NDN Blog

Unpublished
n/a

New Tancredo Ad

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the new ad below from the Tancredo campaign.

For more information on NDN's coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, click here.

Students pay taxes and live in Iowa why shouldn't they caucus?

Jane Fleming Kleeb is the Executive Director of the Young Voter PAC which is dedicated to helping Democrats win with the youth vote. Through endorsements, funding, training and media support the Young Voter PAC changes the faces of elections…who participates and who wins.

In a series of unfortunate statements, the Clinton campaign took a stab at young people while attacking Barack Obama's effort to reach out to student voters. As reported in The Politico, a Clinton campaign official said "We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans."

Senator Clinton went on to say at a town hall in Clear Lake, Iowa: "This is a process for Iowans. This needs to be all about Iowa, and people who live here, people who pay taxes here."

The problem with this statement is the thinly veiled target of her comments, that is the tens of thousands of students studying at any of the dozens of colleges and universities throughout the state. Iowa has a sales tax therefore every student who goes to school in Iowa—and makes Iowa their home for an average of four years—pays taxes every day when they go to the store. Naturally, many students also work to support themselves and thus pay taxes there as well. Additionally, students pay tuition and consequently help support many of Iowa's public and private institutions. And none of this addresses the many young people who, after they graduate, continue to make Iowa their home.

This discussion raises an important question, if a person moved to Iowa for a new job and was only going to be there for few years, does that mean that they should not be allowed to participate in the state's political process? Few would argue that it would, why then tell students they should not?

The residents of Iowa passed tax credits to help young people stay put after college because, like many mid-western states, too many young people leave because of a perceived lack of opportunities. Having recruited talented young people to attend Iowa's high quality colleges, you can bet that the people of Iowa would like to see these young people stay and contribute to building the state's economy and its communities, and many do. Clearly the residents of Iowa take students seriously and want them involved in determining their state's future. Shouldn't candidates then as well?

Barack Obama shot back at Clinton in the press and at rallies. He told a group of Iowa State University students "…one of the things we've been hearing lately is, 'Well, maybe young people shouldn't caucus if they just recently moved here because they are going to school here.' Don't let people tell you that you can't participate. You are an Iowa student, you can be an Iowa caucus-goer, and I want you to prove them wrong when they say you're not gonna show up."

The Dodd campaign initially made a negative statement about students and caucus-going as well but later clarified their intention. They believe students should participate in the caucus but they are concerned given some of Sen. Obama's previous campaign tactics -- particularly, the alleged busing of people in to the Iowa Democratic Party's Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day Fundraiser to pack the house with supporters, many of whom were not Iowa residents -- and don't want to see Obama busing in students who don't go to school in Iowa.

Tactical debates aside, there is a long legacy of efforts to disenfranchise the student vote. From extra identification barriers for student populations to threatened legal action and tax penalties against students who register to vote on campus, this history is a struggle for a basic and fundamental right in our democracy -- the right to participate in the political destiny of our country. Thankfully, many of the attacks on such basic civil rights have been beaten back and our campuses, our young people and our democracy are better for it.

Senator Clinton's opposition to Iowa college students' voting simply because their parents may live out of state is out of step with the strong record Democrats have in standing up for voting rights and voter enfranchisement.

Youth vote leaders are proud of the Democratic campaigns who have dedicated staff people that are reaching out to not only students but also young people ages 18-35, a development which is vastly different than previous presidential cycles when campaigns essentially ignored the student and youth vote. However, we are deeply disappointed that the Clinton campaign is, in essence, arguing to disenfranchise the student vote. Young people reversed the trend of declining youth participation in 2004 and continued to show their impact at the polls in 2006 by helping elect Democrats such as Senator Jon Tester and Representative Joe Courtney.

Young people should never have been ignored by the political establishment but they were for many years. Now that some in political circles are waking up to the power of the youth vote, we hope all campaigns encourage young people to be involved in our democracy and in the selection of our next President. After all, young people will be 30% of the electorate in just a few years, ignoring them or saying they should stay home is at a candidate's -- and frankly, our country's -- peril.

UPDATE 12/5/2007 at 9:50pm: Hillary Clinton’s Communications Director Howard Wolfson just released this statement in response to this issue: “The Iowa caucus is so special because it is based on Iowa values. We believe that every Iowan and every student who is eligible to caucus in Iowa should do so and we hope they do."

Senate Majority Leader Reid on NIE on Iran's nuclear program

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement on the National Intelligence Estimate's analysis of Iran's nuclear program:

“Today this nation’s senior intelligence analysts concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, directly challenging some of this Administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.  Democratic Committee leaders and I requested this assessment early last year so that the Administration could not rush this Congress and the country to another war based on flawed intelligence.  I am very glad that the Administration has finally provided the NIE and I will examine carefully the full classified version in coming days.

“I hope this Administration reads this report carefully and appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy vis-à-vis Iran.  The Administration should begin this process by finally undertaking a diplomatic surge necessary to effectively address the challenges posed by Iran.  President Reagan had the wisdom to conduct diplomacy with America’s adversaries in order to advance U.S. interests.  President Bush should follow Reagan’s example.”

UPDATE: President Bush's response (from the Washington Post): President Bush said Tuesday that the international community should continue to pressure Iran on its nuclear programs, asserting Tehran remains dangerous despite a new intelligence conclusion that it halted its development of a nuclear bomb four years ago.

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

Why is Tancredo at 1 percent?

There are those who argue that the immigration debate is the most important debate in American politics today. If that is the case, why is Tom Tancredo at 1 percent in the GOP primary fight? So let's say he's crazy and that folks in the GOP know he isn't going to win. But if this issue is that important, and his leadership on it has been so clear, why isn't he getting any more traction? 5 or 10 percent perhaps?

In the new USA/Gallup Poll out today, the new order for the GOP nationally is Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain. These three candidates are the most liberal of the GOP primary candidates on immigration. All have come out in their careers for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which allows the 11-12 million undocumented to stay in the country. The only two candidates who gained ground in this poll are the ones who have been fighting for a more reasonable immigration approach in the most recent debates, Huckabee and McCain. And in the poll Tancredo stays where he has been for months - at 1 percent.

I am not arguing here that immigration is an easy issue. But I think the overwhelming evidence in the last several elections and in all the polling data indicate that those who believe it has the capacity to be the defining issue in American politics are simply overstating their case. If immigration isn't driving the GOP Presidential primary - which it clearly isn't - I don't know how it is going to drive the Presidential race or Congressional elections next year.

It is my belief that the massive investment the GOP has made in the immigration issue is actually a sign of weakness, a sign of how much the rest of their agenda has collapsed. They have little they can say on their time in power, on what they've done to help the struggling middle class, on the success of their foreign policy, how they've brought health insurance to more people. So what they have settled on is immigration, a 2nd tier but important issue, one where their position may work to fire up some of their base but simply does not work with the broader electorate looking for smart and sensible solutions and has managed to alienate the fastest growing part of the American electorate, Hispanics.

For more on the how the issue of immigration has not performed for the GOP check out my recent essay Immigration, once again, despite huge GOP investment, does not perform for the GOP.

Update: Mr One Percent has a new anti-immigrant ad up, which you can find at www.teamtancredo.com. It closes by saying: "Deport those who don't belong. Make sure they never come back."

Nielson Study: Next Gen of Americans and Mobile Use

Another media related study was released today... this time on the next generation of Americans (and voters) on their use of mobile phones and their consumption of mobile media. 

This is a Nielsen study on the "tweens" or 8 to 12 year olds. There should be a rule that once a technology reaches these numbers with 8 to 12 year olds, it's crossed a certain critical mass and can be officially deemed a "mass medium."

So for this wave, the report estimates that TODAY that:

* 35% of tweens own a mobile phone.
* 20% of tweens have used text messaging.
* 21% of tweens have used ring & answer tones.

 And it adds that "while text-messaging and ringtones remain the most pervasive non-voice functions on the phone, other content such as downloaded wallpapers, music, games and Internet access also rank highly among tweens."

Imagine how deep-rooted mobile media use will be for this generation when they begin voting in 6 years. 

Globally Internet Advertising to Eclipse Radio Ad Spend by 2008

Signs of the times. AdAge highlights a new survey on future advertising spending in the next several years.

A key forecast:

"We expect [online ad spend]  to overtake radio advertising in 2008; to attain a double-digit share of global advertising in 2009; and to overtake magazine advertising in 2010, with 11.5% of total ad spend."

It also lists that globally internet ad spending would grow to $44.6 billion from approximately $36 billion -  which would increase it's share of the market from  8.1 to 9.4 percent.

More on video's migration from broadcast

The Times has another, and fascinating, look at the fast growing world of non-broadcast TV, and how the use of video is being re-imagined right in front of us.  Called, Lots of Little Screens, TV is changing shape, it begins:

INEXPENSIVE broadband access has done far more for online video than enable the success of services like YouTube and iTunes. By unchaining video watchers from their TV sets, it has opened the floodgates to a generation of TV producers for whom the Internet is their native medium.

And as they shift their focus away from TV to grab us on one of the many other screens in our lives — our computers, cellphones and iPods — the command-and-control economic model of traditional television is being quickly superseded by the market chaos of a freewheeling and open digital network.

According to Move Networks, a company based in Utah that provides online video technologies, more than 100,000 new viewers jump online every 24 hours to watch its clients’ long-form or episodic video. During the first two weeks of November alone, more than twice the number of Americans were watching TV online than in the entire month of August...

Huckabee, Obama now lead in Iowa

In the new Des Moines Register poll, the most influential and important Iowa poll, both Obama and Huckabee now lead.  Two candidates no one had ever heard of just a few years ago now lead the race for the Presidency in the most powerful nation in the world. 

What are we do make of this? After a very disapointing political era the nation is looking for fresh approaches, new leadership?  In our new NDN poll of the economy, the two parties' Congressional leaders received less than a 20 percent rating.  It is clear there is profound dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and our leadership in Washington.  Is this now the most important dynamic in the American electorate today - the desire for new, fresh, straightforward leadership? Of those in the hunt in Iowa - Romney, Huckabee, Obama, Clinton and Edwards - only one, Hillary Clinton, has been on the national stage for more than a few years.  All the more traditional Senate candidates - McCain, Dodd, Biden - have yet to find traction. 

Look at how anyone who has been associated with this age of Bush has been just swept aside.  The Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist retires.  Tom DeLay is on his way to jail.  Denny Hastert resigns.  George Allen, once considered a serious Presidential contender in 2008, fails to be re-elected.  The #2 in the Senate resigns.  Mel Martinez, the RNC Chairman resigns.  Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, faces a tough re-election.  GOP reitrements have been an epidemic.  Rumsfeld, Libby, Miers, Gonzales all are disgraced.  Bush's global allies - in Spain, Britain, Australia - are all defeated.   

It is always dangerous to boil down an election to one simple thing, but it sure appears as if this desire to find leaders not associated with the great failure of Washington these last few years seems to have become an extraordinarily powerful factor in the 2008 elections.  Clearly this is hurting the GOP much more than the Democrats, but the longer the Democrats hold power in DC and seem incapable of changing the broken politics of the city the more this may end up affecting their standing. 

Obama.  Huckabee.  Even if they don't end up winning, we are clearly headed to a new era of politics in the US, a theme Peter Leyden and I examine in our new piece in Mother Jones, A 50 Year Strategy. 

The GOP debate over immigration

In his nationally syndicated column today David Broder reminds us that there is, and has been, an intense debate inside the Republican Party over what to do about our broken immigration system. Up until late 2005 the GOP's position, as defined by the President, was to support the national effort to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform, a process that generated one of the most bi-partisan and broad-based coalitions in the Bush era and a good and thoughtful bill. This more open approach to Hispanics and their concerns doubled the GOP's share of the fast-growing Hispanic vote, and was critical to his two very close election wins in 2000 and 2004.

In 2006 the GOP Senate, prodded by Bush, actually passed Comprehensive Immigration Reform with the votes of all 44 Democratic Senators and 18 Republicans. But this more enlightened Republican strategy was rejected by the crumbling Congressional GOP, and a new strategy - call it the Sensenbrenner-Tancredo-Romney strategy - that demonized immigrants challenged the prevailing Bush approach. In 2006 the House GOP refused to even take up the Senate bill and immigration reform stalled. The President was so determined to fight the rise of this new approach that he appointed an Hispanic immigrant to be the RNC Chair in 2007.

When Senate Democrats reintroduced Comprehensive Immigration Reform earlier this year we saw the same tensions play out in the GOP. Despite its failure the final bill had key Senate Republican leaders backing a version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, calling for keeping all 11 million undocumenteds in the country.

As Michael Gerson, President Bush's former speechwriter wrote recently in the Washington Post, the anti-immigrant sentiment that has prevailed in today's GOP if unchecked will likely cost the GOP the Presidency in 2008. 5 states with heavily Hispanic populations - AZ, CO, FL, NM and NV - won by Bush in 2004 could very easily now flip to the Democrats. Just adding the 4 Southwestern states to John Kerry's total in 2004 would have given him the Presidency.

As Broder details today there two GOP candidates - McCain and Huckabee - who have come out aggressively for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, recognizing as they do both the moral necessity of fixing our immigration system, and the political necessity for their own possible Presidential race next year. Thus as Democrats look to 2008, and the absolute requirement for them to win over the Hispanic vote - one of the most volatile swing voting blocks in American politics today - it would not be wise to assume that over the next 12 months the nativistic Tancredo strategy continues to trump the more enlightened Bush approach to immigration reform inside the GOP.

For more on immigration and the Hispanic vote read our new report, Hispanics Rising.  On Friday EJ Dionne wrote a hard-hitting column echoing these same themes.  

Update: Of course the Huckabee as enlightened on immigration narrative seemed too good to be true.  Matt Ortega found this story showing that Huckabee wants to revisit the idea that citizenship is a birthright.  As the now leading GOP candidate in Iowa says:

” ‘I would support changing that. I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn’t necessarily constitute citizenship,’ he said. ‘I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that.’ “

Syndicate content