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.

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)

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?

Iraq War Timeline & '08 Presidential Candidates

January 29, 2002- In President Bush's State of the Union speech, he identifies Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as an “axis of evil.” He vows that the U.S. “will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.”

October 10, 2002- Congress adopts a joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq and gives the president authority to take preemptive, unilateral military action against Iraq, when and how he deems necessary.

’08 presidential candidates voting for the resolution:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

October 26, 2002- As a member of the Illinois legislature, State Senator Barack Obama, delivers a speech against going to War with Iraq. Obama draws a distinction between an essential war and a dumb war.

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

December 10, 2002- International Human Rights Day, commemorated by more than 150 U.S. cities with action, rallies, and vigils opposing war against Iraq. One theme is, “Let the inspectors work.”

December 21, 2002- President Bush approves the deployment of U.S. troops to the Gulf region.

January 27, 2003- The UN Weapons Inspectors' formal report on Iraq is critical, though not damning.

January 27, 2003- Bush receives a letter signed by 130 members of the House of Representatives, urging him to “let the inspectors work.”

February 14, 2003- In a report to the UN, Hans Blix indicates progress has been made in Iraq's cooperation.

February 15, 2003- “The World Says No to War,” with massive peace demonstrations around the world, is the largest coordinated day of protest in world history, with more than 600 cities participating.

March 7, 2003- Hans Blix reports Iraq has accelerated its cooperation, but inspectors need more time to verify Iraq's compliance.

March 12, 2003- New York City passes a city council resolution opposing a preemptive/unilateral war against Iraq, joining more than 150 other U.S. cities, including Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

March 19, 2003- U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter statement: "I believe we will win this conflict in overwhelming fashion. "

April 3, 2003- U.S. Congress votes to fund the war. ’08 presidential candidates voting for the resolution:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

Feb. 24–March 14, 2003- The United States and Great Britain's intense lobbying efforts among UN Security Council members yields support only from Spain and Bulgaria. Since nine votes (and no vetoes from the five permanent members) out of fifteen are required for the resolution's passage, the United States decides not to call for a vote on the resolution.

March 17, 2003- Great Britain's ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended. Arms inspectors evacuate. President Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.

March 19, 2003- Invasion of Iraq begins when the United States launches Operation Iraqi Freedom. Called a “decapitation attack,” the initial air strike of the war targets Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders in Baghdad, with unclear results.

March 21, 2003- The major phase of the war begins with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities, publicized in advance by the Pentagon as an overwhelming barrage meant to instill “shock and awe.”

March 24, 2003- Troops march within sixty miles of Baghdad. They encounter much stronger resistance from Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary fighters along the way, particularly in towns such as Nassiriya and Basra.

May 1, 2003- President Bush declares mission accomplished and an end to major combat operations. Troops remain in Iraq.

October 17, 2003- U.S. Congress votes on President Bush's Emergency Funding for Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

Voting for:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

Voting against:
U.S. Senator Edwards (D-NC)

February 8, 2004- U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000.

April 21, 2004- Senator Clinton tells CNN that she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

July 22, 2004- U.S. Congress votes to fund the war. ’08 presidential candidates voting for the resolution:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC) (Not Voting)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

July 27, 2004- Barack Obama in his Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic Party Convention in Boston, Massachusetts: "When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world."

August 31, 2004- Rudy Giuliani in his speech to the 2004 Republican Party Convention in New York City: "President Bush has remained rock solid. It doesn't matter to him how he's demonized. President Bush has already earned a place in history as a great American president. We need George Bush now more than ever."

September 7, 2004- Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq reaches 1,500.

September 16, 2004- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declares Iraq war illegal.

November 2, 2004- President Bush wins re-election. Barack Obama wins race for U.S. Senate from Illinois.

January 12, 2005- WMD search in Iraq is declared over; none found.

March 31, 2005- The presidential commission on Iraqi WMD, concludes:
[T]he intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments.

May 10, 2005- U.S. Congress votes to fund the war. ’08 presidential candidates voting for the resolution:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

September 30, 2005- Army misses recruiting target for previous fiscal year by widest margin since 1979

October 15, 2005- Iraq’s constitution was adopted by a majority of Iraqis.

November 13, 2005- In a letter to the Washington Post former U.S. Senator Edwards takes responsibility for his Iraq War vote: "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake."

November 15, 2005- U.S. Senate votes to fund the war. ’08 presidential candidates voting for the resolution:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

November 16, 2005- Senator Hagel strongly criticized the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

November 18, 2005- U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) calls for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

November 18, 2005- U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, whose son currently serves in the Marines, said U.S. troops should leave only when, "in the judgment of the war-fighting commanders, Iraqis are capable of defending their own country."

November 29, 2005- In a private email to supporters, Senator Clinton said, "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed."

December 15, 2005- Iraqis vote to elect members of Iraqi Assembly.

December 18, 2005- President Bush admits: “[M]uch of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”

August 15, 2006- Colorado State Treasurer Mike Coffman walked away from a pro-war rally with U.S. Rep. Tancredo because of questions about Tancredo's failure to serve in Vietnam. Tancredo given a 1-Y status, which put him at the bottom of the list, when he reported that he had been treated for mental illness as a teenager.

March 21, 2006- President Bush says some U.S. troops will remain in Iraq at least until 2009.
March 16, 2006- Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani named to a bipartisan Iraq Study Group to examine the nation's involvement in the war in Iraq.

April 12, 2006- Washington Post reports that Pentagon-commissioned team had concluded in May 2003 that trailers did not produce WMD

April 30, 2006- In an interview on Britain’s ITV, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the U.S. went into Iraq without enough troops.

May 20, 2006- Prime Minister Maliki oversees the formation of Iraq’s first permanent constitutional government since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

June 15, 2006- U.S. Congress votes to fund the War in Iraq.

Voting for:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

Voting against:
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)

June 15, 2006- Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq reaches 2,500.

June 15, 2006- Amendment to withdraw combat troops by December 31, 2006. ’08 presidential candidates voting against the resolution:
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
U.S. Seantor John McCain (R-AZ)

June 20, 2006- Japan announces it plans to withdrawal its 600 soldiers from Iraq in the coming weeks.

June 22, 2006- U.S. Senate votes for $509 Billion military budget (including $50 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan):
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

August 3, 2006- Senator Hagel tells the Nebraska Journal Star that the United States needs to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next six months, rather than ratcheting up its military commitment now.

August 22, 2006- Senator McCain, a stronger defender of the Iraq war, faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach."

October 31, 2006- U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter's statement: “For those of you who say we don't have a plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, let me offer you the plan that we have used in many, many countries for the last 60 years and it's a plan that we're following. It's called you stand up a free government and then you stand up a military that can protect that free government and then the Americans leave.”

November 26, 2006- In a letter to the Washington Post, Senator Hagel calls for withdrawing from Iraq.

December 7, 2006- Rudy Giuliani quits Iraq Study Group and calls idea of quitting Iraq ‘Terrible Mistake'.

December 29, 2006- Saddam Hussein executed in Iraq.

January 10, 2007- U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's response to speech by President Bush: “The bigger question raised by the President, however, is whether an increased American military presence in Iraq will aid us in winning the global war against radical Islam -- and I am not convinced that it will.”

January 10, 2007- Rudy Giuliani backs troop surge: "I support the President’s increase in troops. Even more importantly – I support the change in strategy – the focus on security and the emphasis on a political and economic solution as being even more important than a military solution."

January 13, 2007 - In an interview with ABC News in Baghdad, Senator Clinton called the situation in Iraq "heartbreaking" and said she doubts Congress and the American people believe the mission here can succeed.

January 17, 2007- Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Carl Levin (D-MI) sponsor non-binding legislation opposing plans to send more troops to Iraq.

January 23, 2007- In his State of the Union speech, President Bush called for increasing the number of combat troops in Iraq by 20,000. The president's so-called 'surge' strategy has been credited to Senator McCain.

January 24, 2007- Senator Hagel's statement to his senate colleagues: “I Do Regret That Vote [to Authorize War in Iraq]."

January 30, 2007- Senator Obama offers plan to stop escalation of Iraq War, begin phased redeployment of troops with a goal to redeploy all combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.

January 30, 2007- U.S. Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007, which would end all financing for the deployment of U.S. military forces in raq after six months -- excluding a limited number of troops who would train the Iraqi army, police force and counterterrorism forces.

February 2, 2007- U.S. military casualties in Iraq: 3,097 deaths; 23,144 wounded.

February 2, 2007- Senator Clinton tells the Democratic National Committee at their winter meeting that: “If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war." She vows to end the Iraq war if she is elected president in 2008 and the war is still raging when she moves into the White House.

February 4, 2007- Senator McCain condemns anti-surge resolution sponsored by Senators Biden and Hagel. However, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called GOP efforts to block a vote on the resolution "obstructionism."

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

The Rightwing's Winning Strategy on Immigration -- NOT!

The Republicans lost control of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, and they seem intent on adding to the list in 2008 election cycle.

Never-the- less, we're supposed to believe that the conservative meltdown has nothing to do with its stridency and intolerance, particularly as it relates to the issue of immigration?

That's the theory by John Hawkins (RightWing News) in the article The Great Illegal Immigration Myth of '06. published in the rightwing Human Events.

The good news for sensible Americans is that the rightwing is likely to believe Mr. Hawkins' myths, accelerating the nativists' demise. Americans do want a solution to immigration, but they do not want the chaotic interventions promoted by extremists pursuing an agenda ill-fitting for a great nation.

Yes, Messrs Hawkins, Buchanan and Tancredo, the recent defeats of harsh anti-immigrants politicians had nothing to do with their stridency on the immigration issue. The reasons incumbents Randy Graft and J.D. Hayworth lost had nothing to do with the central issue of their campaigns: extreme harshness towards Mexican immigrants. Furthermore, George 'Macaca' Allen didn't lose because he appeared to be a bigoted anti-immigrant. No, no, no.

Certainly, Buchanan, Tancredo and Hawkins are eagerly to tallying up all of their new adherents as a result of the recent Swift Company raids--a political action intended to re-cock the stunned promoters of "blackboot" solutions.

The huge drop in support for the Republican Party should be enough to cause its leaders and members to examine it's ways, and some of that is being done by its more thoughtful leaders. But thoughtful reflection doesn't appear to be within the capacity of the reactionary right. For example, Mr Hawkins can't fathom that losing almost half of the GOP's Jewish support in the mid-term elections was in anyway related to the party's harsh tone on immigration.

Mr Hawkins does allow that the right's views on immigration may have cost some Latino votes, but that the lose was negligible. Funny, but his own data shows that the GOP sustained a whopping 63% loss in Latino support between the '02 and '06 elections.

Finally, Mr. Hawkins points to Tom Tancredo's band of anti-immigrants and says it sustained only a small loss of its members. Really! But even if true, how's that worthy of a victory lap? Isn't that the group which believes America is bigoted and supports their cause? Isn't that the group comprised of members from safe conservative districts? And didn't one of its headliners, Pete King, almost lose to a relatively unknown Latino opponent in a nonLatino district? Instead of expanding, Tancredo's gang is contracting.

Mr Hawkins, the right's extremist views and actions on immigration and other complex issues are--as you proclaim--winners. Honestly, I don't understand why the Democrats are salivating at the prospect of a rematch in '08.

Keep up the good work, Hawkie! Pendejo!

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.

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.

Bulletin: Global Warming Caused by Latinos

It was 70 degrees in NYC today. Yes, 70 freak'n degrees!

Made me want to stoop down and pick me some lettuce. Ya, lotsa lettuce.

Oh, you know us Latinos. There's nothing we like better than to work under a blazing sun, picking other people's vegetables, and getting abused by the likes of Tancredo and Buchanan while we're at it. Doesn't everybody?

Oh, yes. Love that Global Warming.

Latinos invented it you know. Yes, we love toiling in the hot sun that much--and it's kinda fun to freak out los gringos. Now we're even bringing over El Nino and La Nina. Heck, soon we'll have the whole family over and we'll all be so happy breaking our backs picking strawberries and grapes.

But seriously folks, people were out all over the region enjoying themselves as if it's summer. Helllloooo!!!

What's really strange is that I've been saying for while that the weather is getting freaky, but most people don't seem to care. Many of those I've spoken with live in the snow belt, so for them it's a reprieve from the usual blustery, frigid and snowy winters. Which is fine, but it's still freaky!

I enjoy warm weather, too. Frankly, I favor sunny, warm days. I am Latino after all--and a tropical one at that. But it's January 6th and we've had ZIPPO winter. Nada. Nothing. As in, there's been no snow, no ice, no swearing because the snowplow plowed me in again.

I mean, a warmer winter is one thing, and a thaw mid-season is sweet, but a balmy winter? That's wrong!

Now I don't know much about global warming, what causes it, or whether we're all going to die because we favor modern things, but right now Al Gore is looking real smart. (He did afterall invent the internet.)

Speaking of freaky things: I was just visiting Nuevo Dia's website and up pops Al Gore's face. Yes, really. Scared me. And what's written across the bottom banner? You got it: "An Inconvenient Truth". And it's 70 freak'n degrees outside in January!

Is it just coincidence, or is Mother Earth speaking through AL Gore? Maybe instead of making Al into an Alpha Male, Naomi Wolf made him into a Beta Female, or whatever the opposite is?

(BTW: Is Naomi a Wiccan goddess or something?)

Now I'm thinking that if it is global warming, and there isn't any dispute about the world getting warmer, I'm starting to worry about the speed of the rising oceans. Seriously. I live near the ocean--and at pretty much sea level. Could this thing be moving so fast that we'll soon see Biblical Floods II?

I don't know about you, but I'm no Noah. Honestly, I'm not even much of a floater. 'Cause I don't have much of that bouyant fatty tissue.

EL Nino. That's what they're saying is the cause of this particular warm spell. And serious meteorologists (as oppposed to the TV guys) say yes that EL Nino is especially active this year.

Fine--but just who pissed him off?

And why is it only recently that we're hearing about EL Nino? And why is it that it's even called EL Nino? Wait. You mean we can't blame messying up the environment on Anglo-owned factories and SUVs? How convenient, and soooo predictable.

Wouldn't it be more accurate and less racist to call it The Ford Combuster? Or the GE Wave? Or the Bush Breezes? Would make more sense to me.

And now they've come up w/La Nina, yes. They want to also blame our women. OK, our woman are hot--just as the Governator, but is there no limit to this madness?

Meanwhile , we're starting to bake but it's not because we're polluting the environment. No, no. It's, well, those damn aliens coming across the desert and making everybody, you know, hotter. Just look at how hot they've made Tancredo and Buchanan. They're so hot their heads are ready to explode.

Yes, I admit it's all a sinister Latino plot. Global warning allows us to work all 12 months of the year in the blazing sun, and we can do so feeling so much more comfortable in the warm villages of in EL Norte!

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.

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!

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)

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

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

RightWing Blackboots Go After Senator Martinez

Maybe the implosion is happening sooner than expected.

After Tommy Tancredo jetted to Florida for the express purpose of calling the heavily Cuban American populated City of Miami a third world travesty, now some of the dim bulbs on the Republican National Committee are seeking to dump Senator Mel Martinez as General Chairman of the party.

Why?

Because Senator Martinez favors U.S.Senator John McCain's proposal on immigration, which includes a path to citizenship for those that live and work here and have children or spouses that are U.S. citizens.

The Washington Times' Choice of Martinez sparks GOP rebellion quotes as an RNC member ridiculing President Bush's choice of Senator Martinez as something akin to "outsourcing". (Outsourcing is when companies send their work to be done in other countries by nonAmerican workers.)

Apparently, the fact that Senator Martinez is an American citizen, member in good standing of the Republican Party, and a United States Senator from the politically critical state of Florida, doesn't inoculate him from being dismissed by the Right as a "foreigner" unworthy of being the Republican Party Chairman.

Maybe Florida's Cuban Americans should consider a tactical realignment for 2008?

What's there to lose? The Tancredo creatures will ensure the defeat of the GOP, anyway.

BTW: This is typical of the comments you'll find on the country's right wing forums:

I just cannot understand WyTF these Republican party honchos are so hellbent on the Latinizing of America!!

So for those that continue to believe that the blackboots are stomping just for "illegals", think again. Senator Martinez is not an "illegal". He is however an American Latino.

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.

Are America's Political Elites Sick in the Head?

America truly is suffering from a bad case of schizophrenia.

Consider the government's response to immigrant workers. One part of government spends millions to "seal" the border against immigrant workers and imprisons nannies and busboys, while other parts mount campaigns to attract desperately needed Latino immigrant labor.

Yet more evidence of this schizophrenia is the announcement by Michigan officials of that state's "Venga a Michigan" (Come to Michigan) Campaign to lure more migrant farm workers to the state this year. They are desperately trying to avoid labor shortages that hurt the agriculture industry last harvest.

Q: Where do these government officials expect the farm workers to come from? I could be wrong, but I don't expect that the relatives of Tom Tancredo or Pat Buchanan are the targets of the campaign--although I'd love to see Tancredo and Buchanan earn an honest day's pay for a day's amount of work for once.

Frankly, I think 9/11 so spooked a certain political class that it has made America appear somewhat dysfunctional. Operating from an overly active (and primitive) fight or flight response mode, this class unfortunately holds a great deal of power in America.

America's political elites are basically sick in the head. Unfortunately, they don't realize it.

This is why they're incapable of discerning friend from foe and their first response to all real and imagined threats is to lash out violently--even when it's actually against the national interest.

America needs saner leaders. But until that happens, I guess we'll have to endure yet more bouts of national schizophrenia.

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

'08 May Favor A Diplomat for President

Americans often look for qualities in a new president that are missing in the old one.

A classic example was when voters chose Ronald Reagan’s optimism and hawkishness after Jimmy Carter’s gloominess and defeatism. Let’s call this the “Opposites Theory” (OT) of presidential candidate preference.

So I’m thinking that if it’s true that GWB’s administration has aided the polarization of Americans—and there’s good evidence that they have, and if their Neo-Con shaped foreign policy is undermining America’s standing in the world, might American voters this time around want a new commander-in-chief that’s a consensus builder with real diplomatic skills?

If OT is true, and if it applies to the 2008 presidential race, won’t candidates perceived as too polarizing (Clinton, Tancredo, Edwards) and/or too hawkish (McCain, Giuliani, Hunter) ultimately fail with the voters?

When the OT dynamic starts to kick-in, won’t it play to the favor candidates that are consensus builders (Richardson, Thompson) and/or diplomatic by nature (Obama, Romney, Vilsak)?

Of course, real candidates are rarely one-dimensional. That is, they bring both strengths and weaknesses to the table. Also, voters’ perceptions of a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses matters greatly. That’s why we’ll see Clinton and Giuliani showing their warmer sides, and Richardson, Romney and Obama showing some toughness.

While the early money is again on polarizers and hawks, it’ll be interesting to see whether those turn out to be good investments.

For my money, I’m betting on the OT.

If '68 is like '08, then who's Nixon?

In an earlier post on war resister First Lt. Ehren Watada, I mentioned that LBJ had a similar problem of growing discontent with a war: the Vietnam War. I wrote that LBJ ended up hightailing it back to his central Texas ranch as an unpopular former president--and that GWB is on a similar path.

Thinking about LBJ and GWB parallels made me wonder if the aftermaths of their presidencies may also offer similarities. I think so. 2008 could look a lot like 1968.

Consider these similarities in the run up to the 2008 U.S.Presidential elections:

1.) In 1968 voters were weary and deeply polarized after years of the Vietnam War. Today there’s growing discontent over the Iraq War and the public is also deeply divided over it.

2.) Growing Anti-War and African American militancy, as well as economic and political changes at home and abroad unsettled Middle America making them feel vulnerable and insecure. Today, global changes in the distribution of wealth, migration of peoples, civil wars and terrorism deepen a sense of vulnerability for American.

3.) Understand that while the parties were essentially even up to 1968, the Democrats were the ascendant party. It was the Vietnam War in the mid-60’s that was causing them political trouble.

4.) With the post-WWWII boom and America’s growing wealth, a lot of attention was being drawn to government economic, labor, housing and criminal justice policies. Today, growing inequality is causing many civic and political leaders to question government’s policy priorities, including in the area’s of trade, taxation of wealth, and others.

5.) The major party candidates for president in 1968 were believers in government. Today, it’s true as well.

6.) Along with the wave of economic and political changes washing over America in the mid-60’s, came the 3rd party candidacy of George Wallace. He drew strong support from reactionaries, racists and xenophobes. The same can be seen today with Tom Tancredo’s ugly campaign against immigrants and change. And it’s likely that with a GOP moderate such as Giuliani or McCain nominee, that social conservatives may go 3rd party. (See Betrayed by leading social conservative.)

7.) In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was a young, charismatic and articulate U.S. Senator from a big industrial state skyrocketing in popularity in the run-up to his party’s convention. Today, we have Barack Obama.

8.) Bobby ran a sort of insurgent campaign against the Democratic Party establishment’s choice candidate Hubert Humphrey. Obama is essentially taking on this round’s establishment candidate Hillary Clinton.

9.) Humphrey and Clinton were well-known and respected national players. Both were strong liberals whom tacked to the center. Both were cautious in their rhetoric. And both were budened by their nuanced positions the unpopular wars.

9.) The GOP race in 1968 also included a Mormon Governor of an industrial Northern State claiming state executive success. His name was George Romney, father of 2008 hopeful and Massachusetts’ governor Mitt Romney.

10.) The GOP also had Nelson Rockefeller as the liberal governor of New York. 2008 has George Pataki, the liberal governor a New York.

So with all of these parallels the question becomes who is the Nixon of 2008? At first glance, it doesn’t appear that anyone of the current crop fits the bill. But we must also keep in mind that prior to his victory in ’68 Nixon was viewed quite differently than he was after Watergate in ’72.

Nixon was the young California politician who found himself just a heart beat away from the presidency of the United States at the tender age of 39. He served for 8 years as Eisenhower’s deputy. And he famously lost the country's closest presidential election to what many observers believe was voter fraud. Nixon spent the next 8 years plotting his come back and working on "other" ventures.

Nixon’s winning strategy in 1968 was to position himself as a calming and experienced state chief executive with moderate views and a steady hand. He was not at all the man that most people have come to know as Tricky Dick or the Impeached President.

The closest person in terms of actual government experience, moderate disposition and electoral experience is actually Al Gore. But the closest person in terms of temperament and determination may be Clinton.

Although Gore has kept his ambitions under wraps, there are a number of scenarios in which Al Gore could enter the Democratic primary contest late and still win. There was a span of 8 years between Nixon’s questionable defeat in 1960 and his victory in 1968. And there are 8 years between Al Gore’s questionable defeat and the next election. Clinton's course has already been meticulously planned, and she also can lay claim to having spent 8 years as a future president-in-training.

To summarize:

Are there parallels between 1968 and 2008? I say, yes.

Can we accurately predict the outcome of 2008 this far out? Absolutely not.

But are global and domestic changes and threats causing a great deal of anxity among Middle America? Definitely.

Will the candidate/s of Hope and Promise fade and/or be stopped? Likely.

Will the candidate/s of the war party likely lose regardless of personal attributes? Probably.

In uneasy times, doesn’t the wiliest, most experienced and hungriest politician
prevail? Usually.

And who is the Nixonian politician of 2008? You tell me? (And by the way, the question is gender neutral.)