RK ARCHIVE - Democrats Court Hispanics, Republicans Say "Get Lost!"

The most significant event of the evening, however, wasn't anything John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson said. Instead, it was they did by simply being there (with the exception of Joe Biden; what was THAT all about?), courting the fastest-growing demographic in America, while Republicans...well, except for John McCain, they all said they were too busy to address Hispanic Americans so their debate was cancelled. That really says it all about the two parties at this point; while the Democrats court Hispanics, the Republican say "get lost!"

Anyway, here are the Democrats on the issue of "illegal immigration." Note the completely different tone than the harsh tones -- or simply dead silence -- emanating from Republican ranks. Perhaps that's not surprising, given how much money Republcans take from the very companies that most heavily employ illegal immigrants.
Hillary Clinton: "We have been a nation of immigrants, and we are a country that has welcomed people. And I hope we will continue to do so."

"I have championed comprehensive immigration reform, and it includes starting with securing our borders in order to give people the support they needto come over and support us when it comes to having a pathway to legalization. We all know that this has become a contentious political issue. It is being demagogued, and I believe that it is being used to bash immigrants, and that must stop."

Barack Obama: "I have been a consistent champion of comprehensive immigration reform...when I see people who are coming across these borders, whether legally or illegally, I know that the motivation is trying to create a better life for their children and their grandchildren."

John Edwards: "I think that's what the focus should be on -- more Border Patrol, better use of technology, as absolutely a path to -- to earn citizenship for those who are living here and who are undocumented. But we also have to get at the underlying causes of the migration from Mexico, which means addressing the issue of poverty, education, health, the reason that so many are coming to the United States."

Bill Richardson: "I want everybody to look at the Statue of Liberty. This symbolizes freedom, diversity and that we're a nation of immigrants."

Comments

if by going (JScott - 9/10/2007 9:06:31 AM)

If by going and being there is the important thing that I ceetainly now am vindicated in my feeling of betrayal by not attending the DLC in July. These folks attended Kos and now this so is what you are saying is they have abandoned the need to attracting the centrist/moderates and thus independents as a means of attracting the complete left and now with this or is it solely a political posturing move.

I literally can't understand (Lowell - 9/10/2007 9:09:01 AM)

what you just wrote. Are you saying that it's bad the Democrats are trying to appeal to Hispanic Americans? What do you mean they "attended Kos," are you talking about the Yearly Kos convention? What on earth do you mean by the "complete left," are you implying that all Hispanics are far left? You lost me, just as your party did 27 years ago.

DLC influence (Jim W - 9/10/2007 10:40:26 AM)

Lowell:
I read the JScott post as a comment on "The most significant event of the evening, however, wasn't anything John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson said. Instead, it was they did by simply being there?"

JScott looked at to two other opportunities, Yearly Kos and DLC and then asked whether they were abandoning the DLC in favor of the progressives in that pairing of debates or whether last night was solely political posturing.

I would interpret JScott's complete left as everyone but the Republicans. He raises an interesting question about the DLC influence in the party.

Thanks for the interpretation (Lowell - 9/10/2007 11:12:49 AM)

If that's indeed what "JScott" meant, I think it's a huge stretch. Hillary Clinton abandoning centrism after a lifetime of being a DLC centrist? That's hard to believe, especially when the only evidence provided is that a) she attended a conference (so, every time a Republican attends a right-wing conference, that means they've abandoned centrism?); and b) she participated in a debate focused on Hispanic Americans, who are known to be culturally conservative and rather independent in their political leanings. That adds up to...what exactly?

the center/moderate (JScott - 9/10/2007 1:10:56 PM)

the center/ moderate influence and vote in Virginia adds up to a Mark Warner Senate seat or Governorship...that is what it adds up to. Just like the center and the independent vote moved to Webb they would do so again for Warner allowing Dems to carrying whichever office he chose to run more. Without the independents and also some Reps I might add Webb would not have won so Dems will need the centrists again this time around as well. If Mark had to run against John Warner what do you think the outcome would have been? It is now open for Mark Warner to gain the entire support of the middle and win. Alot of independents had always embraced John Warner, but may not be so inclined to support Davis or Gilmore. My only fear is if the national Dems feel so compelled to cater to the far left it may cause blowback with the moderates. You know my stance on HRC, she wins the nomination and as a centrist and independent I am exit stage right at this point. Still hoping for Obama/Biden.

addressing agendas Lowell (JScott - 9/10/2007 4:09:13 PM)

It ties to the national campaigns and that the state wide campaign by Reps attacking the illegal immigration issue. This issue is being set up by the Reps as playing second fiddle only to war on terrorism so of course the issue of immigration and the link to the Hispanic vote is important in that context.
The far left my friend in my view and it is certainly up for debate is those the furthest from the DLC on the left, ie those wearing pink and those supporting the more radical elements of the moveon.org platform...they are the most liberal of the liberal or does that word not have any meaning either anymore.
Centrists or moderates are the center of the politcial seesaw sorta speak and of course get hit by both sides for not taking firm stands on issues or parties. In states where party affliation may be required independents select a party but may not be fully aligned with either political agenda. Independents may have voted for Bush in 04 but Webb in 06 and may vote Warner in 08 but also vote for the Rep. nominee for President. Hence the seesaw effect. If Rep are successful in demonstrating that the national Dems are aligning themselves with the DailyKos, Moveon.org, the special interest (gay forum) and dishing the DLC while also seeking to keep the status quo with illegal immigration by focusing on the Hispanic interest then the blowback I speak to is one where Independents and more socially conservative Dems or even moderates may certainly be a real battleground.
As I have been slammed before and so informed a liberal Dem will always support a Democrat regardless, however it is my contention that a moderate Dem or social conservative Dem may not be always be so inclined.

Again Lowell (JScott - 9/10/2007 1:00:55 PM)

Again I point out my record working with Dems getting elected and every time a raise even the slightest contrast you slame me for being party of the other side. By Complete Left I mean the far left that fails everytime to move even the slighest bit center. We in the center always seem to have to move to the way of the far left or moveon everytime something comes up and after awhile it just feels we get betrayed. People tout Mark Warner alot and should but Mark is a moderate like myself and not a complete liberal, meaning he may have some issues he will sway that way but he is certainly centered right in the middle, you show me one from the far left demonstrating they would come closer to the center, in fact moderates have to move left of left in primaries to even get play and maybe that is what we are seeing here. I am not saying that Hispanics are anything, in fact some make good arguements that most come conservative, ut you made the point that by attending it was saying enough just by being there. That was my point. Failing to attend to attend the DLC in July sends the opposite of the message of attending Kos, special interests forums and then this Hispanic event. Am I saying that they should not be courting the Hispanic vote...absolutley not, what I am saying is by not going to the DLC they and you are showing that you are either taking for granted the centers/moderates vote or feel you do not need it this time around.

You don't know me at all (Lowell - 9/10/2007 1:13:26 PM)

I have nothing against the DLC, consider myself a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive, and am a firm believer in a "big tent" Democratic Party. But implying that anyone who attends the Yearly Kos convention or blogs on Daily Kos -- that would be pretty much every Democratic politician, by the way -- is moving to the far left is utterly absurd.

Now, where I do agree with you is that the Democratic Party needs to be more than a collection of special interests and aspire to national unity and greatness. That's one of the reasons, among many, I'm drawn to Teddy Roosevelt (aside from his progressive stances on so many issues, ranging from workers' rights to taxation to the environment). Finally, I will just reiterate what Jim Webb has said many times, that "the old labels of 'liberal" and 'conservative' no longer apply" to American politics. I mean, when you have a Republican administration running up huge budget deficits, increasing spending like there's no tomorrow, nation building, etc., what aon earth is that? And when Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility and a realist foreign policy, what on earth is that? Complicated, that's what it is.

Biden chairing hearing with Petraeus and Crocker (Nell - 9/10/2007 12:10:15 PM)

with the exception of Joe Biden; what was THAT all about?)

Here's the answer the AP story gave to that question:
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, recently returned from a trip to Iraq, skipped the debate to prepare for a Foreign Relations Committee hearing that he is scheduled to chair Tuesday on the Petraeus report.

I'm not his biggest fan, to put it mildly, and missing this debate is just another indication that Biden's campaign is going nowhere -- as if that were a big surprise -- but I think that phrasing the question that way in the post is a cheap shot.