Politics
Obama Slipping Among Latinos
originally posted by Daisy Hernandez for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 28th
A new poll by Univision and the Associated Press suggests that Obama and Democrats might have to fight, at least a little, for the Latino vote come November.
While 57 percent still approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the AP-Univision poll, that’s down from the close to 70 percent that Gallup pollsters recorded in January. The reasons are simple: the economy and immigration reform.
Of the 1,500 Latinos polled in English and Spanish by the AP and Univision, 45 percent said they or a family member had lost a job since last September, compared to 30 percent for the overall population. Naturally, that’s put a terrible strain on families. Close to half of the Latinos polled said they worry about being able to pay their bills now.
On immigration, the poll found a split between English and Spanish speakers. Among those speaking English, about 40 percent approved of Obama’s work on their key issues before Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, was signed into law. The figure rose to 52 percent in the weeks after as Obama voiced opposition to the legislation.
This is in line with what Gallup pollsters uncovered last month.
Obama’s big dip among Latinos was in February, after his State of the Union silence on immigration reform, and in May, as he was being criticized for not doing more about Arizona’s new law. But the large drop in support happened among Latinos who are mainly Spanish speakers.
Obama’s lost 21 points in his approval rating among Spanish-speaking Latinos since January– compared to 5 points for English-speaking Latinos.
It’s probably time for Obama to take a cue from California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman and start working on those Spanish ads.
Charlie Rangel’s Face Off With Accountability
originally posted by Jamilah King for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 28th
Even though a four-member House Ethics Committee has been largely silent about the charges facing longtime Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel, at least some of the allegations are reportedly among the committee’s most serious infractions. And, no matter what the Rangel saga could mean for Democrats come November, the public circus around his trial could have far reaching implications on elected black leadership nationwide.
The Ethics Committee is set to air the full charges against Rangel tomorrow, and some party leaders have urged him to cut a deal to avoid that potentially ugly moment. He has thus far refused.
Rangel has reportedly already spent $1.7 million on a legal defense team over the course of the 18 month investigation. The charges against him range from misuse of rent-controlled apartments in New York City and failure to disclose income from a villa in the Dominican Republic to reports that he exchanged official favors with an oil company in exchange for a $1 million gift to a City University of New York center that’s named after him.
Rangel has not only vehemently denied the charges, he’s done so with a unique brand of braggadocio–much to the chagrin of some fellow Democrats and even a former aide. What fuels the congressman’s confidence may be exactly what makes his ordeal potentially devastating to other black elected officials: he’s a co-founder and current dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and, until news of the ethnics investigation hit in March, led the all-important Ways and Means Committee. Any particularly egregious fallout could prove harmful to the CBC which, despite some missteps, has been key in pushing jobs and unemployment insurance legislation in recent months.
But that also begs the question of whether the CBC and other black elected officials will stand by Rangel rather than urge he be held accountable should he be found guilty of the charges. CBC Chair Barbara Lee has recently urged members of both parties to avoid presuming Rangel’s guilt.
“Any rush to judgment to short-circuit the ongoing review of Congressman Rangel by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will do a disservice to the well-established processes of the House of Representatives, ” Lee wrote in a statement. “Attempts by Republicans and Democrats to presume guilt before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct completes its review of the facts, which are only known to them and Congressman Rangel, violates the core American principle of the presumption of innocence.”
Another CBC member Rep. Chaka Fattah pointed to the Shirley Sherrod scandal as evidence of what happens when both parties jump the gun.
“The railroading of Shirley Sherrod at USDA should be a lesson learned about hasty judgment. . . . That lesson must be applied to current case of Congressman Charlie Rangel,” she told the AP last week.
Still, Rangel’s widely popular in his district, and as the fourth eldest serving member of Congress, his political track record speaks for itself. It’s unlikely that he’ll be ousted from his seat, but Politico wonders how much he has to lose if he continues to stand his ground.
The bigger question is how, and when, do we hold our elected officials of color accountable? So far, no member of the CBC has spoken publicly about what the Rangel investigation could mean to the Ways and Means Committee’s work, or what it says about his relationship with his Harlem constituency.
Photo: U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) (L) faces questions from the news media after a House investigative committee found substatinial reason to believe Rangel has violated rules and laws at the U.S. Capitol July 22, 2010. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Jim Webb’s Anti-Immigrant Rant
originally posted by Jamilah King for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 26th
Sen. Jim Webb’s back with another rant against affirmative action. In case you missed it, the Virgina politician took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal late last week to tackle the “myth of white privilege,” and while it has provoked the usual rage and skepticism in some corners, the general consensus seems to be that folks are over it.
First, Webb’s argument: poor white folks exist, too. And they’re not all the same. But they’re still often overlooked because everyone who’s not white benefits from government entitlement programs, namely immigrants of color:
The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all “people of color”–especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.–moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.
Charing Ball at The Atlanta Journal Constitution calls Webb’s particular brand of white, citizenship-having angst a perfectly timed throwback to Southern strategy politics. Nothing like touching on the deep-seeded racial anxieties of whites and blacks during a recession to get a few votes. After all, it’s not like immigrants of color are exactly riding the rails of American privilege these days.
Between the Shirley Sherrod scandal and the Tea Party trading jabs with the NAACP over who’s more racist, this summer’s shaping up as a hot house for regressive public debate. All Webb’s op-ed proved is the obvious: that we’re missing out on having productive conversations on race and racism.
Photo: Creative Commons/Rob Shenk
Congressional Leaders Challenge Progressives to Keep Pushing for Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 26th
In front of more than 2000 progressive bloggers and activists Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and several other keynote speakers urged progressives to “finish what we’ve started” and keep beating the progressive drum for change. After enumerating major Democratic legislative victories this year (health care, financial regulation, and an economic stimulus plan to name a few), Congressional leaders acknowledged the legislative priorities that lie ahead—especially immigration. While Republicans continue to stall immigration reform efforts in Congress and with harsh anti-immigrant legislation brewing in other states, immigration has emerged as a national hot button issue. And with mid-term elections around the corner, progressives want to know that Democratic leadership is actually going to lead.
At the fifth annual Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas this weekend, Democratic leadership rallied the progressive voice to keep doing what they’re doing—holding Congress accountable and moving the progressive agenda forward. A large part of that progressive agenda is immigration reform—an issue that many progressives feel the Administration has yet to throw its full weight behind. In a Q&A forum, progressive bloggers and activists held Speaker Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s feet to the fire on the immigration front. With Congressional Republicans blocking comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), many wondered about the viability of passing the DREAM Act this year. Here’s what Democratic leadership had to say:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
There is a difference of opinion on how we go forward on [the DREAM Act]. We are committed to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). We don’t want to take one piece and leave the rest of the undocumented behind. We need to secure [the] border, enforce laws, stop the exploitation of workers, and provide a path to legalization. If we take off rosier pieces, it will diminish the prospect for CIR. Others have a different view, but that’s a debate we’re having. Arizona also shouts out for the need for CIR which supports all the things I mentioned. We know what our values are as a country. We continue to meet with business and evangelical communities, not our usual allies, but who both understand the need for CIR. We need to keep the heat on for when the time is right to pass CIR, which will be soon. We’re all cosponsor of DREAM Act, but we don’t want to diminish the support for CIR.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):
We’re still working on CIR. We’re not finished after this work period before Congress goes out. We still have a lame duck session, so we’re not giving up. No one has worked harder on immigration then me. I’ve got the stars to show it. We spent more time last session on immigration than any other issue.
Those people screaming the loudest, the Senators from Arizona, won’t let us move on immigration. I believe we need CIR. We need to take care of our borders, get a guest worker program that includes more than just AgJobs, bring people out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay taxes, and get to the end of the line…which for some is thirteen years long. Remember, more than half of these undocumented immigrants have American children. We can’t do what Rush Limbaugh wants us to do. There’s no way we can ship them back to somewhere else. This is not amnesty, it’s fairness.
I’ve worked really hard to push for CIR. I’m working with Durbin and Lugar. But I’m not going to the DREAM Act unless I’ve got the 60 votes. I won’t disappoint all those young men and women if I don’t have the votes. So that’s the story.
So where does that leave us? A dose of political reality is never fun to swallow, but both leaders paint a pretty clear picture of an uphill battle for immigration reform of any kind this fall. The upcoming recess and elections, the lack of votes for CIR, and the questionable number of votes out there for the DREAM Act are all sobering reminders that the work isn’t over. The difficulty of immigration reform is also a strange reminder of just how much Congress has accomplished this year, despite overwhelming obstacles. That Republicans and some Democrats are digging their heels in on immigration could mean that progressives haven’t yet found a way to make this issue click for other political interest groups. Despite more and more involvement by conservatives, evangelicals, and law enforcement officials, immigration remains an issue that doesn’t get a lot of bipartisan support. While progressives may chastise their leaders for not doing enough, it was probably pretty fair of Pelosi and Reid to challenge progressives as well.
Photo by wellsy.
Will Harlem Legend Rangel Take One for the Team? Not Likely
originally posted by Jamilah King for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 26th
It appears that House Democratic leaders are urging New York Rep. Charlie Rangel to strike a fairly painless deal with the Ethics Committee before potentially damaging charges are unveiled against him on Thursday, reports Politico.
Rangel, who’s been serving his Harlem congressional district for the past four decades, faces multiple ethics violations. So far he’s met the challenges with textbook political defiance. In a press conference last week, the stalwart politician practically thanked the committee for giving his campaign momentum headed into the general election in November.
He’s got reason to be cocky, of course. Over the past four decades he’s become one of the most powerful black politicians in the state of New York, and is virtually assured to win his upcoming general election–even if he’s found guilty.
But the charges, Rangel’s defiance, and a tough Democratic election season may be complicating matters for the party broadly.
With unsteady popular support from voters and Obama’s dwindling approval rating, Democratic leaders already seem resigned to losing seats in November. Dem strategists have crafted some messaging that they are hopeful lesson the blow, according to the Hill. But a high-profile corruption case like Rangel’s could well hurt the cause.
Which is why some of Rangel’s fellow Democrats are asking him to step down. On Friday, Ohio Rep. Betty Sutton called on Rangel to resign in an effort to “preserve the public trust.” Former aide Vincent Morgan took it a step farther.
“He needs to put his ego aside and start investing in the future of the district,” Morgan told the Hill. “We have this tendency to wait for the retirement ceremony or the memorial service before we start planning for the future, and I fear that’s what will happen here, too.”
Ouch. Don’t expect the grandfather of Harlem’s political machine to take the advice.
Photo: Creative Commons/azipaybarah
Obama: Sherrod Debacle is Media’s Fault, Not Mine
originally posted by Kai Wright for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 23rd
No question, the maddening spectacle of Andrew Breitbart managing to tar an innocent woman with demonstrable lies is an indictment of corporate news media. Competition for eyeballs and misguided “objectivity” conspire to give proven dissemblers like Breitbart opportunities to be heard when they ought to be ignored. That said, let’s keep one fact about Sherrod’s ordeal clear: Neither Breitbart nor the news media that credulously reported his antics fired Shirley Sherrod; Barack Obama’s administration did. And that’s what makes the president’s remarks on Good Morning America today so frustrating.
George Stephanopoulos blogged last night on the relevant excerpts from this morning’s Obama interview (which is primarily on the Wall Street reform bill). Of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s actions, Obama said, “He jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles.” Except in this case, of course, the “everybody” is your administration, Mr. President.
Sherrod has said plainly that she understood the White House, not Vilsack to have asked for her head. But even if we accept that this was all a matter of Vilsack wilding out and overreacting, he did so in the context of an administration that is plainly spooked by the far right’s effort to link it with anything that looks race conscious, or even truly progressive. Vilsack’s actions were in keeping with his boss’s political temperament: Avoid fights with the right and take no prisoners on the left.
But Obama nonetheless dressed it up as yet another teachable moment:
“If there’s a lesson to be drawn from this episode, it’s that rather than us jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers at each other, we should all look inward and try to examine what’s in our own hearts and, as a consequence, I think we will continue to make progress,” he said.
Whatever.
J.D. Hayworth Challenges Administration on Immigration Enforcement Just Weeks Before National Guard Deploys to Border
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 20th
Over the weekend, former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth challenged the Obama Administration’s commitment to immigration enforcement—just weeks before the Administration is set to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico Border. On Monday, the Obama Administration announced that the National Guard will begin deployment on August 1, with more than 500 soldiers going to Arizona and the rest to New Mexico, California and Texas. The President has also requested that Congress appropriate $600 million in supplemental funds for “enhanced border protection and law-enforcement activities.”
Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain (R) in the Arizona GOP primary, is a notorious immigration hardliner who has been criticized by the Mayor of Phoenix as “being full of racism.” It’s quite a challenge on the part of Hayworth to be even more hawkish on border issues than Sen. McCain—who recently released a 10 point border security plan with fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R) and has recorded a television spot solely dedicated to “completing the danged fence”—but Hayworth has managed to do so. Campaign politics aside, challenging the Obama Administration on immigration enforcement—an issue that immigration advocates have criticized the President as being too heavy-handed on, in fact—just doesn’t make sense.
On CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, Hayworth defended Arizona’s “show us your papers” law, SB 1070, and commented that the Obama administration supports “no enforcement” of immigration law:
It should come as no surprise that any number of people who advocate open borders and advocate no enforcement of the law, including this current administration, are trying to throw up these roadblocks.
Also on Sunday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, published an op-ed in The Arizona Republic highlighting the Administration’s progress on enforcement and border security:
Over the past year and a half, the Obama administration has pursued a new border-security strategy with an unprecedented sense of urgency, making historic investments in personnel, technology and infrastructure while combating the transnational criminal organizations that smuggle weapons, cash and people across the United States border.
Make no mistake: Despite what those looking to score political points may tell you, the numbers show we are moving in the right direction.
Last year, illegal crossings along the Southwest border were down 23 percent from the year before, to a fraction of their all-time high. Seizures of contraband rose significantly across the board in 2009. DHS seized 14 percent more illegal bulk cash, 29 percent more illegal weapons and 15 percent more illegal drugs than the year before. And, by all measurable standards, crime levels in U.S. border towns have remained flat for most of the last decade.
Meanwhile, in response to a firm date for National Guard deployment, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer criticized the President for not sending more troops or allocating “more resources” to the border. “While the announcement of more resources is welcomed, it does not appear to be enough,” said Gov. Jan Brewer. “We need the implementation of a federal plan to achieve victory over these brutal cartels and the porous nature of our open border.” Similarly, Sens. McCain and Kyl commented that while these additional border resources are “a step in the right direction,” a lot more still needs to be done—which no one would argue with. It’s called comprehensive immigration reform.
When it comes to immigration enforcement, it seems like the President just can’t win—either he’s doing too much to enforce “the laws on the books” or he’s not doing enough. The fact that deportations are up under President Obama doesn’t seem to matter to those who would rather score cheap political points rather than acknowledge the work on the border or any other enforcement benchmarks that DHS has met. Of course, for politicians like J.D. Hayworth, it may never be enough. This is, after all, the same man who actually advocated for a ban on legal immigration from Mexico. Not that Hayworth is concerned with things like credibility, but he might do himself a favor by acknowledging the reality that President Obama is spending enormous amounts of resources to enforce immigration law and secure the border.
Photo by Media Matters.
NAACP Says Pictures Tell a Thousand (Racist) Words
originally posted by Jorge Rivas for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 19th
Since 2,000 NAACP delegates unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Tea Party to condemn racism within its movement, everybody from Joe Biden to Sarah Palin has chimed in with opinions. Indeed, some Tea Partiers themselves have responded a bit too eagerly and proved the NAACP’s point in the process. The National Federation of Tea Parties had to expel both the Tea Party Express and its leader Mark Williams after Williams published a blog post in which he parodied the NAACP asking Abraham Lincoln to repeal emancipation:
How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?
Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.
Meanwhile, NAACP offices across the country have received hate mail and death threats. The NAACP blog has posted an audio recording of a death threat left on the answering machine of its Hollywood bureau.
Still, debate over whether the NAACP was out of line with its resolution continues. The resolution charges that Tea Party supporters have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and have “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.” To wit, the organization compiled the slide show above. Judge for yourself.
We’re Not Racist, Say Tea Partiers—While Being Racist
originally posted by Jamilah King for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 16th
And so it goes. First the NAACP unanimously passes an amendment asking the Tea Party to repudiate its racist factions. Then the Tea Party responds: “What racist factions?” and gets, predictably, racist.
As Joan Walsh pointed out over at Salon, Sarah Palin wrote that all decent Americans “abhor racism.” Especially her, because husband Todd is part Yupik Eskimo. Glenn Beck got involved. The St. Louis Tea Party suddenly became experts on the black American family structure. Tea Party activists took to Politico to defend what they called the “First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.” And after comparing the NAACP to slave traders, Tea Party Express Inc. spokesperson Mark Williams penned a mock letter to President Clinton from Ben Jealous asking, “How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?”
Thankfully, the helpful folks at Think Progress put together the video above that debunks all the nonsense. Shout out to our commenter SoutherGirl2 for putting us onto that one.
But as Kai Wright pointed out earlier this week, the whole argument is a moot point. The Tea Party’s motives and rhetoric are not exactly well kept secrets. But if it’s one thing their crazies do well, it’s inciting enough populist rage to impact public office. And that’s the scary part.
Jan Brewer Jumps Ahead In Polls, Except With Latinos
originally posted by Julianne Hing for Colorlines [click here]
Jul 15th
New numbers released today by Rocky Mountain Poll show that Arizona Gov Jan Brewer’s anti-immigrant tactics are paying off for her across the state. In a poll the company conducted of 524 voters in the week before July 11, Brewer’s got a 20-point lead in front of Attorney General Terry Goddard, the Democratic frontrunner. But look at the numbers broken down by race and Goddard has a strong lead against Brewer among Latino respondents–58 to 16 percent.
In fact, Goddard keeps his lead by a margin of two to one among other non-Latino people of color, too. And the numbers don’t look so great among voters who are asked about Brewer’s job performance. Of the general electorate, only 40 percent rate her performance as good, the rest call her performance fair or poor.
Back in April though, things were much closer. Goddard, who’s long been the Democrats’ frontrunner, had a three percent lead–47 to 44–over Brewer then. The numbers now are very different, Brewer’s got 45 percent of the votes of those who were polled, and Goddard’s got just 25 percent.
Of course, as Channing Kennedy has discussed, it’s important to approach any conversation about polling numbers, especially where SB 1070 is concerned, with some caution. But the numbers are particularly instructive for immigrant rights groups in Arizona who are pushing voter mobilization efforts as one of their strategies to fight the law, with the hope of turning outraged Arizona residents into registered voters come November. According to Francisco Heredia, the Arizona director of Mi Familia Vota, who spoke to Phoenix news station KPHO, only half of Arizona’s eligible Latino voters are registered. Latino voters make up just 17 percent of the current electorate, but 30 percent of Arizona’s population.