Thoughts on the Latino vote and President Obama’s speech to NALEO…

Lake Buena Vista, Florida - Following sharp criticism of his commitment to the Latino community suggested during speeches by presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Senator Marco Rubio, President Barack Obama responded in kind by offering a clear contrast to his Republican adversaries during a key election year address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”). Speaking only a few hours after Rubio, who had told the conference that the President “has not made Latino issues a priority” and offered as proof the fact that the President “hasn’t been to the NALEO conference in the three years since he took office”, Obama seemed unfazed by Rubio’s criticism and instead focused his energy on connecting with the audience and contrasting himself with Romney early and often.

The President began his speech by discussing the vital role of “Dreamers” in helping to fuel the economic engine of America and discussed how immigrants have always been “risk takers, not looking for handouts and some of the hardest working people around.” He then asked the crowd about the kind of vision the Latino community was looking for in their President, specifically asking “what vision do we stand for, who do we fight for?” in reference to Romney’s policies which the President claims would favor the rich and result in a return to “trickle down” economics. He further contrasted his vision from Romney’s by discussing his focus on expanding education opportunities through expanded Pell grants, encouraging community colleges as a bridge to a higher education, and not teaching to a test and instead focusing on expanding curriculums instead of slashing funding like the GOP in Congress and Romney have favored doing by gutting the Department of Education.

The crowd of officials seemed receptive to the President’s message on education, and that didn’t change when the President shifted to discussing his record in what appeared to be a direct response to Romney’s claim the day before that “President Obama doesn’t respect the Latino vote.” He began by mentioning that his administration has already cut taxes 18 times for Latino small business owners and for Latino middle class taxpayers, he discussed the impact of health care reform on the Latino community, the fact that under the Affordable Care , Act Americans will no longer go broke because they are sick. He highlighted the fact that Latino’s have the highest uninsured rate and that it was the “right thing to do passing health care reform.” Finally, he qualified the progress made thus far with the fact that there is more to do, that we need to put more good teachers in our class rooms, need to put people back to work restoring our infrastructure.

Next, the President addressed the need for Congress to take on comprehensive Immigration “in order to continue attracting talented hard working people who believe in this country.” He mentioned that the delay in action on immigration has not been a lack of technical knowhow on how to fix the system, and he used the work put in to the issue by McCain, Bush, and Ted Kennedy, showing there was bi-partisan support at a point in time not long ago. He then blamed the stale mate on obstruction caused by Tea Party faction of the Republican Party in Congress. In stark contrast to Romney who said he would veto the DREAM Act, The President also argued that Congress should have passed the Dream ACT because it was a bill written by both parties. He drove home the point by pointing out that the Republicans who helped write the bill blocked it in the end, and that “the need didn’t change, the bill didn’t change, the only thing that had changed was politics.” He then went on to justify his administrations action stating that “lifting the shadow of deportation and giving these children an opportunity” was the right thing to do. He called it a temporary measure, and reiterated that Congress needs to act and send a bill to his desk ASAP.

Finally, the President closed his speech to NALEO by discussing larger election year themes with a 2008 feel, discussing with passion the need for unity as a country to fully recover from the financial collapse, and mentioning that “an enduring promise of America” is what drives immigrants to America. He mentioned how his story would not have been possible in any other country, and he drew an us versus them type distinction between his vision and the Romney vision when he wrapped up stating that the march toward freedom and equality has always been tough, and that people have tried to stop the progress of minorities over time, but that in the end persevered with the familiar theme from Obama’s historic run to the White House, ending with a resounding “yes we can, si se puede” and a huge applause from the conference crowd that was nearly twice as loud as that of Mitt Romney the day before.

Thoughts on the plausibility of a Rand Paul/Sarah Palin Tea Party Presidential Ticket in 2012…

Though we are nearly two and a half years from the 2012 Presidential Election, it’s never too early to speculate upon which prospective candidates will represent the respective political parties on the national stage in two years. Despite their best efforts to reign in and unite with the Tea Party, the establishment of the Republican Party may have to deal with a difficult scenario in 2012. One that is eerily similar to 1992, where Ross Perot ate up the moderate conservative vote which helped the election to swing Bill Clinton’s way. The rightward shift of the conservative political spectrum has helped to legitimize the Tea Party, and with the primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky this past Tuesday, the Republican Party now has in its midst the first true Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate for office.

Now, the Republican Party leadership must choose either to embrace Paul and his followers, who beat their establishment candidate handedly, or they must stay Luke warm towards the more controversial elements of the Tea Party, and the radical rhetoric that could drive away moderate voters this fall and going forward. The quagmire for Republicans is that over the next two years there are likely to be more and more social conservative candidates emerging under the Tea Party label. The Tea Party will likely continue to eat away at the Republican Party’s socially conservative base. Therefore, as national trends continue to show increased interest in alternatives to the status quo, the Tea Party could be set to run third party candidates at the national level.

Should this game changing, third party presidential run occur, the two politicians who have been the most vocal advocates of the Tea Party message, and by far the most popular figures associated with the larger anti-big government movement, are the before mentioned Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, and the keynote speaker of the first national Tea Party Convention, former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This potential star pairing would most likely garner the support of a significant portion of the socially conservative electorate, dealing a critical blow to the chances of the Republican Party ticket.

The electoral impact on the other side of the aisle would be negligible, as few moderate to die hard liberals would be inclined to support the social policies of a Tea Party ticket that is to the right of the Republicans in almost every way. Therefore, if a scenario such as Obama/Biden v Paul/Palin v Romney/Brown were to arise, it’s conceivable that the Republican ticket could lose as much as 20% of its voting base in the process. Much like in 1992, this division amongst conservatives would deliver an easy general election victory to Barack Obama and the Democrats, and thus leave the Republican Party no choice but to crawl home and start over again. Only this time, the challenge for Republicans is coming from the right, and not the center of the political spectrum.

Thoughts on the misguided use of phrases like “Take our country back” by politicians…

It’s been hailed as the official rallying cry for the Republican Party in 2010, most recently used by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, at this week’s Annual NRA convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, when he stated "We can't wait 'til 2012 to start taking our country back," as he addressed the crowd of gun owners and advocates for Second Amendment rights who have gathered for their yearly homage to gun rights. At the same event, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a common user of this kind of incendiary verbiage, pushed a similarly misguided message that would make it seem as if government agents were holding random gun search and seizure operations aimed at disarming common citizens. Claiming "all they do is take them away from law-abiding citizens and we use them responsibly," a statement which is simply overstated and false. These blatant, irresponsible attempts to rouse an audience that is both armed and angry at the government, are shameful actions taken by desperate politicians who only stand to gain from divisive, deceiving, and obvious fear tactics.

Both Palin and Barbour know that they can easily anger the mainly conservative NRA crowd by implying that the current administration is out to take away their Constitutional freedoms. They can play to the biggest fear of Second Amendment advocates, feeding their ears with falsehoods about the intentions of the parties in charge that most advocates will not verify for soundness. In addition, as they speak to mainly single race audiences, many conservative politicians are searching for ways to bring down the increasing minority population around them, including the President of The United States. Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in states such as Arizona has been brewed by politicians who seek to gain from further dividing Americans who live amongst immigrants. In ignoring their own immigrant backgrounds, and putting the troubles of our time on the backs of the most vulnerable populations, these kinds of politicians are part of the problem, not the solution to a better, more united America.

Unfortunately, even those conservatives who sense the wrong in the anti-minority rhetoric are unwilling to speak up because of fears of being alienated by their party or social group. The phrase “take our country back,” in particular, is one of the most divisive statements a politician can make. It implies that those who are in power are un-American, inferior, or unworthy of the respect of the office they have been democratically elected to. This phrase, and others like it, can also be used to imply that someone who doesn’t belong is infringing on our rights or space. In reaction, those who are inclined to promote such thought are most inclined to do so at the expense of the masses that they alienate by doing so. The indisputable facts are that no one has taken this country, constitutional freedoms, or opportunity away from anybody living in America. It’s an illusion funded by the RNC and others to win big in November.

President Obama, Congressional Democrats and Republican, and Supreme Court Justices are not going to take guns away from law abiding citizens any time soon. Immigrants are not trying to take over the state of Arizona, or any other part of the United States. Still, even in 2010, listening to the speeches at the NRA Convention would make it seem like an invasion of our rights is under way. Politicians nationwide should take note of these mistaken tactics. We are a nation that needs momentum in the direction of unification, and our better days can be ahead of us if we put this divisive behavior on hold. This idealistic view can only become a reality when we as citizens stop supporting such intolerant nonsense. We are a nation of immigrants and laws, and NRA members, Tea Party Members, and others must understand that the two can surely coexist without having to take back something that was never taken away; our granted freedoms and our great country.

Thoughts on the politics of fear and homegrown militant groups…

Over the past few weeks, there has been a sharp increase in the mainstream media’s coverage of domestic born militia groups. These fringe groups have existed for some time, tending to loom in the shadows while leaders they support are in charge, only to pop up when leaders they perceive as a threat to their liberties are in power. The 2008 election of President Obama has fueled the fire for some of these mainly conservative militias and impressionable activists who fear that the end of times is coming, and that a socialist big brother type government is coming to get them. Recent action from groups such as the “Hutaree” and the “Guardians of the New Republics”, have reopened the conversation on the cause and effect of militia groups in modern day America.

On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss the members of such organizations as crazy, confused, and mostly talk, but when a militia begins to act out on their credos, we must remember our not so distant past and apply the lessons we learned from domestic based terror incidents such as the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas. With political conditions that are all too similar, if not more intense, the time has come to put a collective clamp down on these groups before their radical messages reach the wrong ears.

The fact is that none of these armed militias are truly capable of individually or simultaneously challenging the United States Military in a fire fight, but their calls to action are a cause for concern to those whose jobs it is to protect our elected officials and government workers in the workplace. These groups tend to do all of the talking, but none of the action, relying on lone wolves to carry out their dirty work. Militia leaders prey on these fearful souls, and are actively looking for those who will take the fall in order to become a “hero” of their particular cause. Fanning the flames of these types of movements, though indirectly, are certain political leaders who have chosen to use hateful discontent for political gain. This is not only irresponsible and borderline illegal under the Smith Act, but extremely dangerous given our fragile history.

Though it is not scientifically provable, the provoking actions of the past year by Republican members of Congress, along with targeted fear speak from primarily Conservative talk show radio hosts, has no doubt indirectly resulted in a call for action to paranoid homegrown extremists. Given today’s revelation that the GNR sent letters to 30 US Governors, telling them to “leave office within three days or be removed,” and the recent arrest of the Hutaree Militia in Michigan, the responsible action by political leaders and talk show hosts is to condemn these actions, not to promote them through dangerous rhetoric.

Representatives Boehner, Cantor, and Bachmann in particular, along with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and other fringe feeding radio and TV hosts, are increasingly guilty of fueling the fires of domestic discontent. From drastic claims of Armageddon and “death panels” during the lead up to the passing of health care reform, to the inciteful waving of “don’t tread on me” flags in front of an angry mob-like crowd in the capital by Republican members of Congress, the first year and a half of the Obama Presidency has been marked by increased fear mongering by fringe activists and pundits. Distorted political scare tactics fed by irresponsible elected officials and media people in a position to reach millions of Americans every day, who put their stamp of approval on the behavior of the radical few.

We don’t want to see a repeat of our tragic history, and lose more of our best leaders due to unfounded fears and hate. If we see a friend, family member, or colleague engaging in incendiary or hateful commentary, we should let them know that we have already traveled down this path, and the results were devastating to our country. In 2010, we must be smart enough to realize the amazing power of our words. Whether you do or don’t support a politician, policy decision, or certain ideology, we must all agree that violence and hate are not the answer to attaining a better union. Let’s hope that our leaders in Washington DC, state capitals, townships, and in the media will take heed of their responsibility in keeping the discourse of our debates and conversations civil. Only then can we avoid the same tragic consequences suffered by generations before us.

Thoughts on political incivility in 2010

It’s time for us all to take a deep breath. Our history has shown us that the current path of incivility some have chosen to take will only lead us to repeat our darkest days as a nation. Whether you supported health care reform or not, we can all agree that we collectively want to be defined by the best we have to offer, not the worst. Right, left, or middle politically, no reasonable person can excuse the recent threats of violence made against multiple members of Congress and The President of the United States. This should not be the case in 2010, a time where the perception abroad of the strength of our democracy must not be in question. With two wars still in progress, we must remain strong and united in our purpose to represent what makes America great: our civility and our common ideals.

No matter how deeply rooted your opposition to any one particular policy; there is nothing in our character as a nation that allows for such hateful actions. No elected official who voted for the Health care Reform Bill deserves to have their families targeted, nor should people take to arms and fire at a Republican representative’s campaign office. Have we not learned these lessons from tragic events such as the Oklahoma City Bombings in 1993, the Civil War, and the assassinations of JFK and Abraham Lincoln? Now is the time for us to unite despite our differences, take a moment to realize we are all Americans despite our political opinions, and put an end to this violent nonsense.

When we allow our own selfish reasoning to outweigh common sense civility, we endanger the very core of our values as Americans. Violence against our neighbors, agree with them or not, is not something we can afford to tolerate. It’s our duty to let those who are distraught know that they need only vote to express their disdain for public policy. Our leaders need to come together on a bi-partisan basis and show Americans that they are united under one flag, one constitution, and a lasting creed to remain civil in the midst of tough argument and debate.

As we deploy our troops to foreign nations, it is imperative that we set a good example for those whom we are trying to help achieve a free democracy. We need to respect one another’s opinions, and if we should disagree, act like we’ve been there before, and put hatred to the side. Our country cannot afford to become more divided. Unless we can return to an era of respect towards our political leaders, and most importantly, one another, the ideal of America as a civil democracy will quickly fall into jeopardy. Today is the best time to end the hate, the animosity, the incitement, the cynicism, and to allow the best of us to come forward. I hope we can all agree that coming together in condoning the past weeks actions of a radical few is in the best interest of all Americans.

Thoughts on the future of the Tea Party Movement

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a landmark occurrence in the sequence of events leading to the American Revolution. That day, fed up colonists revolted violently against the imposing taxes placed on tea by King George. Their cause, defending the rights of the colonies to engage in commerce without such a huge tax burden imposed by the British, ultimately led to the tar and feathering of British soldiers in front of an angry mob. The actions taken that day eventually helped to allow revolutionary aspirations to reach a fever pitch.

Flash forward to 2008, following the selection of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, it seemed there was a dramatic split between the social conservatives in the party and John McCain’s moderate Republican base. McCain, considered barely a Republican by many conservatives (dating back to his battles with George W. Bush during the 2000 Republican Primary process), never had control of his own party’s message. Social conservatives felt alienated by the mainstream Republican’s lack of enthusiasm for their core issues, including abortion, gun control, and a united disdain for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Their discontent would seal his fate.

Though McCain would attempt to entice the far right with gimmicks such as “Joe the Plumber”, most social conservatives felt a lack of enthusiasm by the mainstream Republican Party towards their social agenda, and they stayed home on election night in 2008. The next morning, it was obvious that there was a considerable gap in the conservative movement. Born out of discontent towards Washington, a perception of taxation without representation, and a general dislike for the agenda of President Obama, The Tea Party Movement, as they called themselves, took on increased traction by filling the gap amongst social conservatives looking for a platform to organize upon.

The Tea Party quickly grew into a group of loosely affiliated sub-groups, rallying behind politicians who fulfilled their agenda of a more socially conservative union. Though on the face, the movement had legitimate grass-roots ideals, such as opposition to the bank bailouts and the Recovery Act, the lack of leadership amongst the group allowed a radical element to hijack their cause. During the heated debates over health care last summer, The Tea Party jumped upon every rumor, true or false, and marketed health care as a government takeover. Followers took to the streets and town halls, and the opportunists in the crowd began to use the publicity of the moment to promote anti-minority, anti-government, and generally divisive sentiments among the movement.

Though it is true that many Tea Party members are good people, the above-stated hijacking took center stage this past weekend with the actions of health care protesters in Washington DC. Representing the Tea Party “Patriots”, some in the crowd channeled their inner 1960’s by raining down verbal abuse on minority members of Congress as they made their way to debate and vote on the bill before them. 50 years after the civil rights era, a radical few have tainted the image of the social conservative movement in this country. Tea Party members, lacking a leader, have no unified message with which to combat the hijacking of their cause by the fringes of the right. Some seem to condone the actions, and some seem to hold these people in contempt. What is sure, is the demise of the Tea Party Movement should they continue to allow uncivil behavior to define them going forward.

Republicans who have embraced the Tea Party, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sarah Palin, stand guilty of inciting these crowds by playing to their most cynical and egregious claims for short term political gain. The result of this kind of irresponsible guidance has been mob like action by radical Tea Party members who have taken the support of these politicians to heart. The reality is that the Republican Part cannot allow the Tea Party to grow too large without incorporating them, or they run the risk of having the conservative vote split in November.

In the upcoming weeks, we will see attempts by many previously moderate Republicans to embrace the Tea Party. Even though they fly to the right of their true political identity. Already, in an attempt to reign in the Tea Partiers, former Bush Chief of Staff Karl Rove has begun talking down to them, blaming their lack of civility on the politically unsophisticated nature of the movement. Leading to the bigger questions going forward: First, will a cause, which has taken on its own identity, begin to run its own candidates in opposition to Democrats and Republicans? Second, will the Tea Party fold to pressure from the GOP and join the Republican cause going forward? And finally, can the Republican Party survive without gaining their support? The answers will arise in the months ahead, but the impact on the political landscape, much like the Tea Party of 1773, will be felt for years to come.