RAGGED THOTS

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley and I discussed President Obama's first post-election press conference and Mitt Romney's conference call with his donors.  This was the now much-criticized session where Romney blamed his loss on the various "gifts" that he distributed to various parts of the electorate.

Jason and I both shared our horror at Romney's comments -- not merely because of the content, but also because of the political foolishness demonstrated by allowing the press in on a call to one's donors! Apparently, there was more than one lesson Romney failed to pick up in the fallout from the "47 percent" debacle!

In any event, here's the video:


A rather perceptive observation on the "gifts" statement was also made by my former boss Newt Gingrich.  If it was all about "gifts," why did Republicans do worse with Asian-Americans than they did with Hispanics?  ("Right, seventy-three percent of Asian-Americans, seventy-one percent of Latinos," the Texas Tribune's Erik Smith corroborates.)

Gingrich follows up: "This is the hardest working and most successful ethnic group in America, okay. They ain’t into gifts. Second, it’s an insult to all Americans. It reduces us to economic entities who have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy..." 

Some might want to jump on Gingrich by implicitly buying into the notion that the other groups Romney are into gifts, but put that aside. But his overall point is simply dead-on. If you go by the stereotype of Asian Americans being as family-oriented as Latinos and even more entrepreneurial, why would they be so hostile to the GOP (or friendly to Obama/Democrats, if you will). I would argue that this may well be considered "collateral damage" of Romney and the GOP's immigration problem.  

The party's blocking of comprehensive immigration reform didn't just send a signal of being tough on immigrants coming across the Southern border. It also made things remain difficult for those trying to enter the country for either education or technology jobs.  A significant number of those, duh, are coming from Asia.  If all Asian Americans see is a GOP seemingly opposed to overall immigration reform -- and hear its presidential nominee talking more "self-deportation" than actual policy -- it's only logical they might conclude that this is a party that isn't so friendly to their presence either.

Yes, elections have consequences.  

So, does the combination of  ill-focused strategy and thoughtless rhetoric.  

I think the same conclusion has come to Bobby Jindal -- the nation's first governor of South Asian descent.  This may explain why, perhaps moreso than any other outraged Republicans, he's been the most vocal in denouncing Romney's "gifts" comments. And Jindal doesn't sound like he's just making a rote "distance myself from our recent embarrassing party standard-bearer." He seems genuinely appalled. And I think there's a reason for that. This is as much personal as it is political for Jindal. 

The contrast with Marco Rubio's going rather easy on Romney is fascinating. These different post-election statements may be tactical moves by young Republican leaders who will be the ones seeking to define the party in the coming years. 

Labels: Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, immigration, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich

The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley and I had a feisty few minutes doing an election post-mortem.

First, we congratulated ourselves on predicting the Electoral College breakdown for President Obama fairly accurately. The final result was closer to my "likely scenario"  construct. In fact, with Florida at last being given to the president this weekend, he slightly overperformed on my prediction -- concluding with 332 EVs.  But, hey, my "likely" scenario of 303 votes for Obama was at least in the same universe -- as opposed to the forecasts of punditry all-stars like Michael Barone, Dick Morris (BWAHAHAHA!!) and George Will.

So there.

But Jason and I primarily wrestled over the import of the president's re-election strategy. Jason termed it "winning ugly" because of the negative campaign emphasizing the "war on women," blacks being disenfranchised over voter ID, seniors losing their benefits, etc.

While I partially agree with Jason that the Obama Campaign '12 was not the inspiring "hope and change" effort of '08, I take the argument that Republicans over the last few years gave Obama a number of swords that the Democrats used to great effect to attack the GOP -- and to inspire their base.

Personally, I think having to show ID when you vote is not necessarily a bad idea. However, was it such a good idea that Republicans at the state level almost uniformly decided that this would be a major goal as soon as they took power following the 2010 election? Did Eric Holder demagogue the issue suggesting that voter ID could potentially disenfranchise black voters? Yes. But did Republicans more than suggest that the a major intent behind the initiatives was pure electoral politics? Most definitely. The fact is that too many Republicans believe that not only is voter fraud rampant, but that Democrats can only win with it. Are there isolated cases of voter fraud. Yes. Is there any evidence that it is so wide-spread that it requires a partisan one-sided approach for voter identification laws? I would argue no.

The fact that many GOP voter ID plans also placed restrictions on use of college ID sent further signals (beyond that given by the above-referenced Pennsylvania House majority leader) that ballot integrity wasn't the motivating force on the drive to voter ID: It was solely about hampering the Obama base.

Indeed, I would then posit that by making voter ID such a cause, the GOP did more to inspire parts of that  base -- African-Americans in particular -- than anything that the Obama campaign or administration could have done by themselves. BREAKING NEWS: Voting is a big effing deal for black Americans. Learn from history. Combine that with the larger issue of immigration reform and GOP engagement with Latinos. So,  frankly, how hard a lift was it for Barack Obama to "win ugly" -- when Republicans effectively gave away a  menu of potential attacks to the other side?

In any event, here's Jason and myself:

Labels: 2012 presidential election; Barack Obama; race, immigration

In a move forecast in today's Post, NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer scrapped his driver's licenses-for-illegals plan.

Perhaps fittingly, Spitzer announced that he was dropping the plan -- not in New York -- but in Washington, DC, surrounded by members of the state congressional delegation. Notably, neither senator, Chuch Schumer or Hillary Rodham Clinton were present.

Spitzer, of course, blamed the failure of the plan on the federal government's inability to pass a comprehensive immigration plan.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced Wednesday he was abandoning a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but said that the federal government had "lost control" of its borders and left states to deal with the consequences.

"I have concluded that New York state cannot successfully address this problem on its own," Spitzer said at a news conference after meeting with members of the state's congressional delegation.

This is, in actuality, one of the rare occasions where the public's will came through loud and clear. A poll released Tuesday was the third in the last month showing that more than two-thirds of New Yorkers opposed Spitzer's license plan. Combined with Spitzer's scandal involving using the State Police to spy on a political enemy -- and the subsequent cover-up -- this story caused Spitzer's popularity to plunge faster than any New York governor in history. Only a quarter of New Yorkers support Spitzer's re-election (he won with 69 percent of the vote a year ago).

Whether Spitzer recovers is an open question (there's an investigation into whether his former communications director committed perjury during the initial part of the so-called "Troopergate" scandal).

However, this episode certainly underscores how much immigration may turn out to be a wild card going into the '08 campaigns.

UPDATE: And that ever-present profile-in-courage, Mrs. Clinton, proudly came out against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants -- mere hours after Spitzer dropped it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Move along.

Labels: Eliot Spitzer, immigration

With barely restrained glee, my pal Ryan Sager analyzes the presidential campaign equivalent of this year's Yankees -- John McCain.

Ryan has long disliked McCain -- primarily because of campaign finance reform (I tended to like McCain, despite CFR).

Still, despite McCain's occasionally acerbic personality and his feuds with social conservatives, this total collapse is still something of a shock (though we did predict here that the immigration bill would likely be the final straw, and that seems to be the case).

Labels: fundraising, GOP 2008 President, immigration, Senator John McCain

Bill fails 46-53 on cloture.

Immigration supporters couldn't even register a majority!

This front-pager in today's Times actually did a good job of intimating the tough road the bill faced in the Senate. Three moderate-conservative freshman Senators -- Jim Webb of Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Claire McCaskill voiced their opposition -- in ways that echoed conservative Republican concerns (not the liberal Democrat view that the bill was too harsh on undocumented workers); meanwhile socialist independent Democrat Bernie Sanders' had a unique take:

The three lawmakers, who find themselves in similar political situations after close election victories in states carried by Mr. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, compare notes on a variety of issues.

“I will confess I check Tester’s and Webb’s vote before I check Harry Reid’s,” said Ms. McCaskill, a former prosecutor and state auditor.
Of these three freshman Democratic senators, Mr. Webb has shown the most willingness to
entertain the idea of supporting the measure if it were revised to his liking.

“There is a lot of good in this bill,” Mr. Webb said Wednesday. But his proposal to limit the opportunity to gain legal residency to immigrants who have been in the country for at least four years was soundly rejected by the Senate, 79 to 18, making it unlikely that backers of the measure can count on his support.

“To include every single person who, with a few exceptions, was here in this country as of the end of last year I think violates the notion of fairness among a lot of people in this country,” Mr. Webb said. “And it’s one of the reasons why we have had such a strong surge of resentment toward the legislation.”

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading Republican opponent of the bill, said it was telling that some of the Democrats who had just won their seats were those pushing most strongly against the legislation.
“Some of the new members looked their voters in the eye and said they were not for amnesty and were for stricter enforcement,” Mr. Sessions said. “Now, if they don’t honor that, it is going to poison their relationship for some time.”

And that is just what the three lawmakers are determined to avoid, even though they will not be back on the ballot until 2012. “This was a big issue in Missouri,” Ms. McCaskill said. “I had a consistent and clear message during the campaign, and I feel obligated to act on that.”

Other Democratic freshmen like Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island have been supporting the bill. Senator Bernard Sanders, a newly elected independent from Vermont who usually sides with Democrats, has been opposing the measure, arguing that it could be detrimental to American workers.

Anyway, today's vote means the immigration bill is dead for this year -- and most likely for the remainder of Bush's term.

Labels: George W. Bush, immigration, Jim Webb

Schwarzenegger's basic point about how immigrants can better learn English is correct, but it would have greater resonance coming from a guy who could better pronounce the name of the state in which he governs.

Just saying.

Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, English, immigration

Veteran Latino conservative pundit Linda Chavez takes on conservative immigration critics -- and calls out several at National Review.

Chavez's piece is lengthy and may not be completely persuasive. One question that she raises is very easy to answer: "But fear of terrorism doesn’t entirely explain why illegal immigration has become such a hot-button issue, even in the face of declining numbers of illegal aliens entering the country."

The answer to this is rather simple: The numbers of illegal aliens entering the country may have declined, but the effects of that wave from a decade are still being felt, sort of like a tsunami that hits after the earthquake (which, being "underground" might not have been felt initially at all). It is, for example, being felt at the state level, at public schools, as many children of illegals are entering public schools. Furthermore, there is greater economic anxiety today than there was six to ten years ago, and nativist sentiment increases with economic anxiety.

Those are just two reasons to explain why the immigration issue has become such a hot-button issue (fears of terrorism aside).

Still, Linda makes some interesting points and her article is worth the read. Good for her for writing it -- and good for National Review Online for running it.

Labels: conservatives, immigration, Linda Chavez

I have a million things going on right now, so I'm sorry that I can't give the immigration deal the full attention that it deserves. However, one thing that definitely jumps out: Fairly or unfairly, this agreement likely drives the final stake through the heart of John McCain's presidential campaign.

It's another semi-tragic irony for McCain. The guy who ran as the maverick in 2000 against the GOP establishment candidate George W. Bush now finds two separate anvils around his neck that are the self-described "priorities" of President Bush. They are the dreaded "I" words -- Iraq and immigration. McCain's support for the former has caused his popularity among Democrats and independents to crater. Now his support for the latter (along with his earlier apostasies on campaign finance reform and taxes) is likely fatal for his quest for the Republican nomination. National Review calls the agreement, "Bush-Kennedy."

It must have driven the McCain campaign into conniption fits to see their candidate photographed with the one-time heir to Camelot as the deal was announced. Jim Antle is right: "Conservative voters will remember the immigration partnership between John McCain and Ted Kennedy. In a Republican primary, that is dangerous company to keep."

McCain may have done the right thing, but it is a suicide pact for his already fading White House hopes.

As a quick aside, I disagree with my former boss that the deal is "a sellout of every conservative principle". Immigration policy hardly lines up on a perfect liberal-conservative spectrum. The business and libertarian parts of the conservative movement believes in a more open-ended immigration policy. They don't necessarily see this compromise as a "sellout." But more on that anon.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, immigration, Senator John McCain

What do you want to hear? What questions asked?

Thread on.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, immigration, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain

It's been a while since we looked in on local (non-comic) matters:

1) If one needs a reason for why immigration is the most under-addressed current public policy issue, this article on Mount Vernon, NY, should provide it:

As immigrants increasingly settle away from large urban centers — New York’s suburbs have had a net gain of 225,000 since 2000, compared with 44,000 in the city — many are waiting months or even years to get into government-financed English classes, which are often overcrowded and lack textbooks.

A survey last year by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials found that in 12 states, 60 percent of the free English programs had waiting lists, ranging from a few months in Colorado and Nevada to as long as two years in New Mexico and Massachusetts, where the statewide list has about 16,000 names.

The United States Department of Education counted 1.2 million adults enrolled in public English programs in 2005 — about 1 in 10 of the 10.3 million foreign-born residents 16 and older who speak English “less than very well,” or not at all, according to census figures from the same year. Federal money for such classes is matched at varying rates from state to state, leaving an uneven patchwork of programs that advocates say nowhere meets the need.

“We have a lot of folks who need these services and who go unserved,” said Claudia Merkel-Keller of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, noting that her state has waiting lists in every county, “from beginner all the way through proficient level.” New Jersey, like New York and many other states, does not keep statewide figures on how many people are on waiting lists.

Luis Sanchez, 47, a Peruvian truck driver for a beer distributor in New Brunswick, has been in this country 10 years — and on the waiting list for English classes in Perth Amboy five months. “You live from day to day, waiting to get the call that you can come to class,” Mr. Sanchez said in Spanish, explaining that he knew a little English but wanted to improve his writing skills so he could apply for better jobs. “I keep on waiting.”

Mr. Sanchez is unlikely to get the call soon: Perth Amboy’s Adult Education Center recently discovered that it was operating in the red and canceled 9 of its 11 evening classes in English as a second language, including all at beginner and intermediate levels. In Orange County, N.Y., where the immigrant population doubled in the past 16 years, the Board of Cooperative Education Services’ adult education program has stopped advertising for fear its already overflowing beginner classes will be overwhelmed.

Put aside the classic Times-ian assumption of a negligent level of "government-financed English classes": The sheer numbers and variety of immigrants -- and their languages -- that are coming into the United States is creating incredible pressures on budgets across the board. The article points out that the number of " foreign-born residents 18 years or older in 2005" jumped 18 percent in just the last five years, to about 32.6 million. It is safe to assume that only a small minority of that figure have English as their first language. When competition for education funding is tight, it is no wonder that immigrants bear the brunt of taxpayer hostility: At the elementary school level, immigrant children who haven't mastered English are seen as taking away scarce dollars that might otherwise be going into math, science or extra-curricular. At the adult level, non- or poor-English speaking immigrants are seen as taking away dollars from, say, continuing-education programs increasingly needed for middle age Americans fearful of job-loss.
Don't expect a prescription here. This is just an observation about the roots of middle-class anxiety and, often, outright hostility toward open immigration.

2) On a somewhat lighter topic, the New York City Council debates the "N-word" and prepares a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of it. Because, like, you know there is a virtual epidemic of public figures using it in official events. Well, in truth there wasn't -- until yesterday's New York City Council hearing on the use of the "N"-word. Please.

3) Memo to anyone planning on having a meeting with Edward Cardinal Egan, archbishop of New York: Check your home -- he may be sending some goons over to padlock the place. Egan scheduled a meeting with Father Eugene Sawicki, pastor of Our Lady of Vilnius in lower Manhattan, which was one of several parishes recently ordered closed down. Sawicki and Vilnius parishoners have been protesting the closure.

Well, Sawicki went to the meeting thinking that he might get a fair hearing from Egan. PSYCHE! Egan sent security ("Absolute Security" is the firms' name, believe it or not) to padlock the Our Lady of Vilnius! This raises two interesting points: First, scheduling the meeting so you can lure a protesting priest out of "his" home and locking the place up may not be technically a lie (which is a sin), but it does seem like an action more befitting a hard-hearted landlord rather than the local head of a church. Second, one wonders -- during the high point of the church's child abuse scandal -- how many U.S. churches were ever shut down with the offending priests permanently locked out?

Just asking.

Labels: "N"-word, Catholic Church, Edward Cardinal Egan, immigration

...Americans "won't do."

Immigration agents clear out undocumented workers at a Colorado meat-processing plant. Legal workers line up to fill the vacancies:

The line of applicants hoping to fill jobs vacated by undocumented workers taken away by immigration agents at the Swift & Co. meat-processing plant earlier this week was out the door Thursday.

Among them was Derrick Stegall, who carefully filled out paperwork he hoped would get him an interview and eventually land him a job as a slaughterer. Two of his friends had been taken away by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and he felt compelled to fill their rubber boots.

"Luckily, they had no wives or family they left behind. But it was still sad. They left their apartments filled with all their stuff. I took two dogs one of them had. The other guy had a cat I gave to my sister," he said.

Puts the immigration debate in a slightly different context, eh?

(Hat tip to RT Commenter Bill.)

Technorati Tags: immigration

Labels: immigration

Post-mortems on the last GOP loss of 2006:

Cohen also makes one other point. This is now the second seat in TX this cycle that has switched hands from the GOP to the Dems as a result of Tom DeLay's re-redistricting efforts. The other seat, of course, was DeLay's. So the net result for the GOP based on DeLay's re-redistricting was all of 2 seats. Was that really worth all the hassle and the subpoenas and courtroom dramas? Many a Republican is probably wondering that same thing tonight, in particular, soon-to-be-ex-Rep. Henry Bonilla.

Update: National Journal's Charles Mahtesian, who is the editor of the Almanac of American Politics, observes: "Take a look at these remarkable numbers in Maverick County. Bonilla won it with 59% in 2004, even as Kerry was carrying the county; Bonilla lost it 86-14% tonight. Maverick County is a border county and home to Eagle Pass, where the border fence issue was huge. Bonilla's vote in favor of a fence made an enormous difference here.

Talk about a mayor who knows his town. In a September newspaper story about the fence issue, here's a quote by Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster, 'It's kind of hard to support someone who wants to build a fence,' said Foster, who's also president of the Texas Border Coalition, a group of city and county officials. 'I'd say 95 percent of Maverick County agrees with me.' Turns out the guy was off by 9 points."

So, the DeLay redistricting fiasco claimed another victim AND the GOP's focus on building a fence helped knock off a member who strongly supported it.

Labels: Congress, immigration, Republicans, Tom DeLay