With all the excitement about Iowa, I want to comment about the victorious candidates and immigration, not because I'm a one-issue type of guy. Indeed, the most important conclusion I've drawn in documenting the immigration "crisis" is that we should learn a lesson from 2002's run-up to the Iraq War, and NOT allow the politicization of fear to blind us and prevent us from addressing the real problems that we face.
That said, I want to point out that both Iowa winners took notable stances on immigration during the final weeks before the vote. During the CNN debate, Barack Obama boldly accepted Wolf Blitzer's dare (you might actually call it a trap) to defend testing and certification for all drivers in New York state regardless of immigration status. It was an issue of public safety, Obama explained. We don't want uninsured and untested drivers endangering us on our roads and highways, simply because many Americans are in a state of hysteria about immigration status. In doing this, Obama showed the same courage and integrity he showed in opposing the Iraq War in 2002, when the nation was in a similar, media-induced hysteria. When the nation's eyes were wide with fear and focused on the wrong target, Obama stood tall and told us so.
Looking back, we see that he was right. His two main challengers, Clinton and Edwards, both voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002. In 2007, they side-stepped Blizter's trap with regard to immigration (disguised as a question about drivers licenses in Clinton's state). Clinton and Edwards said "no" to drivers tests and to public safety, and in so doing, reminding voters of a striking difference in political style that lifted Obama to become the front-runner for the nomination. Since that day, Obama has been rising steadily while Clinton and Edwards have fallen.
Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee won handily on the Republican side despite committing an astonishing blunder when asked to respond to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazar Bhutto. You can see for yourself here, but in sum, Huckabee tried to score political points with the anti-immigrant movement by reminding us that "There were more Pakistanis who illegally crossed the border than of any nationality except for those immediately south of our border. 660 last year." He was wrong in his assertion. The number he quoted was inflated many fold. But my real concern is that he showed himself to be a novice in foreign affairs, trying his hand at the politicization of fear, with a disturbing racial undertone to boot.
When he was Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee's immigration policy was reasonable, practical, and fair. Of course, he was attacked for this. It seems he has concluded the best way to compete for Republican primary votes is to sound harsh and intolerant with regard to undocumented immigrants from South and Central America -- only Huckabee zealously extrapolated to assume this means he should sound this way when discussing any foreign country, at any time, for any reason.
I find it sad that a man of faith, and a man who had governed reasonably in the past, would resort to ideology and abandon reality in his bid for the White House. Does he think it's a job requirement? We cannot afford to have another President who relies solely on ideological tenants when making important decisions, without first doing some research on what's happening in the reality-based world. Click here to watch an otherwise honorable man surrender his credibility on foreign and domestic policy in order to pander to a frightened, shrill, and myopic segment of our population, one that, unfortunately for us all, many Republican strategists have identified as a voting base.
[aside: Where I'm coming from -- I'd like to see most restrictions lifted so we are adding a few million Latinos a year. The U.S. is relatively underpopulated, except on the coasts. I don't think increased border enforcement will work -- it will be an expensive failure like the war on drugs has been. I think employers should only be penalized if they pay below the minimum wage, fail to apply proper worker protections such as OSHA protections, and fail to go through all the social security and withholding hoops. If we don't want a more competitive labor pool in the U.S., the labor competition will just come from abroad.
As to national security, the idea that we're going to improve national security by keeping out some farmers from Guatemala, etc., seems, well, misplaced.]
In short, I don't see --- from what I know right now --- that a decision to support Obama versus Clinton versus Edwards should hinge on the immigration issue. I'd appreciate any in-depth information you have. Please don't think I'm being snarky about this -- I really would like to know the real differences.
On to New Hampshire, which along Iowa, has a poor record in selecting the winning president.
And, looking forward to 2012 when the Democratic Party starts treating me in Virginia as important in selecting the standard bearer for my party.
Quite a few policy pages to digest.
We can also talk about electoral reform issues (there's a track record), nuclear non-proliferation issues, and the energy independence question (this is the one area where I have a beef with Obama -- I think he leans too heavily on the ethanol subsidy bandwagon -- probably in part because of local interests). He has a solid track record and consistent positions.
As far as New Hampshire and Iowa having a poor record selecting the "winning president" this is just flat out false.
Iowa
1976 -- Jimmy Carter
1980 -- not a factor
1984 -- Reagan
1988 -- not a factor
1992 -- not a factor
1996 -- Clinton
2000 -- George W. Bush
2004 -- George W. Bush
So Iowa alone has picked 5 out of the last 8 presidential winners. Winning the caucus is not a guarantee of presidential glory, but more often than not it has been in recent years.
New Hampshire
1976 -- Jimmy Carter
1980 -- Ronald Reagan
1984 -- Ronald Reagan
1988 -- George H.W. Bush
1992 -- Bill Clinton
1996 -- Bill Clinton
2000 -- not a factor
2004 -- George W. Bush
So in the case of New Hampshire, the state's party conventions have picked the winner 7 out of the last 8 election cycles.
This year is definitely a little screwier than previous ones, so who really knows how things will play out. It is patently false though to say that Iowa and New Hampshire don't usually select the "winning president". Overwhelming the two combined have in recent years -- especially New Hampshire.
As far as changes go, I don't think Obama will make changes "all over the place" and I don't think that's his message. His policy positions suggest he will push for fundamental changes in a limited number of areas (health care reform, electoral reform, creating a national energy policy that reflects our security interests). These are areas -- especially electoral reform -- that an "establishment" candidate is less likely to tinker with.
Obama's track record also suggests that he will be able to cut deals and get things done in a way that reflects the interests of ordinary voters. As far as politicians go, Obama is about as "authentic" as they come. He's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
The interesting side of this is the Bloomberg independent run. Unity08 has suggested that he will run if Obama, Edwards, or Huckabee win their party nominations because they are "too partisan". By "too partisan" I think they mean "BIG MONEY worries that they might not be sufficiently reliable partners". The omissions are telling concerning who WOULD be reliable partners (running the gamut from Clinton to Romney).
As for Obama, maybe one of these days someone who's familiar with these issues will ask him a few questions. Somehow I don't think he's going to be so glib when confronted by someone who's familiar with this issue.
But I have found that the discussion about immigration in particular has been obfuscated by misinformation, knee-jerk reactions, and hysteria organized by anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR, Center for Immigration Studies and NumbersUSA at the national level, and groups like Help Save Manassas on the local level.
I share the view of many Democrats and Republicans I have interviewed: that the immigration issue has been manufactured into a national "crisis" to cloud the electoral process, and distract us from realities like the catastrophe in Iraq. As such, you're probably wondering why immigration IS an election issue for me, and why I'm speaking out about it.
The reason is this: Somewhat like Iraq in 2002, the immigration issue has become a litmus test for leadership and character. I'm sure that all the candidates with the exception of the rabid, now-departed Tom Tancredo know that the immigration issue has been blown out of proportion by political opportunists taking advantage of America's sense of vulnerability. But candidates who succumb to the mob mentality are not true leaders.
Most Democrats admire Clinton and Edwards, as do I. But we are haunted by their votes to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Many of us prefer Obama because he opposed the war, but Obama was not a U.S. Senator at the time (and thus had less to lose by offending the mob). That's precisely why millions of Americans looked on with profound curiosity when all 3 candidates were on a single national stage, facing a different mob in the form of Wolf Blitzer's "gotcha" trap designed to find a Democratic target for the boiling rage and hysteria CNN had helped create over the previous year. Edwards and Clinton succumbed to the mob. Obama did not.
Clinton had previously come to Spitzer's defense, and rightly sided with sound policy decisions for her state, even in the face of public hysteria. But when the media turned the question into a national "gotcha" issue, she backed down -- probably because the Iowa primary was around the corner and she was leading at the time. Edwards similarly made the safe bet and said no to drivers' licenses for undocumented residents. But Obama took a stand, and in so doing, won a lot of hearts, not because of a policy proposal, but because of his character.
Such character and such leadership are vital if we are to quell the panic and hysteria being manufactured with regard to immigration. Without it, we have no hope of passing comprehensive immigration reform. More importantly, these qualities will allow Obama to lead this country by engaging in real deliberation on the many the challenges that face us a nation. Whereas I admire Clinton and Edwards, they have not earned my trust as leaders.
Why no discussion of Hillary's co-sponsorship of S.845, a bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to provide States with the option to cover certain legal immigrants under the medicaid and State children's health insurance programs? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...
Or how about the bill Hillary was the original sponsor of to do this?
SUMMARY AS OF:
7/31/2003--Introduced.Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act of 2003 - Amends the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide for: (1) job training that integrates occupational skills training with language acquisition; and (2) specified services for individuals who are Limited English Proficient (LEP).
Authorizes the Secretary to award incentive grants to States for exemplary performance in carrying out integrated training programs.
Directs the Secretary to carry out demonstration, pilot, multiservice, and multistate projects that provide training to establish or upgrade the job and related skills of special participant populations that face multiple barriers to employment, including low-income individuals with substantial language or cultural barriers, offenders, homeless individuals, or other hard-to-serve populations.
Amends the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act with respect to adult education and literacy services to assist immigrants who are not proficient in English in improving their reading, writing, speaking, and mathematics skills and acquiring an understanding of the American free enterprise system, individual freedom, and the responsibilities of citizenship.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...
Or Hillary's co-sponsorship of the Dream Act, which sought to enable aliens to shift to conditional permanent resident status?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...
I was expecting a more substantive response. The drivers' license issue is a minor, distraction issue from the main problem. That's what Obama himself said in the debate where Blitzer was the host.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Would Obama have voted against the authorization of war? We'll never know. There historically has been tremendous pressure to vote for war. I was extremely disappointed in Clinton's vote for authorization. I also was extremely disappointed that Obama personally campaigned for Joe Lieberman. Not just endorsed, as many Democrats did, but campaigned for him. And on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, where was Obama? Other candidates came and took a stand one way or the other.
But I expect an assessment of candidates on the issues, and most of what I've seen on this blog has been sloganeering, with no hard facts.
All candidates have warts. And quite frankly, I'm starting to see image worship by some of the Obama supporters, and that is scary. Because that leads to blind, sheep-like behavior, "my candidate, right on every issue," "my president right on every issue" and similar nonsense.
My own conclusion is that based on available information, Hillary has worked more for immigrants.
My second conclusion is that debating specifics with rabid supporters of one candidate or the other is a waste of time.
I want them to grow up in a tolerant society, and I am suspicious of the compromise immigration bill in the sense that it can be seen as validating the concept that there is something morally wrong with coming to this country to look for work. I do not approve of a "fine" provision because it places newcomers into an economic hole. Rather than such money being poured into the bottomless pit called the U.S. Treasury, I want newcomers using it to buy books for their children, and buying homes too. (I like using "newcomers" as opposed to aliens or immigrants.)
I want all politicians to discuss the issue not on a "right" versus "wrong" morally-based approach but on a thoroughly pragmatic approach. I am fine with someone arguing "we cannot relax entry because it will harm our job market" (though I disagree with that assertion). But on moral grounds? After all, who "owned" this land in 1492, and in 1620, and during the period of the Mexican-U.S. War?
In the United States, most Whigs in the North and South opposed the war; most Democrats supported it. Joshua Giddings led a group of dissenters in Washington D.C. He called the war with Mexico "an aggressive, unholy, and unjust war," and voted against supplying soldiers and weapons for the war. He said:Mexican War"In the murder of Mexicans upon their own soil, or in robbing them of their country, I can take no part either now or here-after. The guilt of these crimes must rest on others. I will not participate in them."
Fellow Whig, Congressman Abraham Lincoln, contested the causes for the war and demanded to know the exact spot on which Thornton had been attacked and U.S. blood shed. "Show me the spot," he demanded. Whig leader Robert Toombs of Georgia declared:
"This war is a nondescript.... We charge the President with usurping the war-making power... with seizing a country... which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans.... Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew."[4]
Northern abolitionists attacked the war as an attempt by slave-owners -- frequently referred to as "the Slave Power" - to expand the grip of slavery and thus assure their continued influence in the federal government. Acting on his convictions, Henry David Thoreau was jailed for his refusal to pay taxes to support the war, and penned his famous essay, Civil Disobedience.
Former President John Quincy Adams also expressed his belief that the war was fundamentally an effort to expand slavery. ***
I wish all the Democratic candidates would stand up on this issue and say, for example, "I'm for the compromise because it is a small step in the right direction, but with me in the White House I'll work for something better, and something fairer." I have not endorsed anyone (not that anyone cares) -- I simply want people to make their best case for the candidate they follow. We're fairly easy sells at RK. The people who need to be sold on Obama, e.g., are elsewhere and later down the road.
I wish I had the talent you two had as you spread your message of tolerance. (To new readers, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...