll suffer the same fate as France–as we’ve seen throughout American history, second-class citizens don’t stay second-class for long–our sense of fairness and justice lead us to treat other humans with the same fairness and dignity each of us would like to enjoy, and it’s only a matter of time until our immigrant population are granted the path to citizenship that their hard work here has earned them.

Romney’s feeling the heat in Iowa. From CNN:

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney blasted a rising challenger in the Iowa caucuses Monday, painting former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as a tax-raising, illegal immigrant-coddling liberal and defending his own commitment to conservative causes.

“He may be conservative on social issues, but when it comes to economic issues like immigration, he’s a liberal on immigration. He fought for tuition breaks for illegal aliens. He raised taxes time and time again as governor of Arkansas,” Romney told CNN.

[...]

“I must admit that I find the vision and the direction that Ronald Reagan laid out for this country to be very powerful and very compelling,” Romney said. “And I’ll tell you, Ronald Reagan would have never raised taxes like Mike Huckabee did…Ronald Reagan would have never stood by and pushed for a budget that more than doubled during his term as president.”

Uh, Mitt?

Critics argue that his [Reagan's] economic policies caused huge budget deficits, quadrupling the United States national debt…

Moving on…

“Ronald Reagan would have never said let’s give tuition breaks to illegals like Mike Huckabee did. “

Uh, Mitt??

In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status, and granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants…Upon signing the act at a ceremony held beside the newly refurbished Statue of Liberty, Reagan said, “The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”

[Emphasis Added]

Mitt Romney’s ignorance–willful or otherwise–about Reagan’s legacy speaks volumes about the Republican Party. There is so much misty-eyed hagiography about Ronald Reagan that Republicans can no longer distinguish between what he actually did and what they ascribe to him in order to to peel off a bit of his dwindling legacy.

Ronald Reagan was not a great president. He racked up up huge deficits and quadrupled the national debt–debt we’d still be paying off if it weren’t for Bill Clinton. He had a ruinous foreign policy of allying himself with oppressive dictators and murderous regimes, as long as they were sufficiently anti-communist. He ignored AIDS. He caved in to terrorists by pulling American troops out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing, which killed 241 American servicemen. He sold arms to terrorist-allied Iran to fund the murderous Contras. He backed Saddam Hussen and Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, going as far as providing Hussen weapons (and a promising young envoy by the name of Donald Rumsfelt). The list goes on and on.

So why does the GOP constantly eulogize him? Well, he was the only successful post-war Republican besides Ike Eisenhower–Nixon and Ford were both world-class flops. He was also the first neoconservative president, laying the foundation of the modern Republican Party (as well as George W. Bush and Iraq).

Some words of advice to Republicans: move past Reagan. The rest of us don’t see him with the same misty-eyed reverence as you do, and it’s really starting to disturb us. And the more time you spend looking back toward Reagan, the less time you spend looking forward to the problems our country faces right now. The more you navel-gaze and wax poetic about the 1980’s, the more out of touch you look.

If the best you hope to produce is another Reagan, than color me (and, judging by the polls, the American people) unimpressed. We don’t want another George W. Bush-esque Reagan clone–unless you can offer us something else, you’re in for a big surprise come 2008.

Just my thoughts.

UPDATE: More from Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report.

John Gorenfeld at AlterNet has five eyebrow-raising facts about Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee that everyone should know. Huckabee’s momentum in Iowa is growing, and he’s managed to hide the most of his extremism until now. Here’s the short version:

1. Clinton conspiracy theories inspired his biggest mistake.

“Clinton’s biggest crime,” claimed New York Post scribe Steve Dunleavy in 2000, was allowing a Vietnam veteran named Wayne DuMond to go to prison for 50 years after being convicted — falsely, Dunleavy said — for the 1985 knifepoint rape of the 17-year-old cheerleader Ashley Stevens, a distant cousin of the Clintons. “That rape never happened,” Dunleavy said.

In cloudy circumstances, DuMond had suffered castration before his jailing. He said a lynch mob had severed his testicles. They somehow ended up as trophies on the desk of a crooked local sheriff, Coolidge Conlee. In the view of the theorists, Conlee was somehow an “ally” of the Clintons, conjuring up a world in which state politics were on the scale of The Dukes of Hazzard. “He didn’t have no right to take them,” DuMond said of his balls in 1988.

By the time Huckabee became governor, it was believed by many on the Right that DuMond had not only been maimed but also framed by the Bill & Hillary Octopus. Responding to the pressure, Huckabee said DuMond had gotten a “raw deal” and wrote to the imprisoned DuMond: “Dear Wayne, [m]y desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction into society to take place.”

In June 2001, Ashley Stevens heard on her car radio that DuMond — let loose by the state of Arkansas — had beein seized for strangling 39-year-old Carol Shields in Kansas City, leaving her naked and bound on a bed. Authorities had also suspected DuMond in the similar rape-murder of a 23-year-old pregnant victim, Sarah Andrasek.

Huckabee has since sought to pin the blame on a parole board for freeing the ingrateful DuMond. The next year, however, the Arkansas Times took home an alt-newsweekly award for a piece, “Huckabee Frees Career Rapist,” in which numerous inside sources said it was the governor who made the decision.

[Emphasis added]

This is worse than Willie Horton, all on Huckabee’s shoulders. He fell for a rediculous Clinton conspiracy theory, leading him to release a serial rapist from prison. A man who would let Clinton Derangement Syndrome lead him to make such a huge mistake can’t be trusted to be President. Period.

2. Win over the Christian Right? He is the Christian Right.

[...]

No moderate, James Robison — a self-described “dark-visaged, angry preacher” for whose TV ministry Huck became communications director — raged against gays. In one piece of footage, Huckabee’s boss bellows that he is “sick and tired, hearing about all the radicals and perverts and the liberals and the leftists and the Communists coming out of the closet. It’s time for God’s people to come out of the closet, out of the churches and change America!”

As press flack, Huckabee had to handle the fallout in 1979 when Robison was kicked off the Dallas station WFAA for citing a National Enquirer report that gays seduce and kill children.

[...]

Despite Huckabee’s undiluted credentials — as someone who helped to build the Moral Majority, as a governor who fought to stop gays from adopting — he has been slighted by other like-minded Christian leaders.

[Emphasis added]

Huckabee played a role in building the religious right, fostering the dangerous fusion of religion and politics. He embodies some of the worst of the Republican party–extremism and dogmatism, all wrapped in self-righteous obstinance. In other words, Huckabee’s much like George W. Bush without the business degree.

3. If you’re a Minuteman, you’ll hate Huckabee.

To his credit, Huckabee is not as extreme as his Republican counterparts on immigration. He’s relatively sympathetic towards immigrants, and he understands that the Republican position on immigration is driven by racism.

None of this will help him with his party’s base, though–the build-a-wall-and-deport-them-all crowd won’t stand for someone like Huckabee representing them.

4. He supports a crazy tax plan.

[...]

To boost his tax cred, candidate Huckabee has eagerly signed onto FairTax, a proposal to abolish the IRS touted by Atlanta radio host Neal Boortz and at rallies nationwide. Boortz would end the income tax. Instead you’d pay a federal sales tax, and to offset resulting problems, the government would write you checks every month. How much you get depends on the number of people are in your household. And nothing else.

The cash awards, or “prebates,” are supposed to offset how hard it will be on poor people to pay more for groceries. For the middle class, it has the allure of the government paying you, instead of vice-versa, while you get to fire your accountant and throw out your paperwork, unless of course you’re a store owner, in which case you become neighborhood taxman.

[...]

But what’s important is whether FairTax itself is workable. Analysts across the political spectrum have said it isn’t. Costs could far exceed the promised 23 percent sales tax, and possible side effects include instantly creating a tax-free black market for everything, screwing up important deductions and punishing older people who’ve paid the old way.

[Emphasis added]

The “fair tax” is a sham born out of rabid anti-tax zealotry. Essentially, it calls for a national sales tax of 23% (that’s in addition to the state and local sales taxes you already pay) on all goods and services. To offset the massive cost the poor and middle class would pay, the government gives money to families based on their size. Of course, this doesn’t take into account how much a family actually spends–if a family has higher-than-normal expenses, such as a medical emergency (yes, nedical services are taxed 23% under this plan), they have to absorb those costs themselves.

It’s a Ron Paul-quality idea– an unworkable scheme that sounds good on the stump but would never work in real life. Our tax system certainly needs reform, but it doesn’t need to be thrown in the garbage in favor of some crazy right-wing gimmick.

5. If you enjoyed the Terri Schiavo case, you’ll love the Huckabee administration.

[...]

[H]e grabbed national headlines with a governor’s intervention that year to block the state from paying $419 for a retarded 15-year-old girl’s abortion, her pregnancy stemming from being raped by her stepfather on a camping trip.

Huckabee held up Medicaid payment for the operation. He claimed his hands were tied by the state constitution, Amendment 68, which prevented underwriting of abortions unless the mother’s life was endangered. The Supreme Court had thrown arguments from Christian Right governors like these out before. But Huck held to his guns, which threatened to end the $900 million annual agreement with Washington that gave his state medical money, so long as it played by federal rules.

A compromise was finally reached in which private money footed the bill.

Yes, Mike Huckabee threatened to deny the people of Arkansas $900 million a year worth of health care to prevent just one abortion. If that cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face politics sounds like your thing, by all means consider Huckabee your guy.
Huckabee has some eyebrow-raising momentum in Iowa, and he’s most frequently mentioned as the Republican vice-presidential front runner. His extreme conservative credentials may be enough to balance out the newfound, wishy-washy conservatism of candidates like Romney and Giuliani, but that doesn’t change the fact that Mike Huckabee is a right-wing extremist who belongs nowhere near the White House.

(And the article doesn’t even get into Huckabee’s record of pay-for-play corruption as Governor of Arkansas).

UPDATE: Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone has a lot more here.  This piece does spend some time talking about Huckabee’s disturbing hand-in-the-cookie-jar politics back in Arkansas.

From Tbogg:

For some reason my radio was tuned into the local hate radio station this morning and this is what I heard from someone called Chip Franklin:

Caller: You know, Garcia and Rodriguez are two of the most common names in America right now.

Franklin: Well, that’s Armageddon right there. I can’t even spell those.

These guys don’t even pretend anymore.

Harmless Celebrities or The Apocalypse? You decide.

Part II!

Question from audience members Katherine Jackson & Son. Son has served 3 tours in Iraq [standing ovation from audience and candidates]. Your mother is so worried you’ll be called again, but not to go to Iraq, but Iran. He shares her concern–our troops need to come home now. Kathertine: Finally got her son home after 3 terms, but Bush administration and Congressional Republicans are beating the war drums. All of you on stage have the ability to stop the rush to war–how have you shown us your leadership on this issue?

Biden: Must not ratchet up march to war. Spoke on Kyl-Lieberman, called it a serious mistake, completely counterproductive. Convinced rest of Muslim world that America is fighting a war against Islam and shot oil up to $100 a barrel, while destabilizing Pakistan and Iraq. Must be quiet–if President takes country to Iran, he should be impeached.

Clinton: There is no basis for fear, but well-justified concern about this President. I oppose rush to war, spoke out against it since February, must work to make it clear there is no legal authority for war. Must have aggressive diplomacy–cannot ignore enemies. Must immediately begin negotiations–get them to the table, let’s figure out if we can ratchet down the tensions and prevent them from becoming a nuclear program. Must get world to help us, Russia & China. Thanks him for his service, knows that Iranian Revolutionary Guard has helped Iraqis kill Americans, believes they are a terrorist group, pressuring them important to get Iran to table.

Edwards: Thanks him for his service, men and women like him have served America so courageously. Proud of both of you speaking up. Must stop Bush, Cheney and Neocons at every step. Had important opportunity with vote on Kyl-Lieberman, wanted them declared terrorist group, part of their plan to go to war with Iran. Fear was realized with administration declared them a terrorist organization and a proliferator of weapons of mass destructions. Democrats must show real backbone.

Obama: We appreciate your service, we’re glad you’re back home. Understand that the problem with this vote–it wasn’t just identifying them as a terrorist group, but it had language that we should maintain forces in Iraq to blunt Iranian power. Gives administration to perpetuate failed strategy in Iraq–you can be redeployed in Iraq. We must end war and change the mindset. Agrees with Clinton in engaging in diplomacy–President must lead diplomacy, not envoys. We must meet with friends and enemies–that’s what strong countries and Presidents do, let them know where we stand.

Blitzer: You weren’t at this vote.

Obama: That was a mistake, and I said at the time we should not take steps toward increasing presence in Iraq to blunt force in Iran.

Question from audience member Jeannie Jackson. How do you end wage disparity between soldiers and private contractors. Malveaux–Obama would pull out contractors, is that practical? To Richardson

Richardson: Yes, and I would pull all contractors out in a year. We must reform military–Iraq has bled our military. Must keep all-volunteer force, increase divisions in Army and Marines, propose new GI bill for military. For our veterans, we need a health care service for every veteran in this country–not just in VA system, but everywhere. Big challenge–mental health, we do not treat it with parity. Soldiers have huge burden of mental trauma, PTSD, we have a system that does not have parity it deserves.

Question from audience member Khalid Kahn, who is concerned about racial profiling since 9/11. What will we do to protect Americans from profiling?

Edwards: He’s right, this administration has done more than abuse PATRIOT ACT. Racial profiling has to be stopped, and it will be stopped when I’m President. Moral leadership–stop profiling, illegal spying on American people, closing Guantanamo which is a national embarrassment, no more secret prisons and rendition. We will tolerate no torture when I’m President

Blizter: Kucinich, you voted against PATRIOT ACT…

Kucinich: Because I read it

Blitzer: Do those who voted for the PATRIOT ACT bear responsibility?

Kucinich: President of US. called to make right decision at the right time. People on this stage have changed their positions–just imagine what it will be like to have a President who is right the first time. I don’t think the first questioner’s question was answered–President & VP are out of control, and Congress isn’t doing enough. It’s called impeachment, and you do it now. Impeach them now.

Biden: Facts are a funny thing, they get in the way. Nothing in PATRIOT ACT allows profiling–you’re profiled illegally. Many people on this stage have worked to end profiling. We had a chance to close down Guantanamo, I voted to cut funding, others on this stage (including two leading candidates) voted to fund it. It’s not about who was right when, it’s about your plan now. What are you going to do now.

Question from audience member George Ambriz. Many commentators like Lou Dobbs insinuate a link between terrorism and illegal immigration. Do you think fighting terrorism and illegal immigration are intrinsically linked?

Richardson: Dennis, stop including me in all these votes, I’m a Governor. Here’s my answer–I’m the only one who’s dealt with immigration directly. Congress has low approval rating. We should stop demonizing immigrants, and I’m against the fence because it won’t work. Congress only funded half of the fence–we have to secure border, double border patrol agents. Those who hire illegal workers should be punished. Should talk to Mexico–tell them to stop handing out maps at the easiest place to cross. Finally, legalization plan–not amnesty, not citizenship.

Blitzer: Dodd, you voted for fence.

Dodd: [Speaks to questioner in Spanish] Oppose wall across entire border, but we need better security, more guards, better technology. You don’t pledge to protect country or uphold constitution–White House poses false choice between rights and safety. Fundamentally flawed and dangerous.

Question from audience member Judy Bagley. Moved here over 30 years ago, has 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Over the next several years, the baby boomers like my husband and I will be retiring en masse. Country is at a record deficit, we face a major challenge–when I retire, I will have my pension but many others will not. Throughout campaign, we’ve heard candidates commit to support social security and Medicare, but the ideas on reform are often vague. What do you plan to do to ensure social security and Medicare are available to us, children and grandchildren?

Obama: We have 78 million baby boomers retiring, we have to stop George Bush raiding trust fund to pay for Iraq. Need fiscal discipline. I’ve been specific–we should not privatize, but we should adjust cap on payroll tax. If you earn $97,000 or less you pay taxes on 100% of earnings, while the wealthy pay taxes on only a small percent of their earnings. Health care is a big problem–people even with insurance can’t manage, their premiums have gone up in the past several years. We must get cost under control with universal health care plan with prevention and providing care to everyone.

Clinton: I’ll tell you what I’m for. I’m for getting back to fiscal responsibility–6.5 years ago when Bush came into office, he came into office with a balanced budget, surplus and a social security system that would be solvent for decades. We have a lot of intense challenges to face–we have to move back toward fiscal responsibility. Then, we need a bipartisan commission–we can’t fix social security on backs of middle class and working families and senior citizens–raising cap will be $1 trillion tax increase. Medicare needs to negotiate for lower drug prices.

Blitzer: Not ready to accept raising cap…

Obama: I’ll be brief. Only 6% of Americans make more than $97,000 a year–this is not the working class, this is the upper class. We can’t talk about things like a trillion dollar tax cut, we need to deal with problems–expect that from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. You have to be specific, and I was.

Clinton: That is a tax increase. People would find it burdensome–look at it across the board. I support a bipartisan commission–for social security, Reagan and O’Neil put together bipartisan commission to fix problem. I think that’s what will work for America.

The Democratic debate in Las Vegas is underway!  I missed the first few minutes, but let’s jump into it with a question on immigration:

Unfortunately, Blitzer is asking one of those yes-or-no questions that boils a complex issue down to a one-word answer–immigration is bigger than just one word, and we need a real debate on this pressing issue.

Obama supports drivers licenses for immigrants, as does Edwards, and both talk up comprehensive immigration reform.

Clinton opposes–a big change from her equivocation last week–without any further comment.

Kucinich argues that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated, doesn’t believe anyone should count as illegal.

Richardson spoke about his record dealing with immigration as Governor of New Mexico.

Biden opposes.

Question: Should there be merit pay for teachers? To Dodd.

Dodd: Merit pay should be based on the effort teacher puts in, not how well their students do necessarily or how good their school is.  This is a critical issue, and Dodd says it’s the most important issue–need the most educated generation we’ve ever produced.  Need to spend more of our budget on education–reform No Child Left Behind, gets big applause calling it a “disaster.”  26 years in Senate, began children’s caucus, dealt with childhood literacy, head start and autism issues.

Question: Are there any issues with teacher’s unions on which you disagree? To Kucinich

Kucinich: My father was a union member, I’m a union member, it’s essential to worker’s rights.  Says he’s the candidate of workers in this campaign because he’s stood for jobs for all, health care for all, etc.  Can address these needs directly because he remembers where he came from; is willing to oppose unions on some issues.

Richardson: Wants to be education President.  Wants a large minimum wage for teachers, need to be bolder with NCLB, wants preschool and full day kindergarten for children.  Cites low U.S. ratings in science, supports science, math, art, as well as college education policy dealing with large loans.

Question: Should there be teacher merit pay? To Clinton

Clinton: Supports school-based merit pay to get teachers to go where they’re needed.  Teachers are a team, and they need to be rewarded as such.  You need to weed out teachers who do not do a good job, they should not be teaching our children.  Believes that education has served country well, but needs to be reimagined. We need to collaborate and bring teachers to table, not talk down to them like Bush administration.

Biden: Excellent teacher should be judged based on if they work outside the classroom to improve teaching skills.  Wife is a teacher, earned additional degrees to gain additional knowledge.  Who makes decision on merit pay? Believes in teaching excellence, wants to demand more for teachers in terms of participation after school and in school.  Agrees with Richardson in providing higher base pay to teachers.

Question: Pakistan’s president has suspended constitution, placed opposition leader under house arrest, etc.  You and others assert U.S. needs to continue economic aid to Pakistan–should our safety be more important than strategic value? To Biden.

Biden: Spoke to President of Pakistan, encouraged him to restore democratic system, threatened to cut off military aid.  Indicated we should move to Pakistan policy to help develop middle class in that country, help education and NGOs.  Need to develop relationship between US and Pakistan.

Richardson: Got principles wrong in Pakistan policy–security more important than human rights.  If he’s President, it would be the other way around. Make assistance conditional, encourage President to restore democracy and have elections and allow opposition and restore court and go after terrorists.  Has done a very weak job going after terrorism.  Islamic parties get maybe 15% of the vote, disputes ideas that moderates would win democratic election.

Blitzer: Human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?

Richardson: Yes, and we have to say it to the world.  Not about what Halliburton wants in Iraq.  Our strength is our values.

Edwards: Need to focus on basic goals.  Get extremists under control, support democratic reformers, make sure elections take place, make certain nuclear weapons are under control.  Bigger question–Pakistan is an example that our ad hoc policy of dealing with nuclear weapons–which is necessary, at times–will not work over the long term.  What America needs to do is to lead a long-term international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Only way to keep us and world secure

Obama: Concepts are not contradictory.  They are complimentary, Pakistan is a great example.  $10 billion over seven years, neither restored democracy or defeated terrorism.  Pakistani democracy helps us in the war on terror–as President, will do everything necessary to ensure nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of extremists, but we cannot uphold anti-democratic forces otherwise it feeds impression we only care about ourselves.

Dodd: Finds it ironic that Bush urges Turks not to invade Iraq and lectures Pakistan on destroying the constitution.  National security is most important–promise to protect constitution and country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Elections are only one note in the tune of democracy–cannot have totally free elections, or extremists will win.  Need to remind Pakistan of obligations they have to fulfill–if they fail, we have to terminate relationship.

Clinton: National security is most important, must protect and defend United States.  Connection between democratic regime and heightened security for US. After 9/11, Bush had chance to take a better course, and now we are in a bind due partly due to Bush’s failed policies.  Have to tell Pakistan that it is not  in their or our interest to continue as they have; asked him to accept high-level Presidential envoy, but White House refused.  You have to stay on top of issues and manage them, requiring Presidential attention.

Question: It’s true that 2007 was deadliest year since 2003, but it’s also true that troop deaths have been declining since spring.  At the end of October, it was at it’s lowest in two years.  Was Petraeus correct that the troop increase made improvements? To Richardson

Richardson: We should not talk a