Runover by the GOP LOCO-motive, Senator Mel Martinez Cries 'No Mas'

The Hill is reporting that Republican Senator Mel Martinez will NOT run for re-election in Florida in 2010. Caught between Republican nativism, Bush incompetence, and a changing Florida, Martinez has chosen to step aside and not seek re-election.

Actually, I'm not sure Martinez had much of a choice. At this point, he probably couldn't win back the mayor's seat in Orlando. His popularity has taken a major hit for reasons, including:

1) long-standing ties to the very unpopular Bush administration
2) support for immigration reform that made him a target of the GOP nativists
4) an unsuccessful stint last year as Bush's pick to chair the Republican National Committee
5) and Florida's continuing movement from Red to Blue state.

However, Martinez and the GOP were in trouble when Bush felt compelled to install Martinez as RNC chairmen in the aftermath of the massive defeat of the administration's pathetic efforts at immigration reform.

The goal was to reassure Latino Republicans nervous about the direction of the GOP, but it didn't work. The wingnuts led by Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were more emboldened and smelled Latino blood. As I recall, they immediately attacked Martinez, even suggesting that a Latino immigrant should not be their party's leader. (See links to the Martinez posts below.)

Here's what I wrote after Martinez' first interview as RNC Chair (1/21/07):

Hmmm. A Latino Chairman of the Republican Party promising to create a party in which Latinos as well as African Americans are comfortable is refreshing. Certainly, Bay Buchanan and Tom Tancredo can't be lovin what they’re hearing.

And here's what I wrote just 8 months later when Martinez announced that he would be stepping down as RNC Chairman:

Clearly, Martinez does not want to be associated with a GOP presidential campaign likely to go down in flames in part due to its anti-Latino, anti-immigrant and anti-African American baggage.

There's a GOP train wreck in the making--and Martinez is leaving before it crushes him, too.

Well, the careening, belching LOCO-motive crushed him.

Related:
Sen. Martinez won’t run for re-election in 2010
Mel Martinez To Exit the GOP Train Wreck
Now We're All Responsible for Fixing Immigration
GOP Opposition Grows Against Iraq War
Republican Presidential Hopefuls Diss 1,000 Latino Leaders
Martinez to Diversify the GOP
Martinez Wins Against the Will of Bigots
RightWing Blackboots Go After Senator Martinez

A Nativist GOP Wired to Fail in a Diverse America

Today's GOP is under the firm grip of a pack of vicious, nativistic and egotistical loudmouths. For a political party its a deathly defect. Neal Gabler call's it the GOP's McCarthy gene. He theorizes that it's this "something deep in the DNA of the Republican Party that determines how Republicans run for office". They are repelled and even angered by diversity.

"Republicans continue to push the idea that this is a center-right country and that Americans have swooned for GOP anti-government posturing all these years, but the real electoral bait has been anger, recrimination and scapegoating. That's why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama's relationship with onetime radical William Ayers.

There may be assorted intellectuals and ideologues in the party, maybe even a few centrists, but there is no longer an intellectual or even ideological wing. The party belongs to McCarthy and his heirs -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Palin. It's in the genes."

It's this part of the GOP's political DNA that accounts for the post-9/11 explosion of xenophobia, bigotry and racism. And just like McCarthy's witch hunts in the '50s gravelly wounded the once proud party of Lincoln, so again its modern day base instincts for fear mongering, intimidation, scapegoating and bluster are causing it to implode.

Nativist GOP losers are a growing list, including George Allen, Randy Graf, J. D. Hayworth, Virgil Goode, Lou Barletta, Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney, Elizabeth Dole, John McCain and Sarah Palin.

It's why the GOP lost the once reliably red states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado to Barack Obama.

And it's why the GOP will likely lose Arizona, Texas and even Georgia in the not so distant future.

It's even why the Waco-Tribune -- in the heart of Red Texas -- had this to say in its post-presidential election wrap-up: The big question is if the GOP can reach beyond its far-right constituency and put aside the politics of hate and division that sank the McCain-Palin ticket. Otherwise, party hard-liners will lead it to further defeat.

Unfortunately for the party, that's not likely. As Neal Gabler observes:

And that is also why the Republican Party, despite the recent failure of McCarthyism, is likely to keep moving rightward, appeasing its more extreme elements and stoking their grievances for some time to come.

Related:
A Blue Texas? Latinos Will Decide
GOP's Racist, Anti-Latino Ad in Georgia U.S. Senate Run-off
Latinos Rising Lance a Nativist GOP?
Hispanic voters gaining strength in key states
The GOP's Bitter Harvest to Come
A Xenophobic Zeitgeist - Erasing GOP Latino Gains
WSJ -- The GOP's Anti-Latino Tone is a Loser
Linda Chavez: GOP's Self-Inflicted Wound
Republican Presidential Hopefuls Diss 1,000 Latino Leaders
The Coming Latino Voter Response to the Failure of Immigration Reform
Republicans: nativism is a proven loser
Clint Bolick: The GOP Must Now Prove Itself to Latinos
Linda Chavez' The Company You Keep: In Search of anti-Hispanic hostility
GOP Risks Losing Latino Voters

Photos (Top to Bottom): Joe McCarthy, Patrick Buchanan, Sean Hannity, Tom Tancredo, Lou Barletta)

A Blue Texas? Latinos Will Decide

As Latinos tilt Democratic, can Texas stay ‘red’?

That's the question Michael B. Farrell examines in his terrific article in today's Christian Science Monitor. While he doesn't give an answer, he lays out some of the political and demographic trends shaping the outcome. For example:

• Texas' major cities are now controlled by Democrats
• Texas recently joined California, New Mexico and Hawaii as a minority majority state
• Texas Latinos comprise 36% of the population (eclipsing the Anglo pop. by 2020)
• Texas in-migration of Anglos are typically younger, more urban and more progressive than are native Anglo Texans
• Nationally, younger Latinos backed Obama 76% to 19% for McCain
• Texas Anglos is an aging demographic (e.g., 70% of people older than 60 in Harris County/Houston are Anglo, while more than 75% of people younger than 30 are non-Anglo)

Of course, changes in demographics alone will not decide the fate of a political party. After all, immigrant groups have been known to migrate politically as they solidified their middle class status, and the same thing could happen with Latinos and other populations in Texas. It is, in part, how President G. W. Bush managed to get 46% of the Texas Latino vote in '04.

And there's always the possibility -- slim as it may be -- of the party exorcising itself and transforming into a competent, humane and forward thinking option more in-sync with peoples' aspirations instead of their fears.

But actions and words matter. And Republicans of late have been hell bent on scapegoating all of the nation's problems on immigrants -- Latino immigrants in particular. Some of their leading nativist propagandists--Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Tom Tancredo, Patrick Buchanan, Michael Savage, and many others--view Latinos in general as a threat.

As a result, Republicans have been steadily losing Latino support. According to Pew, Latino support for the GOP dropped 9% between '04 and '08.

Further dimming their prospects are Republican views on the environment, women's rights, gay rights, labor rights, foreign policy and economics. Harsh conservative views trouble today's younger voters of all stripes -- across the nation as well as in Texas.

Imagine a Texas-less Republican Party. Hard to imagine, right? But nevertheless, likely. Had Texas flipped this year, McCain would have lost by 399 to 137 EVs instead of 365 to 171 trouncing he received. If Texas flips in 2012 or 2016, the damage to the GOP will be even greater if, as expected, 1 or 2 electoral votes are added to its total as per reapportionment.

Barring a catastrophic failure on the part of President Barack Obama and the national Democrats, it's hard to see a scenario whereby Republicans stop Texas from going Blue. They have blown it! Nativism, warmongering and economic incompetence are just not selling points for people looking for brighter futures.

Related: Changing Face of Texas: Population Projections and Implications

El Diario: Political blowback

Attacking immigrants is just not good politics. Some politicians learned this the hard way. In this election cycle, several politicians campaigned on anti-immigrant platforms—and lost. The most outrageous was Congressman Tom Tancredo, who ran for the Republican nomination for president. Tancredo is in favor of ending legal immigration.

Other candidates—namely Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney—tried to outdo Tancredo. But their sparring during the primary debates did not take them to the top of the Republican ticket. And ultimately, Republican nominee John McCain, by backstepping on immigration reform, failed to move the vast majority Latino voters. Latin American immigrants are 40 percent of the Hispanic electorate. The vast majority of Latinos support a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants.

The scapegoating of immigrants had its consequences locally. Republican incumbents like State Senator Serphin Maltese were not helped by their party’s shortsighted platform on immigration and the economy. And without a disastrous party, Maltese alone would have been counting his days in Queens, the borough with the largest immigrant population. Maltese voted against a state measure allowing non citizen students to pay the same rate of in-state tuition as native students.

But one of the most significant defeats in the northeast was of Mayor Lou Barletta of Hazleton, PA. Barletta appeared on the national radar when he pushed through a harsh anti-immigrant ordinance that was thrown out in a legal battle. With the admiration of enforcement-only zealots, Barletta ran for Congress. He lost on Tuesday.

Click here and here for more on Barletta; here for more on Tancredo; and here for why Maltese's opponent--Senator-elect Joseph Addabbo--was the better choice for Latinos and immigrants of Queens .

Undoubtedly, some politicians will resort to another fear-based campaign to rile up voters. But the tide of blaming immigrants may have run its course.

Link

Immigration Losers

Immigration Losers is Richard Nadler's reflections on the findings and lessons derived from Border Wars: The Impact of Immigration on the Latino Vote.

The main lesson for the GOP:

To retain their Hispanic gains, Republicans need to repudiate only the immoral, uneconomical goal of mass deportation.

Good luck!

As I've said before, it's too late--at least for 2008. A rhetorical or minor policy shift on the part of the GOP will not do.

As long as the GOP and its presidential candidates continue bowing at the alter of Nativism, an anti-Latino bigotry propping up the likes of Dobbs, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, Tancredo, Buchanan, et. al., Latinos will rightly keep their distance. It's the honorable thing to do.

Related: The GOP's Bitter Harvest to Come

WSJ Photo: The dishonorable and defeated J.D. Hayworth

WSJ -- The GOP's Anti-Latino Tone is a Loser

The WSJ joins a small but growing list cautioning the GOP to stop marching to the beat (or the screeches) of its anti-immigrant/Latino racists. I've posted the full article. Whether you're Republican, Democrat or Independent, conservative, liberal, Latino or other, read it. It's a wise piece.

Hispanics and the GOP
How to lose elections in one Lou Dobbs lesson.

Saturday, September 15, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Between 1996 and 2004, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote doubled to more than 40%, only to fall in last year's midterm election to less than 30%. The most recent polls show Hispanics breaking for Democrats over Republicans by 51% to 21%. What gives?

To understand this remarkable erosion of Latino support for Republicans, look no further than the most recent Presidential debates. While GOP candidates debated the urgency of erecting a fence from California to Texas along the Mexican border, Democrats debated in Spanish on Univision.

To reverse current trends, the GOP need not resort to ethnic pandering, which is the left's métier. But Republicans would help their cause tremendously if the party at the very least adopted a welcoming stance toward Latino newcomers. People aren't going to listen to your message unless they believe you care about them. Ronald Reagan didn't regularly receive a third of the Hispanic vote by sounding like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson on immigration.

Tone matters in politics, and getting people to vote for you is easier when you're not likening them to Islamic terrorists, or implying that Latino men are hard-wired for gang-banging. Unlike blacks, who have hewed to Democrats in large majorities for decades, Latinos are proven swing voters, and Republican energies would be better employed trying to win them over instead of trying to capitalize on ethnic polarization to win GOP primaries.

There's precedent here. In the mid-1990s after California Governor Pete Wilson embraced Proposition 187, which denied education and health-care benefits to the children of illegal aliens, Latino support for Republicans fell to 25% from 53%, and GOP support among Asians and women declined as well.

Some conservatives insist that it's only the illegal aliens who have earned their wrath, but when the target of scorn is the mother or brother or cousin of someone here lawfully, that becomes a difference without much of a distinction politically. Moreover, Tom Tancredo, the pied piper of restrictionists in Congress, wants a "time out" on all legal immigration, and Hispanic voters are wise to the fact that it's not because he thinks there are too many Italians in the U.S. Republican pols may decide to follow Mr. Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, Fox News populists and obsessive bloggers down this path, but it's likely to lead to political defeat.

Hispanics are now about 8% of the electorate, but they're projected to become 20% by 2020 and one-quarter of the total U.S. population by 2050. The political reality is that going forward Hispanics will have to play a bigger and bigger role in keeping the GOP competitive nationally. It's hard to see how Republicans have any hope of building a permanent majority if Hispanics start voting for Democrats in the percentages that blacks already do.

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona all boast heavy Latino populations and are states that a GOP Presidential candidate probably has to carry unless he can pick up states on the West coast or in the Northeast that Republicans haven't won since the 1980s. President Bush won Nevada, Colorado and Arizona twice. Al Gore won New Mexico in 2000, but it switched to Mr. Bush in 2004 in part because the President did well among the state's large Hispanic population.

Which brings us to a final, somewhat ironic, point about these political and demographic trends. Republican strategists, led by Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and Matthew Dowd, took note of what was happening long before their Democratic counterparts. As recently as 2004, Democrats still viewed Latinos as voters they could take for granted. The assumption was that, as with blacks, perfunctory appeals to past discrimination would suffice to win them over. John Kerry ran no significant campaign in Hispanic communities and rarely traveled to the Southwest.

But it turns out that 50% of Hispanic voters are foreign-born and grew up speaking Spanish, not nursing racial grievances. That's an increase from 20% in 1988, and most of Mr. Bush's gains among Hispanics in 2004 came from this cohort. The point is that Republican principles--economic or cultural--are not lost on Hispanics, who are hardly wedded to one party, even if some conservatives insist this vote is lost to them. And it's no coincidence the 2008 Democratic convention will be in Colorado, where Hispanics are 19% of the population.

President Bush proved that the GOP could make significant inroads with Latinos, and smart Governors like Rick Perry in Texas and Jeb Bush in Florida have also shown the political wisdom of avoiding anti-immigration appeals. It's unfortunate that other Republicans, including most of Mr. Bush's would-be successors, seem so eager to help the Democrats make up lost ground.

Copyright © 2007 Dow

Sanctuary Cities As '08 Wedge Issue

Update: Through the magic of YouTube and bloggers like NewsHound, I just watched yesterday's entire Geraldo Rivera vs Tom Tancredo segment. You can watch it, too, here and here.

Ellen of NewsHound and others believe Rivera got the better of Tancredo in the exchange. I'm still not sure about that.

Yes, Rivera brought up good and reasoned arguments, but this issue--and the rest of the whole immigration debate--has little to nothing to do about who has the most well thought out argument. It's about the rightwing using very dirty and dishonest tactics in order to distract and divide Americans. And, as long as Americans are open to rightwing appeals to bigotry and racism, the Tancredos, Romneys and Hannitys of the world prevail.

An important question for Americans in the run-up to the 2008 election is: Do they even want an honest and intelligent discussion on immigration, or do prefer an issue that allows them and the nation to spew racism?

So far, it looks like preference is for the latter. But there's a ways to go until November of 2008 with plenty of opportunity for the emergence of a statesman or two. We'll see.

Sanctuary Cities As '08 Wedge Issue

I'm watching an incredible game between two of baseball's best teams: the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Angels.

These ball teams hail from cities which the nation will soon come to know as leading "Sanctuary" cities.

During a commercial I decide to see what the anti-Latino/immigrant topic of the night is on TalkCable. I click on Fox and there's Tom Tancredo battling Geraldo Rivera on Hannity & Colmes. The topic: the Newark slayings and immigration.

Rivera/Colmes are trying to make the point that it's wrong to blame all undocumented immigrants for the crimes of a few.

Tancredo/Hannity are blaming Newark and other so-called "sanctuary" cities for refusing to collaborate with federal authorities in identifying and jailing undocumented residents.

By keeping the conversation focused on the horrific slayings in Newark, Tancredo/Hannity kept Rivera on the defensive, so much so that by the end Rivera predicts that "Sanctuary Cities" will be the seminal issue of the 2008 presidential elections.

Meanwhile, Tancredo is totally in his element making the rightwing case against sanctuary cities. After all, Tancredo has been a staunch critic of pro-immigrant and Sanctuary cities for years.

I agree with Rivera that Sanctuary Cities will emerge as a major political issue this campaign season. It's already being used to tag Republican Rudy Giuliani as a liberal on the immigration issue. But more importantly, the issue will be used to paint the Democrat presidential nominee--Hillary--as weak on border security AND crime.

Sanctuary Cities as the Willie Horton of 2008?

GOP Rightwingers: Tancredo's the Genuine Article

Tom Tancredo noted today that the rest of the GOP presidential contenders are sounding an awful lot like him these days on immigration.

I’m happy now that almost every one of my colleagues, running for the Republican nomination, is sounding like Tom Tancredo when it comes to illegal immigration.”

Of course, Tancredo's right. They are NOW all for being super harsh to immigrants--especially those pesky Mexican laborers Americans love to employ.

Being the nativist leader that he is, Tancredo is moving on to bigger game. He's now focusing his attention back on those U.S. cities--Miami, New York, LA, et al--that he has maligned over the years as "third world." Tancredo now wants the federal government to punish these meccas of immigration for adopting humane policies.

BTW: Tancredo's nickname is "Tank." Apropos, because he is the German Panzer of American politics.

Of course, the ever versatile Mitt Romney has begun airing commercials of his own with a very Tancreodian message: Force the mayors and council members of so-called "Sanctuary" cities to adopt anti-immigrant codes or lose federal funding.

Funny, Romney never bothered Bedford, Boston, Cambridge, Lawrence, Lowell, Provincetown, Springfield, or any of those other "immigrant-friendly" cities in Massachusetts. But I digress.

So, I ask the GOP rightwingers again: Why settle for a Romney when you can have Tancredo?

Read Tancredo: GOP hopefuls sound like me on immigration (by Klaus Marre, The Hill - 8.22.07)

A Victorious Tancredo Setting the Agenda (or Why Tancredo IS the GOP's Man (American Taino - 7.3.07)

Trino's Parting Message to America's Tom Tancredos

Trinidad Sánchez, Jr.--or Trino as he was fondly called--was a special person.

An educator, poet and peaceful warrior for justice, Trino touched souls and ignited imaginations.

Trino died unexpectedly last year after a stroke. He was 63 years old.

And as if to put an exclamation point on America's current period of shame, Trino suffered without health insurance.

Among other works, Trino published two collections of poetry: Why Am I So Brown, and Jalapeño Blues.

A friend of his in life and in spirit sent me what is perhaps Trino's final poem--an anguished cry against the madness and hypocrisy of the anti-Latino racism of people like of Tom Tancredo.

For a glimpse of the man, read the trinity of posts on Trino by Ruth of La Tertulia.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE

For Tom Tancredo

Tom
I want you to know that
I am Illegal,
that my parents were Illegal,
that they came to this country
with a MEXICAN DREAM –
that life would be better
there would be an abundance of justicia!
They raised ten Illegal
children who fought and returned
from those unlawful wars
only to be more Illegal
than when they left.
If that’s not enough,
I want you to know
my siblings have multiplied
and all sobrinos y sobrinas
they are all Illegal.

I want you to know that
I am Illegal,
that we’re the ones who
renovated your home, raise your children,
clean up after people like you
maid your houses, garden your flowers.
work your fields, your orchards
construction sites & restaurant kitchens
doing the cheeeeeap hard labor
your kind refuses to do.

I want you to know that
I am Illegal.
We are all Illegal Americans from
North, Central & South America
we are all proud of being Illegal Americans.

I want to know
with a name like yours
if there are skeletons in your closet . . .
if they are Illegal
& did you ask for their pink cards
after all, people who live in glass houses
need to be extra careful.

Tom Tancredo
I am Illegal,
I’m proud of being Illegal.
Your Gestapo immigration
can’t fuck
with my MEXICAN/CHICANO sueño
for a better life – lleno de justicia
NOT the “just us” American dream
that you look for . . .
a life without people
who are different than you
in color and size and even better than you.

Tom
I want you to know
there are no Illegal people,
there are only Illegal governments.
I’m sure you will say
writing this poem is Illegal.
It’s against the law
because it’s the fashionable thing to be.

I want you to know
you will never understand
being Illegal is fun
being a wetback is cool
being a mojado es la moda
because being Illegal
is being different than you
and is the best thing
I know how to be!

Trinidad Sánchez, Jr.

Immigration Non-Harvest

Immigration Non-Harvest (Wall Street Journal - 7.20.07)

Peak harvest season is approaching in much of the country, and the biggest issue on the minds of many growers isn't the weather but how in the world they'll get their crops from the vine or off the tree. Thanks to Congress's immigration failure, farmers nationwide are facing their most serious labor shortage in years.

The results of Congress' immigration reform failure include:

- up to 30% of crops left to rot
- increase cost of U.S. farm goods
- export of farm operations aboard
- import of more foreign grown products
- replacement of high-value products (nuts, fruits) with highly mechanized products (corn, soy bean) distorting world markets
- disruption of North American labor markets

Americans can all blame nativists Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo, et al, the next time they're shocked by the prices at the grocery.

A Victorious Tancredo Setting the Agenda (or Why Tancredo IS the GOP's Man

Delighted by their victory in killing immigration reform, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and supporters online are now calling for rounding up and expelling all undocumented immigrants and their U.S. born children.

Calling it the "last, best hope of Western civilization," Tancredo declared that "its not impossible" to deport all 12 million residents.

Tancredo's Plan?

A multi-year crackdown on employers combined with tougher border security, he argues, would force most immigrants to return to their native countries willingly.

I would have never guessed it, but Tancredo is now dictating the issues agenda for Republicans and the nation. He almost single-handily kept the immigration issue percolating in the Congress. And it's been his strong anti-immigrant views which have so loudly echoed through right wing media. And its been his relentless pursuit of the issue which has caused so many of his fellow GOP presidential candidates to come out against immigration reform.

I don't recall another single issue candidate that has had a greater impact on policy or on his competitors. Since the right wing has cast aside just about all of the Republicans running for president because they're not right wing enough, it seems to me that they should be given Tancredo much more love. He is their man.

While I disagree with where he's coming and what he proposes, I humbly submit that Tom Tancredo ought to win the GOP nomination. He's clearly a man of principle and of his word. Certainly, the right wing wants to nominate such a person, right?

He's not electable? That's utter liberal nonsense! That's beltway spin. That's just what the North American Unionists want you to think.

How is Tancredo NOT electable?

Didn't he lead the charge in slaying the AMNESTY FOR ALIENS dragon? Wasn't he the good guy in the white hat that exposed and brought the evil compact between the RINOs and Ted Kennedy? Isn't he the man who stood resolute against the brown hordes while Washington dilly-dallied? And wasn't he the man whose vision and purpose most closely resonated with the 70% of Americans that the right wing keeps saying was with them on immigration?

So what that the man doesn't have perfect Romney hair or the folksy ways of a Huckabee or a Thompson. Neither did Nixon.

That is, why nominate a phony like the actor Thompson or the cross-dressing Rudy when you can get the real deal. Tancredo must be the GOP's man!

BTW: Given the way Republicans and Democrats folded last week, it'll be interesting to see all of the hand wringing as Tancredo, Buchanan, Duncan and the radio screechers up the ante in an effort to out do themselves.

Read Tancredo: It's possible to deport 12 million.

Why Lower Tier Candidates Run for President

A colleague asked why people running hopeless campaigns continue taking people's money and clogging venues such as last night's Democratic debate?

Good question.

The truth is that there are probably a number of reasons why lower tier candidates continue plodding along. Here are a few:

The Stroke of Luck Candidate

Some genuinely believe it's their time, the frontrunners will fade, circumstances shift, and fate propels them to glory.

e.g., Dennis Kucinich, Newt Gringrich (although he's unannounced but active), Steve Bloomberg, Michael Forbes

The VP Candidate

Some run with a realization that the presidency is not in the cards--at least not right away. What they're really trying to do build their brand and donor base so they can leverage it into a VP slot or Cabinet Secretary.

e.g., Jim Gilmore, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsak, Duncan Hunter, Wesley Clark

The Training Candidate

Every election cycle there are a few candidates that wade into national presidential politics as part of a plan to run and win in a later cycle. Most have their best plans subverted by developments out of their control and never win the brass ring; while others find themselves as the nominee--or even as president-elect.

e.g., Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore

The Advocacy Candidate

Some are use a presidential run to make a point, raise and supporters to do more of the same.

e.g., Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Al Sharpton, Ralph Nader

The Clueless Candidate

Some people run for reasons only they understand.

e.g., Mike Gravel, James Bond Stockdale

Critical Test for Senate Immigration Plan

The senate immigration reform proposal has already survived numerous attempts by opponents to kill it.

A few weeks ago it appeared to be dead after Republicans were sacred off by an intensely harsh and coordinated campaign led by conservative radio. It was rescued by the personal lobbying efforts of President Bush and the proposal's bi-partisan senate sponsors.

And then just this week it survived a procedural vote by a margin of 64 to 35--a major defeat to the anti-immigration side. The radio screechers were, well, screeching their heads off afterwards. (BTW: All 6 senate Democrats and Republican John McCain running for president nomination voted yes.)

Yesterday, the proposal survived a series of attempts to pack the bill with even more restrictions. Additionally, efforts to make the proposal more palatable to the pro-immigration reform side were rebuffed.

Today's vote to close the debate, allowing for a vote as early as tomorrow, is the proposal's biggest test yet. Proponents need 60 votes. But conservative radio, cable and lobbying groups are putting tremendous pressure--including issuing threats--to a handful of senators an effort to whittle to pro cloture vote to 59 or less.

If the pro-reform majority wins today's battle, then tomorrow's vote in the full senate requires a simple majority, or 51 votes, a somewhat simpler task--but also an opportunity for some very harsh rhetoric on the part of those leading the radical right's effort.

Similar legislation would then have to pass in the House of Representatives. But that's where congressmen Tancredo (R-CO), King (R-NY) and the anti-immigrant caucus lurk. These are people lacking in any sense of humanity for Latin American poor and immigrants of color. Some are outright kooks.

What is interesting about the debate thus far is that many on the pro-immigration side are very unhappy with the senate proposal, believing it to be too harsh, impractical and even counterproductive. While the anti-immigration side has been breathing fire for weeks, the pro side has been relatively quiet. However, expect to hear alot more from them--as well as from the loony right--if and when action moves to the House.

Stay tuned.

Read Immigration bill faces crucial vote.

Clint Bolick: The GOP Must Now Prove Itself to Latinos

In GOP runs a big risk of losing Hispanics (The Arizona Republic - 6.17.07), Clint Bolick of the conservative Goldwater Insititute writes that the Republican risk losing Latinos over the immigration issue.

No kidding!

I've met Mr Bolick and I admire the work that he has done across the country as a lawyer in the fight to give innercity African American and Latino parents the right to choose better schools for their children. Mr. Bolick believes that giving poor parents the same right to choose their children's school is civil right--and I agree.

Mr. Bolick is also right that the GOP is squandering whatever gains they've made with Latino voters by associating the party with the extremism of the likes of Tom Tancredo, Patrick Buchanan and the radical and xenophobic rightwing.

However, Mr. Bolick seems to expect large scale conversions of Latinos simply because of their alignment on social issues. While certainly some of that is ture, but the reality is that Latinos--as is the case with all other Americans--weigh a variety of factors in deciding which party to support.

While the GOP was gaining a steady stream of Latino supporters, the hysteria and bigotry surrounding the immigration issue has been especially demoralizing to Latinos which lean moderate-to-conservative. Many of these people believed they had found a philosophical home within the GOP and that principles and ideas were to always trump any notion of racial or group membership. But the immigration issue-- more so than any other issue in recent memory--has exposed many rightwingers as being deeply hostile to the growing presence of Latinos in American life.

Agitation against people of color crossing the Southern border without official permission, it turns out, is simply a thinly veiled--and politically acceptable--tack for racial/cultural supremacists to demonstrate their hostility towards all Latinos--regardless of immigration status.

Perhaps if the GOP immediately adopts the suggestions Bolick proposes the party could salvage some Latino good will, but I'm not so sure. Below are Bolick's recommendations and my responses:

• Get the immigration issue behind.

How? The conservative radio talkshow alarmists are totally committed to defeating any sensible reform. However, it seems that even if a reform measure could be adopted this year and signed into law, the rightwingers seem hell-bent in continuing the fight against the measure's supporters.

• Get religion.

Again, religion will only go so far. Actually, the loss of Latino support for the GOP in this last cycle came largely from Latino evangelicals--many which are deeped troubled by a form of political conservatism that to them appears to be mean-spirited and unchristian. The same can be said for conservative Latino Catholics.

• Aggressively promote school choice.

This is an issue that has resonated with poor innercity Latinos, but even here it's not clear how Republicans can capitalize on it going forward. The truth is that many urban Democrats now support some form of school choice. Additionally, a party who's most vocal members oppose allowing the Latino children of the undocumented to receive their constitutionally protected right to an education can hardly be trusted on education matters.

• Reach out for real.

Good idea. However, the GOP has been talking about getting serious about Latinos since master strategist Lee Atwater strolled the earth. It's Bolick and all sensible conservatives (yes, I believe that there are such people) that need to get real. Some Latinos embraced the GOP only to find themselves lumped in as undesirable foreigners and trashed. The GOP must now prove that it truly values Latino Americans.

For the good of the country and the political process, I hope the GOP can correct itself and begin building national majorities for constructive reforms. But I'm not holding my breath. As long as the party is infected with Tancredoism, it can only find its way to minority status and defeat.

Letting Fear Rule: Nativism Is a Recipe for Long-Term GOP (and Dem) Losses

The following are excerpts from Fear Rule: Nativism Is a Recipe for Long-Term GOP Losses (by Michael Gerson, WashingtonPost - 5.25.07), a terrific article which makes the point that nativism as a political strategy is a loser for a majority party.

It's irrational or sick. But who said racism and anti-Latino bigotry was rational? As I've written before, the GOP needs a doctor real fast.

Excerpts:

In 1882, Congress passed and President Chester Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Today we don't name laws as bluntly as we used to. But anti-immigrant sentiments are very much alive, this time expressed in opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

At one level, any immigration debate concerns a raw political calculation: Who ends up with more voters?

A nativist party will cease to be a national party.

Republican momentum among Hispanic voters has been strong in the past decade -- until Rep. Tom Tancredo and his allies began their conflict with the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

Conceding Latinos to the Democrats in perpetuity is a stunning failure of political confidence.

But the real passion in this debate is not political, it is cultural --a fear that American identity is being diluted by Latino migration. Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear.

Not all Hispanics view immigration favorably, but 100 percent resent being targets of suspicion.

"The elephant in the room," says Rodriguez, "is the Latinoization of America.

For Rodriguez and others, religion adds an element beyond politics and culture to the immigration debate. The Christian faith teaches that our common humanity is more important than our nationality. That all of us, ultimately, are strangers in this world and brothers to the bone; and all in need of amnesty.

This belief does not dictate certain policies in a piece of legislation, but it does forbid rage and national chauvinism. And this is worth a reminder as well.

Immigration Reform is a Golden Opportunity for the GOP

In Immigration deal working (Los Angeles Times, 3.30.07), Nicole Gaouette reports that the Bush White House is working behind-the scenes to advance immigration reform. The next step is for U.S. Senator Ed Kennedy (D-MA) to respond with a senate proposal.

The White House's reasons for a deal are simple: 1) they're in desperate need for a domestic policy success; 2) sensible immigration reform is a requirement if the GOP is interested in winning back Latino support; and 3) the growing power of independent voters means that the GOP must focus less on demagoguery and more on fixing problems such as immigration.

Of course, the site of constructive liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working to reform immigration in the U.S. will drive Tom Tancredo, Patrick Buchanan, xenophobes and racists, nuts.

Immigration reform is a wonderful opportunity for the GOP to embrace the future and shed itself of the reactionaries. When Tancredo-Buchanan threaten to lead angry nativists out of the Republican Party, the GOP should open the door wide and say good riddance.

The Bloomberg Scenarios

There's yet more buzz about a possible Michael Bloomberg for president--even though he has said he won't decide until next year.

Part of it is that Bloomberg has had some success as mayor of New York City, is term-limited, has endless wealth, and is deeply committed to public service.

Waiting until next year to decide means either he is:

- not running for president but Republican VP might be nice
- running for president as an independent and can, therefore, afford to wait
- not running but hinting at it gives him unusual political leverage

Here are three scenarios that could sweep Bloomberg into the upper reaches of American political power:

1) Bloomberg the Independent Candidate

If the parties go knee-jerk and nominate ideologues with questionable executive ability, a third party Bloomberg for president movement would be powerful. While this scenario appears unlikely--you never know what can transpire between now and next year. For all we know, we could have Democrat Dennis Kucinich squaring off against Republican Tom Tancredo. Under that scenario, Bloomberg wouldn't even have to campaign to win.

2) Bloomberg the Republican VP

If the moderate Republicans running falter and the nomination goes to a mainstream conservative candidate, such as a Fred Thompson, a Bloomberg VP would make a contest against the Democrats quite interesting. Some of the typical political and cultural lines of attack used by Democrats against Republicans would be blunted.

3) Bloomberg the Democrat VP

Bloomberg as a Democrat? Why not. Bloomberg was a life-long Democrat until '01 when he ran for mayor. Bloomberg maintained his standing as a mainstream liberal.

A Bloomberg as Democrat VP would blunt GOP attacks, too. He would instantly make the Democrats look less partisan. On the issues, a Bloomberg VP would be add gravitas to any ticket and he would help deflect charges of being anti-business, or too soft on national security.

Bloomberg's role on national security would be very interesting. In today's politics, determining whether a politician is strong or weak on national defense is often gauged by views on support for Israel. As a strong defender of Israel, the GOP would have a hard time making the case that the Democrats are unrealiable on national security and the fight against terrorism.

While two New Yorkers on the same ticket has never happended before, a Clinton-Bloomberg ticket could be the sort of breakthrough that could bullet-proof Hillary's quest for the White House.

The same could be said of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. These two mean--more than any other combination--match each others strengths and weaknesses. Obama is charismatic; Bloomberg is not. Bloomberg has a ton of money; Obama needs a ton of money. Obama is African American; Bloomberg is White. Obama is from the Midwest; Bloomberg is from the Northeat. Obama knows policy; Bloomberg knows management. Opponents have made Barack Hussein Obama's religion an issue; Bloomberg is Jewish.

Re-igniting the African American-Jewish Alliance

An Obama-Bloomberg ticket could re-ignite the historic African American-Jewish alliance--a partnership that has frayed over the years. From an alliance for civil rights laws, a victorious Obama and Bloomberg could bring the partnership into the highest reaches of civil governance.

National Bloomberg

Time will tell whether Michael Bloomberg decides to throw his hat in the ring for national office, but one thing is certain: Michael Bloomberg will be heavily courted by Democrats and Republicans a like. If he doesn't run for president--and he probably won't--the country is still likely to benefit from a Michael Bloomberg, public servant, at the national or international arenas.

Photo: nycgov

Clinton More Anti-Immigrant Than Bush

Expecting a coronation, Clinton thought she could take Latino Democrats for granted by dissing them on the critical issue of immigration. Well, Obama's candidacy and his pro-immigrant legislation has called into question the intelligence of going to the right on immigration.

Just 2 years ago, anti-immigrants were giddy when Clinton moved to the extreme right on immigration. Here's are excerpts from Hillary goes conservative on immigration published in the conservative Washington Times:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the "liberal" label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton's position has been noticed by Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and leading proponent of stricter immigration controls. "She's not a dumb woman," said a Tancredo spokesman. "She's got a great liberal base, and she realizes there's no better way to draw in more conservative voters. She has really come out to the forefront on that."

Thank goodness for Obama!

Colorado & 'The Birds of Killingworth'

Contrary to the claims of the anti-immigrants of endless prosperity, economic ruin is what awaits towns, states and the nation when immigrant workers are run out.

That's just what's happening in Colorado, a state that has gone the furthest in making it impossible for enterprises to hire immigrant workers. According to The Los Angeles Times in Colorado's immigration policy backfires, the fruits of this policy has been a spike in business costs and a decided downturn in economic activity.

Colorado reminds of the terrible unintended consequences in the childrens story, The Birds of Killingworth, where the farmers tire of the local birds for feeding off their crops. Led by Squire Case, described in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem--the basis for the book, as "a man austere, the instinct of whose nature was to kill," convinced the local farmers they would grow richer if they killed the local birds.

(Note the strikingly similarity in intention and results of the blockheaded anti-immigrant worker prescription promoted by Littleton, Colorado's Tom Tancredo.)

So they did. But instead of seeing the anitipated bounty, the farmers saw their crops and their prospects evaporate due to their simple-minded supidity. Without the birds that were so despised, the insect population--locust, beetles and others--went uncheck and obliterated the crops. The farmers had failed to see that their prosperity and that of the town was connected to the services provided by the birds at a bargain price.

Facing financial ruin, Squire Case admits his grave error in killing off the birds to his daughter.

While Colorado isn't admitting a mistake--classic when in a deep state of denial, they're attempting to solve the problem with remedies which will ensure ruin: raising farm costs and the use of chain gangs for labor. Not only are farmers being forced to raise wages in order to find non-immigrant workers--dramatically increasing consumer costs, but the prisons are sending convicts to help fill the labor void.

The good news is that in The Birds of Killingworth, the leader's daughter, Almira, secretly gathered many of the hatchlings before they could be killed. With the help of Noah, schoolteacher, and the children, Almira protected and nurtured the birds.

When the farmers grew desperate, Almira was able to bring forth the birds to once again perform their essential and economical service to Killingworth.

Like the people of Killingworth, Coloradans--and Americans--need to witness the results of Tancredo's inspired stupidity as it runs its course in Colorado. Perhaps only then will Colorado see the essential value of immigrant workers to its history, economy and cultural life.

Australia's Ignorant PM

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard recently attacked U.S. Senator Barack Obama for his opposition to the War in Iraq.

A U.S. war ally, Howard was so bothered by the senator's criticism of the war that he felt compelled to go on Australian television and make the absurd suggestion that Senator Obama was somehow in league with al-Qaida.

Why the vicious attack on Senator Obama?

Certainly, Howard could have chosen any number of U.S. politicians (such as senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy) to pick on that are strong critics of the war and are better known to Australians.

In Aussie's Obama attack reeks of racism (The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin), John Nichols makes that Senator Obama earned the prime minister's wrath simply due to race. Here are excerpts from his article:

After racial violence erupted in several suburbs of Sydney in the fall of that year, Howard dismissed concerns about the motivations behind the violence, despite reports that they had been provoked at least in part by neo-Nazis who targeted immigrants and people of color.

That outrage led to a parliamentary debate on the subject of "racism and Prime Minister John Howard."

During the debate, Sylvia Hale, a representative from the Sydney area, explained, "It is pertinent now to re-examine the prime minister's contribution to the rise of racism in this country. John Howard's primary political strategy has been to divide and rule this nation. ... Undoubtedly, the most destructive aspect of the strategy has been his pandering to the fearful, racist element in the Australian community."

It was not the first time that Howard faced such withering criticism. Howard came to prominence in Australia as an outspoken critic of multiculturalism and moves to respect and foster diversity. In the 1980s, he pointedly criticized moves to challenge South Africa's apartheid system. In the 1990s, he stirred anti-immigrant sentiment, taking stands that would make U.S. "border war" politicians like Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo wince.

So, John Howard too suffers from racism, anti-immigrant bigotry and the war mongering disease? (Do these diseases always come in a pack?) Read the Wikipedia write-up on Howard to learn more about the racist and anti-immigrant actions of this so-called friend of the U.S.

BTW: Many Australians do not share Howard's views on race, immigration or the war. And many are embarrassed by Howard's foolish commentary regarding Senator Obama. Here's what M.P.Bailey of South Australia wrote: In response to Deputy Dogs' (Prime Minister John Howards') uncalled for and unwarranted intrusion into the political affairs of the United States, the Australian Supporters for Obama site has been formed to let the Americans know they still have friends in Australia - as Deputy Dog doesn't speak for all of us.

American (and Australia) needs sane leaders and sane allies.