Democrashield.com


Demography Is Destiny

Ronald Brownstein writes in The National Journal:

To grasp how powerfully demographic change is reshaping the political landscape try this thought experiment about the 2008 election.

Start by considering the electorate’s six broadest demographic groups — white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.

Now posit that each of those groups voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in exactly the same proportions as it actually did. Then imagine that each group represented the share of the electorate that it did in 1992. If each of these groups voted as it did in 2008 but constituted the same share of the electorate as in 1992, McCain would have won. Comfortably.

[...]

[Now] pitch the thought experiment forward 12 years. Imagine that the major demographic groups voted as they did in 2008, but cast a share of the vote equal to their expected share of the population in 2020. (For argument’s sake, let’s divide whites among college and noncollege voters in the same proportions as today.) In that scenario, Obama beats McCain by nearly 14 points — almost twice as much as in 2008.

This is exactly why Republican paeans to Ronald Reagan and pledges to return to their “conservative roots” aren’t the solution. America is a far different place than it was in the 1980s–going back to what helped you get elected 30 years ago won’t necessarily get you elected today.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem intent on avoiding the introspection and change necessary to put them back in the majority. They’re content to spew platitudes about technology and “conservative roots” because it’s a lot easier than actual modernization and reform.

Former GOP Rep. Tom Davis is the voice of reason here:

We’ve long-since given up on the African-American vote. We’re forfeiting the Hispanic vote with unwarranted and unsavory vitriol against immigrants. Youth vote? Gone. We ask for nothing from these idealistic voters, we offer little except chastisement of their lifestyle choices and denial of global warming, and we are woefully behind the Democrats in learning how to connect with them.

Soccer moms? They’re not comfortable with much of our social policy agenda, so many are gone as well. NASCAR dads? They’re our last redoubt, and the trends even there are not encouraging as unemployment rises and 401 (k)s are decimated. They want clean, competent government that meets basic challenges. They don’t see tax cuts or stimulus checks that net them another $500 per year as meaningful, and they are not comfortable with the profligate deficits that result. As one veteran Republican campaign professional told pollster Charlie Cook: Voting for tax increases hurts politically much more than voting for tax cuts helps.

[...]

What we can’t do is go back. I’ve heard much talk of going back to our conservative roots, to the issues that helped us win in 1980 and 1994. That issue matrix has changed so much as to be nearly unrecognizable now. The voters who dealt us our electoral disasters in 2006 and 2008 did so because they thought we were all too true to our roots. That we were exclusive, favored rich over poor, and didn’t care sufficiently for the plight of the little person.

Also, I suspect this call to return to our “roots” really is a call to do nothing. And doing nothing, I hope Republicans will agree, is not an option.

Davis is right–all of this talk about “conservative roots” is really Republicans reassuring themselves that their core ideas and philosophy are fine, that it’s nothing but superficial, cosmetic problems that are dragging them down.  And as long as they’re working off the premise that their core philosophy is still popular, they won’t be able to make any worthwhile progress.

The GOP rose to power by building a strong ideological base.  As time has gone on, that base has diminished in size, but the GOP’s fervency of belief has gotten enough of those voters to the polls to keep Republicans in the majority.

But the failures of the past few years has both eroded their base and harmed their ability to turn that base out.  The GOP continually narrowed their focus down to issues that appeal solely to their base, but now their focus might be so narrowed that they might not be able to relate to anyone else anymore.

Davis presents some good ideas as to how the fundamentals of the GOP can be altered to suit the current political climate.  The question is, is anyone listening? Because the future of the GOP just might depend on it.

Comments Off


First 10 Senate Bills Of The 111th Congress

Here they are:

  • S.1 — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “To create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen America’s middle class through measures that modernize the nation’s infrastructure, enhance America’s energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need, and for other purposes.” The stimulus bill; no surprises here.
  • S.2 — Middle Class Opportunity Act of 2009. Sound familiar? This is a retread of a bill sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer in the last Congress that has a variety of tax reform goals; the additional descriptions in this bill include hints at union support (”ensuring workers can exercise their rights to freely choose to form a union without employer interference”) and perhaps another go at the Ledbetter law (”removing barriers to fair pay for all workers”).
  • S.3 — Homeowner Protection and Wall Street Accountability Act of 2009. This bill will include a moratorium on foreclosures, Senator Dick Durbin’s plan to allow for easier reworking of troubled mortgages by bankruptcy judges, new regulations for the credit card and financial industry, and investment in the Small Business Administration to provide loans for small businesses in need. It also makes TARP — the Wall Street bailout — a larger part of foreclosure reduction.
  • S.4 — Comprehensive Health Reform Act of 2009. “It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and the President should sign, legislation to guarantee health coverage, improve health care quality and disease prevention, and reduce health care costs for all Americans and the health care system.” Paging Ezra!
  • S.5 — Cleaner, Greener, and Smarter Act of 2009. This is a bill that focuses mainly on green investment and updating infrastructure to be more efficient and less polluting. But since a lot of those priorities are expected to be rolled into the stimulus package, one wonders if this is a vehicle for cap-and-trade and the Kyoto Protocols, given this provision: “requiring reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States and achieving reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases abroad.”
  • S.6. — Restoring America’s Power Act of 2009. This is basically the Democrats’ ‘08 foreign policy consensus: Refocus on Afghanistan, transition in Iraq, strengthen alliances, WMD non-proliferation in Iran and North Korea… you get the idea. Most of this is in the executive branch’s bailiwick so this legislation may just be a supportive resolution indicating that if Obama needs new authorities or resources to accomplish these goals, he’ll get them. The bill also includes goals of providing proper training and equipment to the Armed Forces, and medical care when they return from duty.
  • S.7 — Education Opportunity Act of 2009. “To expand educational opportunities for all Americans by increasing access to high-quality early childhood education and after school programs, advancing reform in elementary and secondary education, strengthening mathematics and science instruction, and ensuring that higher education is more affordable.” An education omnibus bill that will no doubt be split up into separate pieces of legislation.
  • S.8 — Returning Government to the American People Act. “To return the Government to the people by reviewing controversial ‘midnight regulations’ issued in the waning days of the Bush Administration.” A sentiment we can all get behind, which promises to provide the new administration legislative authority, if it doesn’t have it already, to review (and presumably deny) the last administration’s late regulations.
  • S.9 — Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009. Seems to be a placeholder for comprehensive immigration reform, including stronger border and employment security to crackdown on illegal immigration while “reforming and rationalizing avenues for legal immigration.”
  • S.10 — Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. Gosh, this one is interesting. It’s one part congressional hand-wringing over the fact that “the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path of rising deficits and debt,” and it calls for a study of this. It’s one part fiscal hawkery, supporting “strong pay-as-you-go rules, to help block the approval of measures that would increase the deficit.” And it’s one part … populist? “A review of the current system of taxation of the United States to ensure that burdens are borne fairly and equitably.” That could be the justification for the Bush tax cut rollback in 2010.
Comments Off


“Constitutional Conservatism”

The Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz has a new philosophy that will help conservatives find their way out of the wilderness.  Calling it “constitutional conservatism,” he lays out some positions (many of which have surprisingly little to do with the Constitution):

-An economic program, health-care reform, energy policy and protection for the environment grounded in market-based solutions.

First, good job with the specifics.  Second, how can anyone seriously advocate “market-based” solutions considering the current state of our economy? In light of the recent economic collapse, maybe we shouldn’t run our government like those Wall Street businesses that are currently going under.

- A foreign policy that recognizes America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty abroad but realistically calibrates undertakings to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.

In other words, Berkowitz is promising more Iraqs, but we’ll get them right next time for sure.  I find that highly questionable.

- A commitment to homeland security that is as passionate about security as it is about law, and which is prepared to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful trade-offs.

By “painful trade-offs,” he means trading off constitutional rights for security. Well, not really security, just the illusion of security which doesn’t significantly reduce the threat of terrorism.  Just like the past few years.

- A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.

We Democrats already have this talking point; we call it “safe, legal and rare.”

- Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.

Why aren’t courts part of the democratic process? The judiciary is a separate and equal branch of the government; I’m not sure why it’s being singled out to have it’s powers limited more than any other branch.

Plus, since same-sex marriage raises constitutional questions–particularly regarding the 14th amendment and equal protection–doesn’t it belong in federal court? I mean, that’s what the federal judiciary does–they decide constitutional questions. If you had kept Brown v. Board of Ed. out of the federal courts and subjected segregation to “each state’s democratic processes,” segregation might still exist.  Don’t we sometimes need the courts to decide certain issues?

- Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-immigrant.

Like those efforts to improve border security and provide immigrants with a path to citizenship, which were torpedoed by right-wing Republicans? If Berkowitz can get the right-wing Republicans on board, this could be a good idea.

- A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.

More warmed-over right-wing rhetoric.  What sense does it make to abandon the public school system and essentially privatize education? If we had privatized Social Security and Medicare our country would be worse off right now, so why are we going to go down that road with education?

- A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.

With all the problems our country is facing, he’s talking about university speech codes? Since when has this been an issue anybody but right-wing ideologues care about? Talk about being out of touch…

- The appointment of judges who understand that their function is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, and, therefore, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.

Again, there’s that assumption that courts aren’t part of the “democratic process.” And Berkowitz contradicts himself–he says courts should interperet the Constitution, but then he says when it’s vague the courts should “defer to the results of the democratic process,” whatever that means.  Aren’t vagueries the reason we need judicial interpretation in the first place?

And let’s face it, conservatives don’t care about “judicial activism” when the courts are ruling in their favor; if you want to see one of the most egregious examples of “judicial activism” in modern history, just look up Bush v. Gore. The GOP certainly didn’t have a problem with that one.

The GOP’s problems won’t be fixed with band-aids. Rehashing the same policies and throwing in bizarre, pointless ideas like eliminating university speech codes aren’t going to solve conseravtism’s problems.  The Republican Party is out of touch, and–unfortunately for them–Peter Berkowitz’s laundry list of ideas isn’t fixing that at all.

(h/t Digby)



Israel-Palestine, Pt. 2
December 28, 2008, 4:54 PM
Filed under: Breaking, Immigration, International, Terrorism | Tags: , , , , , ,

There are new developments in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Palestinians are now crossing the border into Egypt in order to flee Israeli rocket strikes in the Gaza strip. One group of Palestinians has even “commandeered a bulldozer,” according to some reports, in order to create more openings along the border.

In response, Egypt’s military has opened fire Palestinians crossing the border:

Egyptian border guards have opened fire on Palestinians who breached the border to escape Israel’s assault on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

An Egyptian security official said there were at least five breaches along the nine-mile border and hundreds of Palestinian residents were pouring in.

At least 300 Egyptian border guards have been rushed to the area to reseal the border, the official added on condition on anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the press.

A resident of the Gaza Strip side of the border, Fida Kishta, said that Egyptian border guards opened fire to drive back the Palestinians.

Comments Off


The Young And The Liberal

young1

The Republican Party is in trouble.

Going into 2009, they find themselves in an electoral purgatory they won’t leave anytime soon. As AEI’s David Frum says,

College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats–but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.

So the question for the GOP is: will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will potentially involve even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That is a future that leaves little room for Palin–but it is the only hope for a Republican recovery.

Frum strikes at the heart of the GOP’s problem–they perform terribly among younger voters who, as time goes on, will start to make up more and more of the electorate.

The Generation Gap

In fact, if you look at where Americans stand on the issues, you find that there is a significant generation gap between younger voters and older voters.

Take, for instance, the environment:

Most young Americans age 13 to 24 are at least somewhat concerned about global warming – and the more they know about it, the more concerned about it they are.

Large majorities say the time to do something about global warming is right NOW. And many pick the environment as the biggest problem that their generation will need to solve.

And look at gay marriage: in May, 2008, Pew Research found that 52% of 18-29 year olds support gay marriage. Compare that to just 40% of 30-49 year-olds, 34% of 50-64 year-olds and 24% of voters 65 and older who support it.

And the same holds true on other issues like the war and immigration.  There is a generational gap and, unfortunately for them, Republicans are on the wrong side of the divide.

Modern History

And it’s not just the parties’ stances on the issues; part of the problem is recent history.

Most of my generation only remembers two Presidents: Bill Clinton, successful but personally flawed, and George W. Bush, a failure.

We only know the political parties as they exist now, not as they once existed; from our limited perspective, Democrats are better governors than Republicans. We lack the perspective that older Americans have, where they can look back towards Reagan or Carter or Kennedy or Eisenhower.

That isn’t to say young voters are stupid or short-sighted, but different generations have different experiences–you couldn’t blame young people for not remembering Reagan any more than you could blame a 50 year old is for remembering the great depression. But that doesn’t change the fact that the GOP’s modern history has been spotty; they haven’t given my generation any reason to believe in them.

To look at 2008, Barack Obama ran a great campaign and John McCain ran a  poor campaign. 2008 was, essentially, a microcosm of where the two political parties stand–one is innovative and effective and the other is incompetent and out-of-touch.

Obama’s ideas were new—how many presidential candidates have run unabashedly on alternative energy and universal health care? Not only were those policies new, but that were relevant solutions to the issues our country faces.

McCain, on the other hand, ran a backwards-looking campaign. How much of his campaign was based on what he did in Vietnam? And how many of his policies were based on the same Reaganite/Gingrichean ideas we’ve heard a thousand times before?

There used to be an old canard that the GOP was the party of ideas. Well, in short time the Democrats have turned that around and emerged as the party of idea, leaving the GOP in the dust. 

Aiding And Abetting The Enemy

So, what advice do I have for the GOP to win over young voters again?

First, it’s about competence. Young people only know the GOP as the incompetent Bushean party that can’t be trusted with power; proving to us that Republicans can do a good job when trusted with power will go a long way.

To do that, it’s time to abandon the Reaganite idea that government is always bad.  That’s a nearly 30-year-old talking point that came about when our country was in a very different place. The truth is, the government can do a lot of good for people and, in some respects–such as disaster relief–we need a strong, well-funded and well-prepared government. If the GOP is bent on indiscriminately dismantling government at every opportunity then we have no reason to trust them with it.

Second, I agree with Frum–the GOP has to start rethinking it’s positions on a lot of the issues, particularly the highly-divisive social issues.

There was a time when the GOP was very skilled at winning support by using divisive wedge issues. But now a massive backlash has developed–people are tired of being divided and fighting the same battles year after year. That dissatisfaction was an intrinsic part of Obama’s victory.

When it comes to the social issues Republicans used to win votes, young voters just aren’t interested; my generation is more open-minded and tolerant than any ever before it, even among young conservatives. By pursuing rigid conservative ideological purity, the GOP may end up losing an entire generation of voters forever.

Comments Off


2010: Martinez Retires, Specter In Trouble

Florida Senator Mel Martinez–up for re-election in 2010–is retiring after just one term in office:

Florida Sen. Mel Martinez (R) has decided against seeking a second term, a decision he will formalize shortly in the Sunshine State, according to an informed party source.

Martinez’s decision was based on a desire for more free time and a less scheduled life, said the source. The first term senator also was an almost certain Democratic target in two years time…

Some potential candidates for this now-open seat include:

State Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, widely seen as Democrats’ strongest potential candidate, has apparently decided that she would not run but may well reconsider that decision given Martinez’s expected announcement today. Democratic Reps. Ron Klein and Kendrick Meek as well as state Sen. Dan Gelber are likely to consider the open seat race.

On the Republican side, there may well be a push to recruit former Gov. Jeb Bush into the contest although that seems like a long shot. State Attorney General Bill McCollum will almost certainly be mentioned as will state Senate President Jeff Atwater and former state House speaker Marco Rubio. Reps. Vern Buchanan and Connie Mack also may consider a run.

Two more names I’d add to that list: Rep. Adam Putnam for the Republicans and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for the Democrats.

Of course, there’s a reason Martinez’ popularity has dropped enough to warrant a retirement:

And no senator owed more of his career to Bush than Martinez — who appointed him as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 2001, then got the enthusiastic support of Bush in the 2004 Senate primary (and general election, of course). And, he was appointed by Bush to chair the RNC in his and Rove’s ill-fated effort to make their party appear more inclusive.

Martinez was forced from the RNC’s chairmanship for his moderate views on immigration, which is a shame.  With his departure, there will be no more Hispanic Republicans left in the United States Senate.

In Pennsylvania, former Rep. Pat Toomey–head of the Club for Losers–is mulling another primary challenge to Republican Senator Arlen Specter.

Toomey lost to Specter by just 1.64% in 2004.  This time around, Toomey thinks he has a better shot at winning:

[Toomey] argued that Specter’s core constituency in the GOP, which he called “liberal and moderate Republicans,” have since left the party and will be unable to vote in Pennsylvania’s closed Republican primary. That will make it more difficult for Specter to prevail against a conservative opponent, Toomey said.

If Toomey wins, this seat will go to the Democratic candidate (no matter who it is).  The only reason the GOP has that seat is because Arlen Specter is a moderate Republican, a rare and dying breed; a hard-liner like Toomey wouldn’t have a prayer.

Comments Off


Grijalva For Interior Secretary?

It’s a possibility:

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., has emerged as a leading contender for secretary of the Interior.

Grijalva, 60, is Tucson native and son of an immigrant Mexican farmworker. He served as Hispanic co-chair for Obama’s presidential campaign and has been a fierce critic of the Bush administration’s environmental policies. He serves on the House Committee on Natural Resources, and chairs the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee.

[...]

Last month, Grijalva issued a scathing report titled, The Bush Administration’s Assaults on Our National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. The 23-page critique accuses the President of carrying out “a concerted strategy” of reducing the protections for federal properties, “opening up these lands for every type of private, commercial and extractive industry possible.”

[...]

He has long been regarded as an environmental advocate, leading efforts to regulate hard-rock mining and establish a National Landscape Conservation System. He recently told The Arizona Republic that Bush’s administration sold away public resources to private interests, performing “more like real-estate agents than stewards of (public) lands.”

Everything I know about Grijalva tells me that he would be a fantastic choice; he has a strong environmental record that would lead to a complete turnaround the Bush administration’s environmental policies.

Plus, Grijalva is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive–in fact, he was just elected (along with Rep. Lynn Woolsey) to head the House Progressive Caucus.  While I’ve been happy with a lot of Obama’s cabinet picks, I’m glad to see that there are some stronger progressives being considered.

Comments Off


BREAKING: Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security Announced

CNN reports that Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker has been tapped by President-Elect Obama to become the next Secretary of Commerce. According to MSNBC’s transition website:

Penny Pritzker, Obama campaign fundraiser and chairwoman of four corporations: TransUnion, Classic Residence by Hyatt, Pritzker Realty Group and The Parking Spot

CNN is also reporting that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano will be named the head of the Department of Homeland Security. Napolitano is hugely popular in her home state–preliminary polls show that, if she were to run against John McCain in 2010, she’d unseat him–and she has extensive experience dealing with immigration and border security.

More appointments as they come…

Comments Off


Yes We Can

John McCain has been asking, is he ready to lead?

Tonight, Barack Obama removed all doubt: yes, he is.

Here are his full remarks from Invesco Field in Denver, Colorado:

To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation;

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.

Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest – a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours — Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia – I love you so much, and I’m so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart – that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That’s why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors — found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments – a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he’s worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land – enough! This moment – this election – is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: “Eight is enough.”

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we’ll also hear about those occasions when he’s broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives – on health care and education and the economy – Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made “great progress” under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors – the man who wrote his economic plan – was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a “mental recession,” and that we’ve become, and I quote, “a nation of whiners.”

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn’t know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.

For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.

Well it’s time for them to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President – when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job – an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton’s Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She’s the one who taught me about hard work. She’s the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she’s watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don’t know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise?

It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who’s willing to work.

That’s the promise of America – the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.

That’s the promise we need to keep. That’s the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington’s been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he’s said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don’t have that chance. I’ll invest in early childhood education. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I’ll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America’s promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our “intellectual and moral strength.” Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can’t replace parents; that government can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that’s the essence of America’s promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America’s promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That’s not the judgment we need. That won’t keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice – but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country. Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans — Democrats and Republicans – have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

So I’ve got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose – our sense of higher purpose. And that’s what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that’s to be expected. Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what – it’s worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us – that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I’ve seen it. Because I’ve lived it. I’ve seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I’ve seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I’ve seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they’d pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I’ve seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It’s a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln’s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could’ve heard many things. They could’ve heard words of anger and discord. They could’ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead – people of every creed and color, from every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

“We cannot walk alone,” the preacher cried. “And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

Comments Off


The Clinton Campaign: Post-Mortem

There are a lot of articles being written about why Hillary Clinton’s campaign failed to deliver her the nomination, despite the fact that she started out as the undisputed front-runner.  Along those lines, I offer my analysis of why the Clinton campaign fell short.

Inevitability

Though they might not have come out and said it, inevitability was the meme the Clinton campaign was based on.  Her organization was lauded, as was her discipline.  Her campaign’s fundraising was prolific.  And she was dominating the polls–nationally and in most of the early states.

Of course, those polls meant nothing–early polls are little more than surveys of name recognition, and they’re highly fluid.  And Clinton’s fundraising apparatus–as impressive as it was–became overshadowed by Obama’s.  If Obama hadn’t raised the money he did, he never would have been a competitive candidate.

Clinton won 2 out of 4 early states, and she won an incredibly impressive spate of victories on Super Tuesday.  But expectations for her campaign were so high that, what normally would have been seen as an impressive performance was seen as a loss.

Change vs. More of the Same

The Clinton campaign also seriously misjudged the national mood when they crafted their message.  They thought America wanted an experienced, proven, competent President who could wade into our national morass and sort our problems out.  Instead, America wanted a change–they wanted someone new, someone untainted by the battles of the past, who could lead America in a new direction.

The Clinton campaign recognized this during the campaign, but by then it was too late–Clinton was the experienced yet status quo candidate, and no amount of attempted re-packaging could shake that first impression of her.

The Fundrace

The Clinton campaign built one of the most impressive fundraising apparatus in political history–unfortunately, it was based on a model pioneered in the 1990’s.  The Clinton’s network of well-connected, rich donors was supposed to keep her campaign awash with money–and it did.

Just not enough.

Obama’s model was a lot easier to set up, operate, and maintain–his campaign courted small donations from regular individuals.  The upside of this is that it takes far less effort to get a ton of small donations from supporters than to bundle $2,300 checks from wealthy connections (many of whom expect something in return for their generosity).  In addition, Obama’s network of small donors could keep giving and giving and giving, while Clinton’s donor base quickly got tapped out.

Obama’s fundraising prowess is what made him competitive to begin with–had his fundraising not matched or exceeded Clinton’s, he would have never even have had a chance.

The Philly Flip-Flop

The first chink in Clinton’s inevitability armor came during the Philadelphia debate during a question on granting drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.  When asked if she supported the plan, she failed to give a yes-or-no answer; when pushed by moderator Tim Russert, she equivocated.  After that, it took several days for her campaign to release a clear answer, but by then it was too late.

Clinton’s campaign was praised for their organization and message discipline.  She was unflappable at the debates, and performed exceptionally well.  Yet, she failed to answer a yes-or-no question live on national television, floundering before an audience of millions.  It made her look calculating and seemed as if she were trying to play both sides, neither of which are preferable traits to have in a President.

Yeah, the issue was more complex than a yes-or-no answer would allow.  But her equivocation on such a national scale gave a lot of Democratic voters pause and, even worse, it lent credence to the charges that Clinton was a panderer and an equivocator.

Iowa

If Philly was a dent, Iowa was a big, huge crack. Had Clinton won Iowa, she would have become the Democratic nominee–her inevitability would be confirmed, and her subsequent victory in New Hampshire would have sealed the deal.

So what happened?

Again, inevitability became a problem, particularly in a state that Clinton was never really winning–Iowa was first Edwards’, then it was a three-way tie, then it became Obama’s. The national narrative was that she was inevitable, but in the state of Iowa, she was never really leading at all.  Thus, her loss in Iowa–which, overall, was not that big a deal–was seen as a huge turning point in the campaign.  Once again, the Clinton camp was hobbled by their own message.

Plan B

The Clinton campaign expected Hillary to win the nomination on Super Tuesday.  They focused on the early states and the larger states voting on Super Tuesday, assuming that they would win enough by then to effectively win the race.  Unfortunately, Obama performed far better than expected, winning half of the early states and putting up a massively impressive showing on February 5th.  Clinton won a lot of big states, but she only won the states she had focused on–all the rest went to Obama.  He walked away from that night with more states and more delegates; Super Tuesday resolved nothing.

Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign had no plan B. They had no infrastructure put in place to deal with a post-Super Tuesday campaign.  So they lost state after state–11 in a row–while Obama racked up huge margins of victory and a significant lead in delegates.

It was this single problem that really cost Clinton the nomination–she didn’t plan for the future.  Instead of organizing everywhere, instead of running like she was 20 points behind (as the old political adage says you should), she ran like she was the dominant front-runner.  And when her dominance turned out to be not nearly as solid as it needed to be, there was no plan B.  So Obama went on to win state after state, racking up a significant delegate lead, putting Clinton in a deficit she has yet to come out of.

I’m sure there are a lot more factors out there that contributed to her loss, but these are some of the big ones.  Clinton built an impressive campaign, but it just wasn’t good enough and, as time went on, her legendarily on-message, disciplined campaign fell to bickering and infighting.  In the end, though, it was the campaign’s strategic decisions that cost her the race–had things played out slightly differently, we would all have Hillary bumper stickers on our cars right now.

Comments Off


Where’s The Maverick? (UPDATED)

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]

Comments Off


Super Tuesday: Preview (UPDATED)

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

Comments Off


Tancredo’s Out

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…



Tancredo Dropping Out?

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.

Comments Off


Google Ron Paul?

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:

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.



The Crumbling Conservative Coalition

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?



Tancredo Boycotts Univision Debate

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.)

Comments Off


Paris in Flames
November 27, 2007, 6:20 PM
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Immigration, International, Race, Rights

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.

Comments Off


Haigiography (UPDATED)

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.

Comments Off


On Mike Huckabee (UPDATED)

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.

Comments Off


Armageddon
November 19, 2007, 2:19 PM
Filed under: Conservatives, Immigration | Tags: , , , , , ,

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.



Debate Live Blog II

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.

Comments Off


Debate Live Blog I

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 about body counts–one American is too much.  There has not been progress  3/18 benchmarks have been met–even with Republican math, it’s a failing grade. 60% of Iraqis say it’s okay to shoot at Americans, and our troops are suffering.  We must get our troops out, cannot leave residual force unlike his colleagues support.  Need a political compromise–share oil revenue, all-Muslim, all-Arabic peacekeeping force.  Other nations contributing to rebuilding Iraq, where we have spent $500 billion that we should have spent here.

Kucinich: Occupation is fueling insurgency.  In 2003, proposed withdrawal plan–only one to vote against war.  Troops should be brought home now–Congressional Democrats have not done nearly enough, should not provide one more time.  On Pakistan– you cannot look at the destabilization there and in many other Muslim nations without acknowledging role the war in Iraq has played.  Strength through peace–no more unlilateralism, no more preemption, negotiation and peace.

Obama: American troops in Iraq are doing a great job and making a small difference, but overall strategy has failed because Iraqi behavior has not changed.  Will bring the war to a close, troops out in 16 months, talk to Iraqi actors and regional powers.  People are on 2, 3, 4 tours, families are carrying a huge burden, this year had highest casualty rates since war started–same in Afghanistan.  We’re back to where we started–deaths  are declining because they went so high in prior year.

Question: About unsafe toys from China, are proponents of trade with China at fault?

Kucinich: People have to take responsibility, yes it is their fault.  When we first made trade deals with China, we knew they had various issues.  Edwards votes for China trade knowing that workers would be hurt–you’re a trial lawyer, you should have known better.  People have to take responsibility for their position.

Edwards: Not sure what being a trial lawyer has to do with it.  America’s trade policy has been a complete disaster.  NATA, CAFTA, Columbia, Korea, Peru…believes that powerful interests, particularly corporate interests, have taken over government to the detriment to ordinary Americans.  In 1993, Democrats controlled House, Senate and White House, proposed universal healthcare–corporate interests killed it.  Yet, NAFTA was on the table, and corporate interests supported it, and it got passed.  Cannot replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats.

Blitzer: Was your vote for China trade a mistake?

Edwards: It was right to bring them into WTO, wrong to not hold them accountable.

Blitzer: Remember NAFTA passing under Clinton.  Was Perot right? To Clinton

Clinton: It’s a vague memory.  NAFTA did not do what many have hoped.  Need trade relations that are smart, that help the American worker and consumer.  It’s not just the toys, it’s the pet food and prescription drugs.  Need an independent investigative arm on Chinese government and companies that import items into US, ensure imported items are safe.

Blitzer: Was NAFTA a mistake?

Clinton: To the extent that it did not deliver what it was supposed to, yes.  Need a trade time out, need to reevaluate our trade policy, need enforceable standards.

Dodd: Time out is a good idea, but Clinton and others voted for Peru free trade act.  If a US corporation produced contaiminated goods, they would have been shut down in 15 minutes.

Obama: Supports Peru agreement, right thing to do, opposed to other free trade plans.  You know what Japan does when importing Chinese goods? Send over own inspectors, say if you do not follow our rules you cannot import your goods.  Why doesn’t the US do that? We are the biggest market in the world–problem with most favored trading status, should have said we would review that every year to ensure they safeguarded consumers.

Biden: Not the agreement, the man.  Under the WTO, we can shut this down–we have a President who won’t enforce the law.  We have power under the agreement–enforce the agreement.

Roberts: Oil near $100 a barrel, highlights need for other technologies.  To Obama, Illinois gets 40% of power from nuclear, but opposes keeping nuclear waste in Illinois.  Where?

Obama: Not fair to send it to Nevada.  We have to develop storage capacity based on sound stage–labs are trying to develop ways to store nuclear waste. Nuclear power not best option–crisis that needs to be addressed.  Must cap greenhouse gases, because climate change is real and affecting the planet.  Need to charge polluters, reinvest money in other sources of power–solar, wind, biodiesel, etc.

Blitzer: Where do you send the waste if you can’t develop new technologies?

Obama: Currently on-site, but you cannot assume we cannot develop new technologies.  We can do it.  We need bold leadership in White House to combat global warming and develop new technologles.

Richardson: Future is renewable.  You don’t put waste in Yucca mountain, opposes storage there for various reasons, opposes regional sties as well.  Would turn Yucca into national laboratory, need to find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.  Technological solution–should not give nuclear energy all of these subsidies and concessions.  Need an energy revolution to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources, 50% by 2020.  We need 30% of electricity renewable.  Americans must sacrifice a bit.

Queston: To Clinton, said her tenure at Wellsley helped her compete in all boys club of politics, but campaign criticized opponents for piling on.  Is campaign exploiting her gender?

Clinton: Not playing gender cared, playing winning card.  Not attacking her because she’s a woman, attacking her becaue she’s ahead.  Truman said  if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, and I feel very comfortable in the kitchen.  We can laugh about it because it’s exciting to look at this field of candidates–if it hadn’t been for the progress of America, many candidates up here could not run.  Proud to be very first woman to run for President.

Brown: What did you mean by the boy’s club?

Clinton: There may be some impediments to women, and it’s been my goal to been part of this great movement of progress that affects all of us, but particularly to me as a woman.  Must aim at the highest, hardest glass ceiling.  Not running because I’m a woman, but because I’m the best candidate.  Talks about the people she’s inspired.

Blitzer: Do any of you feel Clinton is playing gender card?

Edwards: All candidates should be held to the same standard.  Nothing personal, need strong candidate, and there are differences between all of us.  Like the difference between corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans.  Some of us have taken different approach–Clinton supports establishment, and voters have choices.

Comments Off


Debates & Driver’s Licenses
November 4, 2007, 8:21 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Governors, Immigration, Media, Progressives

At the last Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was asked a question about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to distribute state identification cards to illegal immigrants. She stumbled in her response, and when asked if she did or did not support the plan, she nakedly dodged the question.

Clinton is often portrayed as a nearly-unflappable, strongly-disciplined candidate—but that time around, she showed a huge chink in her armor, arguably the first this cycle. Since then, she has been widely panned for her equivocal response, and rightly so—on a major, controversial issue like this, you have to take a stand. No matter what side you take, you’re going to piss people off, but you have to be willing to do that—there is only so much you can equivocate before you start turning people off. That’s how politics works—you can’t make everybody happy, and if you try, you’ll end up making nobody happy.

On its merits, Spitzer’s proposal is a good—and arguably necessary—one. The federal government has deadlocked on illegal immigration, leaving state and local governments to bear the brunt of the burden. Illegal immigration is, mostly, a security concern—we have no idea who these immigrants are, where they live, where they work, if they work, if they have a criminal record, or anything like that. By issuing them government identification, it makes it easier for the state to keep track of them, to verify who they are and to ensure that they’re holding a job and staying on the right side of the law.

Spitzer has proposed a three-tier system, which his critics call a” bureaucratic nightmare.” Problem is, they fail to realize that two of those tiers already exist—NYS already issues drivers licenses and identification cards, which is what two of those tiers are. So, Spitzer’s plan wouldn’t create a three-tier system, it would only add another tier to the system New York already has.

Another source of opposition to this plan—and the point that I feel is most valid—is the fact that, when presenting illegal immigrants the paperwork to get their IDs, NYS is required to give them a voter registration form. This is due to the federal motor voter laws, which aimed to make voter registration easier by allowing residents the chance to register when getting their drivers licenses—laws that the NYS DMV has to follow. Yet, that’s a failure with the motor voter law, not the Spitzer plan—the motor voter law should be amended to create some kind of exception for illegal immigrants.

Most of the opposition to Spitzer’s plan is coming from the build-a-wall-and-deport-them-all crowd—people who oppose any sort of concession or benefit to illegal immigrants, even if it’s a good idea that would benefit us overall. These people want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend illegal immigrants don’t exist—that there aren’t 12 million illegal immigrants who aren’t going to go away anytime soon. They’re here, they’re working and raising families, and we need to acknowledge that. Personally, I want the government to do everything it can to keep track of them, to ensure they have jobs and aren’t breaking the law—to me, that’s a big step towards making our country more secure.

But, like I said, that’s not nearly good enough for the build-a-wall-and-deport-them-all crowd. They want every illegal immigrant in this country gone, even though rounding them up, deporting them all and building an impenetrable border is socially, economically, and politically impossible. Let’s be realistic—you will never get rid of every illegal immigrant, and you’ll never be able to keep additional immigrants from coming here, especially when businesses seek them out as a source of cheap labor.

Clinton would have angered the build-a-wall-and-deport-them-all crowd had she supported Spitzer’s plan, but she would have also endeared herself to the majority of the population, who support a path to citizenship and certain limited rights for illegal immigrants. Hopefully, this will be the last time she so nakedly equivocates and dodges on a major issue—if not, we’re going to have a hard, unpleasant campaign season ahead of us. You have to take a stand—even if you piss some people off, they’ll appreciate the fact that you have a belief and are willing to defend it. That’s the kind of leadership I want in a President—someone who makes hard decisions and isn’t afraid to fight for what they believe in, not someone who tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one.

[Full Disclosure: I was born and raised in New York]

Comments Off


Unintended Consequences
September 4, 2007, 10:55 PM
Filed under: Conservatives, Immigration

An interesting article from the New York Times:

Farming since he was a teenager, Mr. Scaroni, 50, built a $50-million business growing lettuce and broccoli in California’s Imperial Valley, relying on the hands of immigrant workers, most of them Mexicans and many probably in the United States illegally.

But early last year he began shifting part of his operation to rented fields here. Now some 500 Mexicans tend his crops in Mexico, where they run no risk of deportation.

“I’m as American red-blood as it gets,” Mr. Scaroni said, “but I’m tired of fighting the fight on the immigration issue.”

A sense of crisis prevails among American farmers who rely on immigrant laborers, more so since legislation in the United States Senate failed in June and authorities announced a crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants. An increasing number of farmers have been testing the alternative of raising crops across the border where many of the workers are…

[...]
Precise statistics are not readily available on American farming in Mexico, because growers seek to maintain a low profile for their operations abroad. But Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, displayed a map on the Senate floor in July locating more than 46,000 acres that American growers are cultivating in just two Mexican states, Guanajuato and Baja California.

“Farmers are renting land in Mexico,” Ms. Feinstein said. “They don’t want us to know that.”

She predicted that more American farmers would move to Mexico for the ready workforce and lower wages.

[...]
American farm state economists say that thousands of middle-class jobs supporting agriculture are being lost in the United States. Some lawmakers in the United States also point to security risks when food for Americans is increasingly produced in foreign countries.

[...]

The Department of Labor has reported that 53 percent of the 2.5 million farm workers in the United States are illegal immigrants, though growers and labor unions say as much as 70 percent of younger field hands are illegal.

As American authorities tightened the border in recent years, seasonal migration from Mexico has been interrupted, demographers say.

[...]

[Scaroni] also dismisses arguments that he could attract workers by raising wages, saying Americans do not take the sweaty, seasonal field jobs. “I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I did that I would raise my costs and I would not have a legal workforce,” Mr. Scaroni said.

[...]

Negotiated among growers and unions over seven years, the agricultural measure in the failed immigration bill, known as AgJobs, had wider bipartisan support than the bill as a whole, lawmakers said. Its supporters have said they hope to bring it before Congress this fall, perhaps attached to the farm bill.

I’m in favor of going after businesses that hire illegal immigrants–it’s far more effective than going after the immigrants themselves–but only if have some for of guest worker program in place.
What the right-wing “build-a-wall-and-deport-them-all” crowd doesn’t want to admit is that much of our economy relies on illegal immigrant labor. That’s why creating a guest worker program is crucial–without the hard work of those 12 million people, there are a lot of important jobs that won’t get done.

The above article shows one of the unintended consequences of an enforcement-only immigration policy: you hurt American businesses that rely on immigrant labor. As a result, they move their operations to Mexico, avoiding ICE and immigration raids altogether.

I’m not condoning their behavior–they’re relocating their businesses to another country, avoiding paying American taxes and upholding American standards, which makes them as bad as any corporation who closes down a plant in Michigan or Pennsylvania while opening one in Mexico or China.

Still, a guest worker program would keep those businesses in America, where we would all benefit from higher product and labor standards, a more rigorous oversight process, shorter shipping times (which is especially important for food) and millions of dollars in tax revenue.

The radical right-wing anti-immigration crowd goes for their enforcement-only policy, while American businesses get caught in the middle. Even if they do employ illegal immigrants, I would rather have those businesses operating here in the United States than across the border in Mexico.

There is no simple solution to the immigration issue. There needs to be increased enforcement, but there also needs to be a way to keep America’s 12 million illegal immigrants in the workforce while also keeping tack of them. In the end, the right-wing is going to have to cede some ground on this issue, lest they run into more unintended consequences.

Comments Off