Bush / GOP

McCain Running on Empty

Sen. John McCain has a new ad out today on climate change. Check it out:



Sounds great right? John McCain doesn’t follow the President on climate change and wants to curb greenhouse gasses.

Not so fast.

From the New York Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller:

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is to provide an audience of Houston oil executives with more details of his proposal to lift the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in states that want it. Mr. McCain’s position is welcome news for the oil industry, which has called for years for the ban to be lifted.

"With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," Mr. McCain plans to say. "We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production, and I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use." Mr. McCain first made public his position on the moratorium on Monday in Virginia.

Just so this is clear: On the same day that John McCain releases a new ad discussing his commitment to confronting climate change, he also proposes drilling for offshore oil and gas.

Politically, McCain may be seeking the energy security mantle, but he will have trouble claiming to care about climate at the same time, especially when it looks like he is just giving handouts to the oil industry. This move will not help in the short term as wells in these places will not come online tomorrow, and the amount of oil and natural gas extracted would not lower prices in any meaningful way.

Plus, offshore drilling is so unpopular in Florida, that even Jeb Bush opposed it as Governor. In fact, as First Read points out:

No Republicans in Florida have gotten elected statewide without endorsing the moratorium on off-shore oil drilling.

Between this drilling proposal and the gas tax holiday, it sounds like John McCain’s Straight Talk Express may be in bad need of a fill-up.

GOP Tries, Fails to Keep Up Online

The hallmark of this election cycle, at least on the Democratic side, has been the emergence of bottom-up politics, much of the time focused around the internet and social networking sites. On facebook.com, a supporter created Barack Obama group has over 500,000 members, and he currently has over 900,000 supporters.

The Republicans have been a little slower to get the message on the value of bottom-up politics. Their most recent facebook.com group epitomizes their top-down approach. Entitled “Republican National Committee - Official Group,” it was created by the Director of RNC eCampaigns, and the results are not promising. As of this posting, the group boasted 13,186 members, 11 videos, all posted by the same administrator, and this ambitious group graphic:

Official RNC
Facebook.com is only one example of the facility with which each party uses new political tools, but it is safe to say that the GOP has a lot of catch-up to do if they really value their online presence.
 
Update: The politico.com printed a story today by Ben Adler entitled "Can McCain compete with Obama online?"
"It's the difference between a horse and buggy and a NASA space ship," said Phil Noble, a veteran of Democratic campaigns and the founder of the nonpartisan political news site PoliticsOnline, comparing the campaigns’ respective approaches to technology. "Obama has given people the tools to create and run their own campaigns," Noble continued. "McCain is still a command-and-control, top-down candidate. Part of it is the difference in age."
For more on the candidates and technology, check out Maggie Barker's recent post on John McCain's computer literacy (or lack thereof). 

Clues About Sen. McCain's Position On Issues of Importance to Hispanics

In a piece in the Washington Post today, Marcela Sanchez discusses U.S. Senator Barack Obama's "Clues for Wooing the Latino Vote." Ms. Sanchez discusses the point made in NDN's report on Hispanics Rising that the harsh tone of the immigration debate on the part of Republicans has been perceived by many Hispanics as anti-Hispanic as opposed to anti-undocumented, and has thus cost Republican candidates votes - and elections - since 2006. However, Ms. Sanchez makes a distinction between the perception of John McCain and that of the Republican Party among Latinos; based on Sen. McCain's current stance on a number of issues, I do not see such a distinction.

As Marcela Sanchez cites herself, the polls show Sen. Obama ahead of Sen. John McCain by at least 62-29 percent. She argues that many of those Latino Obama supporters might be in States that are traditionally Democratic, however, the polls are taken at the national level. While it is true that Hispanics are definitely not monolithic, the fact is that most Hispanics are concentrated in the Southern and Western swing states, and Florida:

Ms. Sanchez posits that it is in these states, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada and Colorado,"where McCain could connect with enough Latinos to make a difference." I disagree for one main reason - Sen. McCain could not even win Latinos in his own home state, where about 30% of the population is Hispanic. In the 2008 primary elections in Arizona, the exit poll data showed 68% of all Hispanics who voted cast their vote for a Democrat, and only 32%voted for a Republican. John McCain's share of that 32% was 21.76% of the entire electorate. This is particularly dramatic because when he ran for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Sen. McCain was able to secure 72% of the Hispanic vote - that is a fifty percent drop in votes from the Hispanic community of his home state in just four years. Which begs the question - who is really in the tougher spot with Latinos? The candidate who won his Senate election with 82% of the Hispanic vote in his own state and currently has a lead of over 30% among Hispanics nationally? Or the candidate who has lost fifty percent of the Hispanic voters in his own State who supported him in 2004? Mind you, this is not to say that it will not be a challenge for both candidates to secure the Hispanic vote, nor is it a matter of favoring one candidate over another, it is a matter of wanting to encourage the media and readers to provide a more detailed analysis and not buy into sound bytes.

The piece also describes Sen. McCain as a, "a key sponsor of legislation creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants," with, "a good track record with Latino concerns." I beg to differ - the story that is clear as day, but for some reason seriously underreported, is that John McCain was once a leader on the issue of immigration reform, but when the going got tough last year - once he decided to become a Presidential candidate - that took importance over his duties as Senator and he stopped attending the high-level meetings and brainstorming sessions that were necessary in order to get this difficult legislation passed. There is agreement among many in the offices of key legislators and advocacy groups that were there on the ground during the immigration debate: when the going got tough on immigration and other issues important to Latinos, John McCain was no longer in sight.

Some individuals mentioned in the article differentiate between Sen. McCain, the candidate, and his political party; they attribute his declining popularity to the negativity associated with Republicans, but believe Sen. McCain can remain above that sentiment as he, "will remain sufficiently moderate on immigration,despite some politically expedient tips of the hat to certain segments of the conservative base." I would say his actions have been much more than "a tip of the hat"- there is no difference at this time between John McCain and his political party. He is the Republican Party and he has shown this by certainly not being "moderate" on the issue of immigration. He has actively spoken in public rejecting and denouncing the trailblazing immigration legislation of which he was once a sponsor. Maybe because it is a sad story to tell, but I find that this story is not told.

Our report agrees with the conclusion in this piece that immigration is an issue that mobilizes Hispanic voters; however, I would not say that Hispanics are not supporting John McCain as part of a "protest vote" against his party; while that might be the case in part, it is a protest vote against the way John McCain's position has, in no uncertain terms, flipped on the issue of immigration. As much as his campaign or the media may try to deny it, there is no denying the facts, as reflected in an excerpt of our Hispanics Rising presentation:

 

 

 

 

You'll note that one of these slides cites to Meet the Press; at the time this blog was being drafted to post, a man that I look to as an example of the type of professional and person I can only hope to be, Tim Russert, passed away. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.

 

Unpublished
n/a

Simon and Kos talk politics

Thanks to our friends at FORA.tv, we now have video from last week's event in San Francisco with Daily Kos founder, Markos Moulitsas. Check it out below:

"In Search of the Hispanic Vote"

In an article today in "La Opinion," Pilar Marrero comments on how both, Barack Obama and John McCain, recognize the importance of the Hispanic/Latino vote, and both will face challenges in courting Hispanic voters.

The general election campaign is taking off, and by all accounts, the success of either candidate will largely depend on the key swing states, formerly considered Republican strong holds, which are also largely Hispanic - states like Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida.

Alluding to Republican anti-immigrant campaigns and general unpopularity of the current administration, NDN's Simon Rosenberg was quoted by La Opinion, as he explained, "Obama has much work to do, he can't assume that the Latino vote will turnout for Democrats because they are upset with Republicans." Simon also pointed out that, "[Barack Obama] has one thing in his favor: on the important campaign issues, Obama is much more in line with Latinos in general than McCain."

It appears the candidates are taking different approaches with the Latino block. John McCain aired a Spanish-language radio and TV advertisement calling on Latinos to "look past party lines", arguing that he understands the economic uncertainty of our times. The intentional distance placed between himself and his party implies that he recognizes the damage done by the Republican anti-immigrant campaigns, largely perceived as anti-Hispanic, and the discontent with the Administration.

In the meantime, Barack Obama is appealing to Latinos on a more personal level, probably to address the challenge posed by complaints of some Hispanics feeling that they "don't know him," even speaking in Spanish throughout an entire ad aired in Puerto Rico.

What is truly amazing about this presidential campaign is that never in my life had I seen something like the video below - famous artists, artists that for years have been known in Mexico but until recently unknown in the United States, become interested and involved in U.S. politics. Artists like these are part of the estimated 48% of foreign born Hispanic voters, and, like any campaign surrogate, they could have an impact on Latino voters and abroad. These are people admired and looked up to by Hispanics throughout the continent, and in the U.S. they are recognized by both immigrants and native-born Latinos; and the kicker is that these are not even campaign videos! These videos are yet another example of the new tools being utilized by individuals all over the country. The first in the series of these videos was in English, the famous "Yes We Can" video (later adopted by the campaign) created by a musician, Will.i.am.; which was followed by another video "We Are the Ones" which featured a few more famous Hispanic comedians, actors and actresses, like Kate del Castillo, speaking in Spanish; and finally this video, all in Spanish, "Podemos con Obama." It looks like the trend of Hispanics Rising is catching on.

Unpublished
n/a

Patriotism or Panic?

A New York Times editorial published today addresses the current state of the immigration debate and we thought it worthwhile to share it in its entirety. This reflection reminds me of the values discussed in more detail in "The True Patriot", a pamphlet that NDN highly recommends we read. We are reminded that we cannot allow patriotism to be co-opted by those who use the flag not as a symbol of unity, but as a caricature or brand. We should be reminded that the flag, patriotism, is a moral code - one that believes in fairness, compassion, freedom from prejudice, acceptance, and greatness. And greatness, "lies not in the impermanent things...it lies in the integrity of our choices."

June 3, 2008
The Great Immigration Panic

The New York Times

Someday, the country will recognize the true cost of its war on illegal immigration. We don’t mean dollars, though those are being squandered by the billions. The true cost is to the national identity: the sense of who we are and what we value. It will hit us once the enforcement fever breaks, when we look at what has been done and no longer recognize the country that did it.

A nation of immigrants is holding another nation of immigrants in bondage, exploiting its labor while ignoring its suffering, condemning its lawlessness while sealing off a path to living lawfully. The evidence is all around that something pragmatic and welcoming at the American core has been eclipsed, or is slipping away.

An escalating campaign of raids in homes and workplaces has spread indiscriminate terror among millions of people who pose no threat. After the largest raid ever last month — at a meatpacking plant in Iowa — hundreds were swiftly force-fed through the legal system and sent to prison. Civil-rights lawyers complained, futilely, that workers had been steamrolled into giving up their rights, treated more as a presumptive criminal gang than as potentially exploited workers who deserved a fair hearing. The company that harnessed their desperation, like so many others, has faced no charges.

Immigrants in detention languish without lawyers and decent medical care even when they are mortally ill. Lawmakers are struggling to impose standards and oversight on a system deficient in both. Counties and towns with spare jail cells are lining up for federal contracts as prosecutions fill the system to bursting. Unbothered by the sight of blameless children in
prison scrubs, the government plans to build up to three new family detention centers. Police all over are checking papers, empowered by politicians itching to enlist in the federal crusade.

This is not about forcing people to go home and come back the right way. Ellis Island is closed. Legal paths are clogged or do not exist. Some backlogs are so long that they are measured in decades or generations. A bill to fix the system died a year ago this month. The current strategy, dreamed up by restrictionists and embraced by Republicans and some Democrats, is to force millions into fear and poverty.

There are few national figures standing firm against restrictionism. Senator Edward Kennedy has bravely done so for four decades, but his Senate colleagues who are running for president seem by comparison to be in hiding. John McCain supported sensible reform,
but whenever he mentions it, his party starts braying and he leaves the room. Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost her voice on this issue more than once. Barack Obama, gliding above the ugliness, might someday test his vision of a new politics against restrictionist
hatred, but he has not yet done so. The American public’s moderation on immigration reform, confirmed in poll after poll, begs the candidates to confront the issue with courage and a plan. But they have been vague and discreet when they should be forceful and unflinching.

The restrictionist message is brutally simple — that illegal immigrants deserve no rights, mercy or hope. It refuses to recognize that illegality is not an identity; it is a status that can be mended by making reparations and resuming a lawful life. Unless the nation contains its enforcement compulsion, illegal immigrants will remain forever Them and never Us, subject to whatever abusive regimes the powers of the moment may devise.

Every time this country has singled out a group of newly arrived immigrants for unjust punishment, the shame has echoed through history. Think of the Chinese and Irish, Catholics and Americans of Japanese ancestry. Children someday will study the Great Immigration Panic of the early 2000s, which harmed countless lives, wasted billions of dollars and mocked the nation’s most deeply held values.

An Unfunded Mandate

This recent ad by Elizabeth Dole goes along with the continuing tide of GOP ads on national security and immigration. However, unlike other ads that directly attack Hispanics, representing them as undocumented immigrants, this ad is much more moderate. Instead of showing people crossing the border, it focuses on just talking about border security; instead of showing someone being deported, it is limited to discussing deportation, and it limits the discussion to "tough" undocumented criminals, as opposed to immigrants in general. It is also telling that Sen. Dole does not speak on the issue herself - might she be heeding the warnings by GOP leadership that directly anti-immigrant tactics are counterproductive?

With a strong challenger and limited funds, Sen. Dole is, quite literally, banking on fear and the desire for a sense of security among many in North Carolina. This ad promotes her efforts to bring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to North Carolina to train local and state police to aprehend undocumented criminals. The information that is ommitted in the ad is that this type of training is performed under Section 287(g) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, and under 287(g), ICE must enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the county or State in question. In the case of North Carolina, ICE does not have a state-wide MOA, as expressed in the ad; ICE only has MOAs with five counties in the state, and each MOA can vary in scope and severity.

From a policy perspective, these type of agreements are criticized by Police Chiefs and law enforcement officers because they often have unintended consequences that actually make it harder for them to work with their community to fight crime, particularly in the case of areas with a large immigrant or minority population. Additionally, these agreements with Federal immigration officials come with no additional resources - only additional responsibility and strain on local law enforcement. So we're left wondering why Sen. Dole promotes her push to impose an unfunded mandate on North Carolina.

Bush: Americans can send cell phones to Cuba

Following up on recent work on the power of mobile communications in the developing world, the Bush Administration has provided an important step on this issue in its Cuba policy. Americans will be allowed to purchase and pay bills for cell phones that they can ship to Cuba.

From yesterday’s New York Times article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

President Bush announced Wednesday that Americans would soon be allowed to give their relatives in Cuba cell phones to use. The move is intended to challenge Cuba’s new leader, Raul Castro, to make good on his promises of reform, by giving ordinary Cubans more freedom to communicate with one another and the outside world.

"If the Cuban people can be trusted with mobile phones, they should be trusted to speak freely in public," Mr. Bush said, during a White House ceremony attended by dozens of Cuban-Americans, including the families of imprisoned dissidents. He added, "The world is watching the Cuban regime."Since Mr. Castro succeeded his ailing 81-year-old brother, Fidel, in February, he has initiated a series of changes in the country, including opening up access to cell phones, computers and DVD players.

But most Cubans cannot afford to buy such luxuries, Mr. Bush said, so the policy changes have amounted so far to "nothing more than a cruel joke perpetuated on a long-suffering people." He added, "If the Cuban regime is serious about improving life for the Cuban people, it will take steps necessary to make these changes meaningful."

We at NDN applaud this move by the Bush administration, but the fact is that this move is far too little in terms of broader Cuba policy. It is a positive development that the administration is on board with mobile communications as a tool to advance human rights. The lessons from China and Egypt, among others, are too significant to ignore.

Syndicate content