Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Economics, Government, House, Immigration, Polls, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Technology | Tags: 1980s, 1992, 2008, 2020, Congress, Democrats, Reform, Republicans, Ronald Brownstein, Ronald Reagan, The National Journal, Tom Davis
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.
Filed under: Breaking, Immigration, International, Terrorism | Tags: Egypt, Foreign Policy, Gaza, Israel, Military, Palestine, War
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.
Filed under: 2010 Election, Conservatives, Government, Governors, House, Immigration, Progressives, Senate | Tags: Congress, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Mel Martinez, Karl Rove, 2004, RNC, Florida, Pennsylvania, Adam Putnam, The Club for Growth, 2010, Arlen Specter, Pat Toomey, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Bill McCollum, Jeff Atwater, Marco Rubio, Vern Buchanan, Connie Mack, Ron Klein, Kendrick Meek, Dan Gelber, Alex Sink
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.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Government, IOKIYAR, Immigration, Iraq, Media, Scandal, Senate | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Economics, Elections, Immigration, John McCain, Media, Republicans, Senate, The Political Press, Torture, Waterboarding
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]
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Government, House, Immigration, Race | Tags: 2004, 2006, 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Colorado, Elections, Hispanics, Immigration, Radicalism, Tom Tancredo
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…
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, House, Immigration, Race | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Election, Extremists, Fred Thompson, Immigration, Ken Salazar, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo
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.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Environment, Faith, Government, House, Immigration, International, Race, Rights | Tags: 2008, Abortion, Campaigns, Candidates, Corporate Power, Elections, Environment, Immigration, Reactionaries, Reproductive Choice, Republicans, Ron Paul, The Oil Industry
Recently, Ron Paul broke the one-day fundraising record for a Republican Presidential candidate, raking in approximately $5.2 million dollars. Political Wire has more:
“Most of the donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a “money bomb” timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The last fund-raising blitz, which took in 40,000 donations, was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccessfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.” The record take means Paul will likely lead his rivals for money raised during the fourth quarter.
Paul’s supporters will tell you to “Google Ron Paul;” in light of his recent fundriaising success, let’s give that a shot and see what he actually stands for–Orcinus has the definitive account, and it’s nothing less than appalling:
- Ron Paul wants to deny women control of their own reproductive systems–despite calling himself a libertarian, he doesn’t seem to mind government intrusion when it comes to abortion. (H.R.1095 H.R.777 H.R.1548 H.AMDT.1003 (A024) H.AMDT.380 (A022) H.AMDT.312 (A011) H.R.4984). Not only that, but Paul wants to eliminate the legal distinction between a zygote and a person (H.R.2597 H.R.1094 H.R.776 H.R.392).
- Paul wants to prevent the federal courts–or even federal precedent–for being used by those who have been discriminated against due to religious beliefs or sexual orientation. His bills would also prevent cross-state recognition of gay marriage (H.R.300 H.R.4379 H.R.5739 H.R.3893 H.R.1547 H.R.4922 H.R.5078). He also wants to limit the court system’s ability to hear abortion cases (H.R.1545 H.R.1546 H.R.2875 H.R.3400 H.R.3691 H.R.15169).
- Despite claiming to be a libertarian, Paul opposes allowing people to express their freedom of speech by burning the American flag (H.J.RES.80 H.J.RES.82).
- Ron Paul wants to repeal workplace safety and health legislation, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act (H.R.2310 H.R.13264). And so much for giving power to the people–he wants to make it easier to decertify labor unions (H.R.694). In addition, Paul also opposes the minimum wage (H.R.2962) and wants to destroy Social Security (H.R.2030 H.R.4604).
- Paul opposes pro-democracy voting reforms, even after the disastrous 2000 election (H.CON.RES.48 H.CON.RES.443). He also opposes the motor voter laws, which make it easier for people–particularly poorer people–to register to vote (H.R.2139).
- Ron Paul wants to gut anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation (H.R.1247 H.R.1789) and eliminate corporate oversight (H.R.1204). For someone who seems to support giving power to the people, the only people he wants to help are the already-powerful.
- Paul wants to repeal anti-discimination laws (H.R.3863 H.R.5842 H.R.4982), as well as eliminating birthright citizenship (H.J.RES.46 H.J.RES.42), which is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
- Ron Paul wants to repeal or severely weaken environmental protection legislation (H.J.RES.104 H.R.3735 H.R.4423 H.R.2504 H.R.7079 H.R.724), as well as promoting offshore oil drilling, building more oil refineries and mining for coal on federal land (H.R.2415 H.R.4004 H.R.393 H.R.4639 H.R.5293 H.R.6936).
- Paul, who portrays himself as pro-peace, opposes dismantling ICBM silos in the United States (H.R.1665 H.R.3769) and supports keeping the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court (H.R.1154 H.AMDT.480 (A010) H.R.4169 H.CON.RES.23 H.RES.416). He has also tried to limit the impact of international law on the United States (H.J.RES.1028 H.J.RES.492 H.CON.RES.49 H.R.4118 H.R.1658), going as far as trying to withdraw America from the U.N. (H.R.1146 H.R.1146 H.AMDT.285 (A038) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.190 (A024) H.AMDT.191 (A025) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.306 (A006) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.138 (A010) H.R.1146 H.R.3890 H.R.3891 H.R.6358 H.R.14788). In addition, Paul supports withdrawing the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (H.J.RES.566) and wants to re-establish U.S. ’sovereignty’ over the Panama Canal (H.CON.RES.231 H.RES.1410 H.R.2522).
- Paul wants to weaken our education system by using federal power to interfere with state efforts to improve standards for teachers (H.R.966 H.R.1706 H.R.4653).
- Once again pandering to the powerful, Paul wants to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, including those who inherited their fortunes. In addition, he wants to disproportionately burden the poor and working clas by imposing a flat tax (H.J.RES.23 H.J.RES.14 H.J.RES.15 H.J.RES.45 H.J.RES.81 H.J.RES.116 H.R.5484 H.R.2137 H.R.1664 H.J.RES.23 H.R.6352 H.R.4569 H.R.15619). Paul also wants to force us to pay our income tax every month, eliminating withholding (H.R.1364 H.R.4855).
- Paul also wants to abandon the dollar, creating 50 state currencies instead (H.R.2779 H.R.3931).
So, I Googled Ron Paul, and I found a record of conservative, pro-corporate, reactionary policies that are to the far right of even the Republican Party. And keep in mind that I didn’t include some of Paul’s crazier aspects, like his obsession with the gold standard or his desire to “protect” American troops from wearing the insignia of the U.N. or any “foreign states.”
I don’t know what his followers see in him, but it seems that they have been taken in by Paul’s campaign rhetoric, which doesn’t match his record in Congress at all. Personally, I wonder if they would support him so vehemently if they followed their own advice and Googled Ron Paul. Either that, or this country has far more deep-pocketed right-wing extremists than I thought.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Faith, Government, Immigration | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Christan Right, Elections, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Paul Waldman, Plutocrats, Republicans, Theocrats
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?
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, House, Immigration, Race | Tags: 2004, 2006, 2008, Democrats, Immigration, Racism, Republicans, Spanish, Tom Tancredo, Univision
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.)
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.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Government, Immigration | Tags: 2008, Deficit, Donald Rumsfeld, Economics, Elections, Immigration, Iowa, Iran-Contra, Iraq, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Ronald Reagan
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.”
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. “
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.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Faith, Government, Governors, Immigration, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Arkansas, Campaigns, Candidates, Corruption, Election, Extremism, Matt Taibbi, Mike Huckabee, Republicans, Rolling Stone, Wayne DuMond
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.
Filed under: Conservatives, Immigration | Tags: Chip Franklin, Humor, Immigration, Jerry Garcia, Michelle Rodriguez, Racism, Tbogg
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.
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]

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.




