End of the Conservative Ascendency

Joe Garcia v. Mario Diaz Balart on "Al Punto"

Yesterday on "Al Punto", Univision's Sunday morning political show, challenger Joe Garcia (D) and incumbent Mario Diaz-Balart (R), had an animated debate on issues ranging from the economic rescue package and Iraq, to Cuba policy and the Colombia FTA. Both are running for the seat in the U.S. House of Representatives representing Florida's 25th district, which encompasses the western portion of Miami-Dade County, including the Everglades National Park. This heated race is a perfect example of what's happening throughout the U.S. - as the country becomes less hard-line Republican or Democrat, more and more "stronghold" districts and states shift into "tossup" territory. Southern Florida, previously considered a solid Cuban-American and Republican area, is changing due to changes in demographics and largely in response to the way the economic crisis has affected this state in particular. Joe Garcia painted Diaz-Balart's vote against the first economic rescue bill as "too little too late" after having had a history of voting with President Bush on all the bills that led to this current economic downturn, siding with "special interests". And Mario Diaz-Balart attempted to paint Joe was a well-versed man with no specific solutions...sound familiar? Yes, much like the Presidential race. On the issues:

On the economy: Mario voted against the rescue bill because he didn't want to give the banks a "blank check", to which Joe responded that he already had - voting to give banks the blank checks through deregulation and by allowing bills to pass that increased credit card interest rates up to 29%. Joe pointed out that while the rescue bill needed safeguards to keep people in their homes, the danger lay in doing nothing, and that he would have voted for the bill to take action to save people in this crisis.

On healthcare: Mario is against nationalized healthcare and proposed to leave insurance decisions in the hands of individuals. His proposal would be to allow for inter-state competition of health care plans. Joe on the other hand, supports Sen. Obama's plan to create a national system of health care. Unlike Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Garcia pointed out the lack of health care in the Hispanic community in particular, and the importance of lowering costs and increasing competition.

On Cuba: Both candidates are firmly against participating in any diplomatic meeting with the Castro brothers, however, Mr. Garcia is for lifting the travel ban on families, and decreasing the restrictions on remittances to Cuba. Mr. Diaz-Balart is firmly against holding talks or contact with Cuba and against fully lifting the travel ban.

On Colombia: Both candidates are for the passage of the FTA. Mr. Diaz Balart noted that President Uribe has been incredibly successful at decreasing the murders of labor leaders and improving security in the country.

Weekly Update: The Economy and Immigration Reform

Given the current state of the U.S. economy, it surprises me that not more is said about immigration on all the major news networks. I see a silver lining during this economic crisis for immigration reform, thinking back to a story in the CQ by Karoun Demirjian, "Immigration: The Jobs Factor." While some might feel that opposition to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) might become more intense during an economic crisis, there is reason to believe that opposition could actually lose momentum. Politically, the economic crisis might actually provide some cover for CIR negotiations, and Members of Congress might have more leeway to discuss the issue thanks to the focus on the economy.

Additionally, immigration has been an issue of top concern among Hispanics. What I hear from many Hispanic voters who call in to Spanish language radio or tv shows and in my community is that they are skeptical as to whether either candidate will deliver on CIR. Unlike McCain, who has abandoned the Hispanic community on immigration, Obama has been able to make it clear to Hispanics that he is committed to passing CIR, which has largely led to his over 30 point lead among this demographic. However, were he to win this election, I think he would just as easily lose this demographic if he did not deliver on this promise. It's also important to remember that members of Congress up for reelection in 2010 have much more to lose by putting off immigration reform. Polling indicates that voters place the blame of the broken immigration system on Congress by an overwhelming majority. Therefore, taking on the issue would change the perception of a do-nothing Congress.

Tthe mantra that emerged out of the failure of last summer's congressional immigration plan - "secure the borders first" - is losing its momentum. With the current economic crisis leading to the number of undocumented immigrants declining, it's becoming clear that the "magnet" of undocumented immigration is being eliminated. Which gives those of us for CIR an opening to discuss, what comes next?

The next President will have to recognize the challenges ahead:

1) Building a large enough coalition in Congress.
Even with the expected Democratic gains in both chambers, he will have to work with Members from the anti-immigrant House Immigration Reform Caucus, which backs enforcement-only, as well as with Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the "Blue Dog" Caucus.

2) Growing administrative challenges. As stated by Marshall Fitz, Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, "It's not clear how much change Sen. McCain could make within DHS, because certainly he would be in a very politically compromised position, given where his party is on these issues." But that's not to say Sen. Obama will have complete flexibility in regards to halting or limiting enforcement measures.

3) The next White House will inherit a badly overburdened immigration court system.

4) Reform costs money. At a time when federal revenue will be contracting on a significant scale. That makes it, in turn, all the more incumbent on either McCain or Obama to forge a renewed political consensus behind such a plan.

Given the candidates' current proposals on immigration, only Sen. Barack Obama would be able to utilize the economic and policy landscape to build new coalitions in Congress and improve the White House Executive management of immigration policies. Sen.McCain has proven that he is unwilling to act in ways contrary to his party, which remains vocally anti-immigrant. So what could a new president do? - He should be proactive, not reactive on this issue:

1) The slowing economy helps prove that the it's not "enforcement only" that has led to a decrease in illegal immigration, "it's the economy stupid!", thus relieving some pressure from this explosive issue, which allows CIR proponents to argue that now is the time to act to take control of the system - before the situation becomes more critical.

2) Develop an economic narrative, and revive the strong coalition of business, community, religious, and academic groups to advocate in Congress. As noted in the piece, businesses have suffered under the "enforcement only" strategy:

As small-business credit seizes up and unemployment increases, going after businesses providing jobs....is not playing well among most constituencies, apart from hard-line immigration opponents. Indeed, lobbyists and managers in other potentially vulnerable companies - such as high-tech concerns and seasonal industries - are already contending that they need access to specialized non-U.S. workers now more than ever.

I would add that under the current administration it's the unscrupulous employers who have been provided "amnesty". Passage of CIR under a new administration would call for interior enforcement as well as border enforcement, while at the same time providing adequate protection to workers and families. Not just immigrant workers would benefit from wage and labor safeguards under CIR - all businesses and workers would benefit.

Others argue that the undocumented drive wages down - the next president should make those individuals understand that by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows we will push wages up, and by making sure they become full-fledged members of our society and economy at a time of economic downturn, we will add revenue to our tax base and to our communities. As illegal aliens become documented, they will earn more and spend more.

We found an interesting piece of information during NDN's latest poll on immigration: There is a positive view of immigrants among the general population, which is conducive to passing immigration reform - 68-69 percent of voters in four battleground states believe that illegal immigrants come to this country to "get a job and a better life", as opposed to the 10-12 percent who believe they come to "take advantage" of our public programs, and 60 percent believe that immigrants take "jobs no one else wants" as opposed to "taking American jobs." And yet, when they are asked whether undocumented immigrants help or hurt the economy, 40-47 percent believe they "hurt the economy by driving wages down." In Nevada, where immigrants comprise a significant percentage of major sectors like construction and services, 47 percent of those polled believe they hurt the economy, while 39 believe they help.

However, Hispanics "get" the economic argument. Among Hispanic voters polled in Nevada for example, 64 percent believe illegal immigrants help the economy, while only 22 percent think that they push wages down.

During such a dramatic economic downturn, CIR will help improve the rights and wages of all workers. Legalization of the undocumented will push wages up and to add to our tax base and it will help businesses by providing a more secure labor force and larger consumer base, which provides common ground with which to join different Congressional and other factions on the side of CIR.

3) Look to the future. Immigration reform would require funding; the next President will have to make Congress and the American people understand that this is an investment in the country's future. While the decrease in illegal immigration might make reform seem less urgent, there is an urgency to reform our broken immigration system, including the visa and temporary worker systems, and deal with future flow. The next president needs to make this clear at a time of economic crisis:

"People see those visas, incorrectly, as enabling immigrant workers to compete with American workers. We'd like to see an administration move forward. Congress is always reactive, instead of looking down the pike, and looking at the demographics of our country. When the economy comes back, we're going to need these workers even more."

4) Modify and deal with backlogs and enforcement measures through executive branch appointments and administrative rulings. The next president will have this ability, which is another reason why there is so much at stake for immigration reform in this election.

5) Work with other countries. As stated in the Democratic Party Platform on immigration, it will be necessary for the next president to work with immigrant-sending nations in order to address the conditions that cause immigration in the first place.

In conclusion, immigration Reform can be repackaged as an item in a broader economic agenda that helps relieve some of the downward pressure on U.S. wages and benefits. Today, undocumenteds account for 5% of the total workforce in the United States. Bringing them all the minimum wage, the ability to join a labor union and other protections guaranteed to all American workers will help remove some of the downward pressure on the low end of the income scale, making CIR a strong companion to the Democratic Caucus's successful effort to raise the minimum wage early in the 110th Congress.

Crazy McCain Lady is Back

Earlier this week I wrote about how disturbing it is to see the ignorance and hate speech that is expressed at some of Sen. McCain's rallies. Luckily, we can count on Saturday Night Live to show how extremely ridiculous such ideas are without insulting anyone, yet getting the point across that there is no place for ideas like these in our society.

Hispanics Hand it to Obama

Obama's most important lead after last night's debate may have come among Hispanic voters, who favored him by a 50-36 percent margin according to the national Politico/InsiderAdvantage survey of undecided debate-watchers. The candidates were evenly matched among white voters, with McCain holding a 49-46 percent advantage - equal to the three point margin of error. African Americans picked Obama as the winner by 88-10 percent. You can trace Hispanics' support of the presidential candidates through Gallup's weekly poll - the poll shows Obama with a consistent comfortable margin of at least 20-25 points ahead of McCain. The latest Gallup poll shows Obama ahead by a 60-31 percent advantage.

Krugman Praises Brown, Questions Bush and Paulson

On the day it was announced that he had won the Nobel Prize for Economics, Paul Krugman joins NDN in singing the praise of Gordon Brown and in asking the question the public, the media and Congress must be asking - why did this White House get it so wrong?

At a special European summit meeting on Sunday, the major economies of continental Europe in effect declared themselves ready to follow Britain's lead, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into banks while guaranteeing their debts. And whaddya know, Mr. Paulson - after arguably wasting several precious weeks - has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities (although he still seems to be moving with painful slowness).

As I said, we still don't know whether these moves will work. But policy is, finally, being driven by a clear view of what needs to be done. Which raises the question, why did that clear view have to come from London rather than Washington?

It's hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Paulson's initial response was distorted by ideology. Remember, he works for an administration whose philosophy of government can be summed up as "private good, public bad," which must have made it hard to face up to the need for partial government ownership of the financial sector.

I also wonder how much the Femafication of government under President Bush contributed to Mr. Paulson's fumble. All across the executive branch, knowledgeable professionals have been driven out; there may not have been anyone left at Treasury with the stature and background to tell Mr. Paulson that he wasn't making sense.

Luckily for the world economy, however, Gordon Brown and his officials are making sense. And they may have shown us the way through this crisis.

 

Ad Wars: En Español

And the war continues...Barack Obama seems to be really ramping up his attacks on the air against John McCain, and he continues to do it in Spanish with his latest radio ad, called Impuestos, or "Taxes," airing in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina, as well as Florida. And a television ad by the same name airing in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada, as well as Florida.

**Update: The day after the release of this ad in Spanish, an English language version of the ad was released.

Translation of the ads:

Impuestos (Radio Version)

[ANNOUNCER:]
On taxes and the economy, who's on your side?

John McCain pledges hundreds of billions in corporate tax breaks for big corporations. But for 100 million households - nothing.

McCain's health plan - even worse - will tax benefits for the first time ever. Rather than helping us, John McCain's plan punishes us.

And the tax credit McCain promises will go straight to the pockets of insurance companies.

These are the facts about his plan that John McCain and the Republicans want to hide from the public.

But, with Barack Obama, taxes will be cut for 95% of the county's working families. Period. Not one penny more of taxes for any family earning less than a quarter million dollars.

Barack Obama and the Democrats know that working people and the middle class are the ones that most need relief during this crisis.

Barack Obama is on our side.

[BO:] I'm Barack Obama, candidate for President, and I approve this message.

[VO:] PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

Impuestos (TV Ad Version)

[ANNOUNCER:]
On taxes, who's on your side?

John McCain pledges hundreds of billions in corporate tax breaks. Billions for oil companies. But for 100 million households - nothing.

And McCain's health plan will tax benefits for the first time ever.

Barack Obama. No tax hikes on any families earning less than a quarter million dollars.

Barack Obama and the Democrats...for the change we need.

[BO:] I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

 

Battle on the Immigration Issue Continues

And the immigration battle continues. After U.S. Senator John McCain's last ad on immigration, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama responds in kind.  Chris Cillizza reports that overall, Obama is outspending McCain 3 to 1 on television.

NDN has long advocated on the importance of immigration as a motivating issue for Hispanics, regardless of whether they are native or foreign born - as demonstrated by this back and forth. With a significant percentage of Latino voters in key battleground states, the candidates are working to win over this important voting demographic by speaking on the issue of immigration. In this ad, Obama taps into the damaged Republican brand among Hispanics, linking John McCain to his party and to the GOP's hateful anti-immigrant attacks and the pressure that party exerted to halt immigration reform. The ad is called, "Otra Vez lo Mismo", or "Here We Go Again".

The translation of the script of the ad:

[Announcer:]
Here We Go Again...
McCain is still manipulating and lying on the issue of immigration.
He wants to hide the fact he's the one who turned his back on us...
[CNN video]
McCain caved to the anti-immigrant crowd
And, along with the Republicans, betrayed our community.
If John McCain is not willing to stand up to his own Republican Party, how will he defend us in the White House?

 

 

Notes on the New Politics

For the last several years NDN has been making an argument that a "new politics" of the 21st century is emerging.  Driven by vast changes in demography, media and technology, and the a whole new set of very 21st century challenges (and one could add the utter collapse of modern conservatism) a new politics was emerging in America that would be very different from the century just past.  

Reflecting on the morning papers 3 stories stuck out as interesting examples of how the world is changing around us.  1st up is how the Army is starting to see nation building and the shoring up of "fragile states" as a primary area of responsibility.  2nd is a fascinating piece by Eve Fairbanks on the sensibility of the next generation of Congressional Republicans.  Finally, a wide ranging and important piece by our friend David Rothkopf, who argues: 

The current economic debacle is far more likely to be seen by historians as a true global watershed: the end of one period and the beginning of another. The financial chaos has brought down the curtain on a wide range of basic and enduring tenets also closely linked with the Reagan era, those associated with neoliberal economics, the system that the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has called "that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently and serve the public interest well." Already this crisis has seen not just our enemies but even some of our closest allies wondering whether we are at the beginning of the end of both American-style capitalism and of American supremacy.  

Change is indeed coming to Washington.  And this next Presidency will without doubt be among the most important in American history. 

Good Facts, Bad Law

In the common law, there is a saying that when the facts are clear, you get bad law.  When the facts are murky, you get good law.  Mike Bloomberg's bid to serve a third term by repealing term limits on the grounds that he alone can shepherd the city through the Wall Street emergency  falls into the category of clear facts but terrible precedent. Bloomberg has been a good mayor, for the most part.  As a successful businessman and billionaire on good terms with fellow businessmen whose decisions about where to locate a business may be important to the city's weathering the Wall Street crisis, there can be no doubt.  In all likelihood, Bloomberg, if he succeeds in repealing the term limit law, will do as good a job in a currently forbidden third term as he has in his first two.  Conditions will be far worse but his skills and contacts seem better suited than most to the likely challenges.

That said, however, there is a reason that term limits were installed.  In an era when incumbency creates its own rewards, term limits are an additional public check on bad behavior and therefore can be an important part of public governance.  For every good long term mayor, such as Chicago's Mayor Daley, there have been numerous terrible ones from Mayor Berry in Washington, DC to Sharpe James in Newark, who used the power of incumbency to win re-election despite atrocious records.  While Mayor Bloomberg may appear to be different than these, law in the United States cannot be about one man.  Suggesting that repealing term limits on account of one person, no matter how much money he has, or what sort of record he has compiled, opens up a slippery slope.

Further, one thing we know for certain is that Mayor Bloomber won't be mayor forever and one day, he will have a successor. How would conservative Republicans feel about term limits, if Al Sharpton, for example, won the election?

In the election that placed Mike Bloomberg in office in 2001, delayed because election day in 2001 happened to fall on September 11th, initially the then mayor, Rudoloph Giuliani suggested that he remain as mayor because the ciy required his steady hand during the emergency that followed.  People rightly viewed this as an unacceptable power grab inconsistent with America's tradition of putting law above any individual no matter how qualified they might seem to be.  One of the people arguing against Mr. Guiliani remaining mayor indefinitely was ironically, Mike Bloomberg who was then elected. 

While New Yorkers may wish to have an open debate about the value of term limits at some future point, this important law should not be abandoned because of one man's desire to extend his rule. 

There are plenty of other ways Mike Bloomberg can serve the public, for example, by running for another office.  And there are plenty of other people who would make good mayors. 

Term limits should not be abolished to accomomodate Mayor Bloomberg and if he cares deeply about American democracy, he should drop his call to end them and retire gracefully at the end of two successful terms.

NDN’s Analysis of Hispanic Voters in Florida Increasingly Relevant

In 2000, Cuban-Americans represented 70 percent of Florida's Hispanic electorate. Today they make up less than half of the Latino electorate in that state, largely attributable to a large influx of new voters originally from Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela and other Central and South American countries. The result: Florida's Hispanic demographic is increasingly reflective of the transformation the Hispanic community has undergone across the country - increasingly diverse and not as party-loyal. As a result, both political parties are working to win over what Newsweek called the "Latino mix" in a piece today by Arian Campo-Flores. NDN has analyzed the trend of Florida's Hispanic population becoming more diverse and less affiliated with the Republican party for years, and conducted a major poll in Florida in 2006.

It is Hispanics who make Florida increasingly relevant this year. By all accounts, U.S. Sen. John McCain would not have won the Florida primary - and thus would probably not have been his party's presidential nominee - had he not won the 54% of the Hispanic vote that he won in the Republican primary election, while he only won 33% of the white vote and took that election with 36% of the vote overall. Thus, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is fighting in Florida, just today President Bill Clinton - loved by Hispanic Democrats and many overall - was campaigning for him in the state. As explained in Newsweek by our friend and collaborator, Sergio Bendixen:

"Now they need to have a domestic message"-terrain that favors Democrats these days. If he manages to capitalize on the opportunity, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama could outdo John Kerry's performance in 2004, when the Massachusetts senator captured 44 percent of Florida's Latino vote. "If [Obama] gets 55 percent, then he would pretty much ensure winning the state," says Sergio Bendixen, a pollster for the New Democratic Network (NDN) and expert in Hispanic public opinion."

And that is the relevance of the Latino Mix. As NDN explains at length in Hispanics Rising II, party ID among Hispanics can change very quickly, and this election in particular does not favor the party in the White House. Republican anti-immigrant campaigns have been perceived as anti-Hispanic, Latinos have the highest rate of unemployment as a result of this economic crisis, and the latest - now minorities are being blamed by right-wing conservatives for the housing crisis. 2008 primary exit polls showed a 66% increase in Hispanic turnout in Democratic primaries and Hispanic party ID became 72% Democrat, while in 2004 it was closer to 60%. Our latest polling data shows that the Presidential race among Hispanics in Florida is in a dead heat - 42% favoring McCain and 42% favoring Obama.

The question remains - as Florida's Hispanic electorate grows and becomes more complex, who benefits? I would say Hispanics do. The reality of a more complex demographic is that to win Florida, John McCain and Barack Obama will have to do so based on the strength of non-Cuban Hispanic support.

Syndicate content