Politics Daily

Democrats, Republicans, Independents Differ on Issues That Worry Them Most

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-21T11:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Environment, Crime, Health Care, Race Issues, Immigration, Polls, Poll Watch, Independents, Deficit, Jobs, Economy

The top five issues that Americans worry about the most would not surprise anyone -- the economy, federal spending and the deficit, availability and affordability of health care, unemployment and the Social Security system. But one polling snapshot zeroes in on the difference in emphasis that Republicans, Democrats and independents regard as the top issues.

For the overall population, 71 percent say they worry a great deal about the economy, 64 percent name federal spending and the deficit, 58 percent are concerned about health care, 57 percent fret about unemployment and 51 percent mention Social Security, according to a Gallup poll conducted March 3-6.

But looked at along party lines, federal spending tops the list for Republicans at 79 percent, with the economy a close second at 76 percent. The size and power of government is a major worry for 62 percent of Republicans, compared to 48 percent for the overall public. Illegal immigration is another issue higher on the list for Republicans (at 55 percent) than it is for the general public (42 percent).

Democrats put health care at the top of their list with 69 percent saying that's their top worry, followed by the economy at 64 percent, unemployment at 60 percent and Social Security at 53 percent.

Among independents, the order of concerns is: the economy (72 percent), federal spending (65 percent), health care (58 percent) and unemployment (55 percent).

The issue Americans worry about least is race relations, which only 16 percent call a top worry, with the environment second to last at 34 percent. In between, for the public at large, is availability and affordability of energy (46 percent), crime and violence (44 percent), illegal immigration (42 percent), hunger and homelessness (41 percent), possibility of a terrorist attack in the U.S. (40 percent) and drug use (40 percent).

Health care did not break into the ranks of top concerns for Republicans, and a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, conducted March 8-13, shows that it continues to be a polarizing issues, with Republicans strongly opposed to the year-old reform measure and Democrats strongly in support.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Survey Rebuts Rep. Peter King's Claims on Radicals and Mosques

David Gibson — 2011-03-10T10:29:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Religion, Investigations, Immigration, Terror, National Security, Disputations, Congress, Conservatives, al Qaeda, Islam

As Rep. Peter King opened his controversial hearing into "radicalization in the American Muslim community" on Thursday morning, researchers were noting that King's claims about mosques in the United States being controlled by "radical imams" who are producing extremists are apparently untrue.

King, a Long Island Republican under fire for once supporting Irish Republican Army terrorism but now pursuing Islamic extremism, has claimed that over 80 percent of American mosques are controlled by "radical imams" and that Muslims are "an enemy living amongst us" who are not helping authorities combat terrorism. He has also lamented the number of mosques in the United States because they breed "home-grown" terrorists.

But a 2008 survey of 1,410 Muslims that was the largest ever conducted showed that almost all Muslims who regularly go to a mosque are likely to agree with the statement that Islam and the American political system are compatible.

The study by Karam Dana, who teaches at Tufts University, and colleague Matt A. Barreto shows that among Muslims who do not attend religious services regularly, 77 percent answered "yes" when asked whether Islam and American political values are compatible. Among those who are regularly involved in a mosque, that figure rose to 95 percent. The research confirmed results from a smaller, earlier survey.

"The more religious American Muslims happen to be, the more they participate in American politics," Dana told Religion News Service.

Like other religious institutions in the United States, mosques have helped members assimilate into American society and promoted support for American civic and political values, Dana said.

"Decades of scholarship on religious institutions, be they churches or synagogues, have shown that they foster participation in the political system," said Dana. "We believe that mosques are no different."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Most Americans Favor Citizenship for U.S.-Born Children of Illegal Immigrants

Bruce Drake — 2011-02-24T15:19:00+00:00

Filed under: Immigration, Polls, Poll Watch

While Americans still favor strong measures to crack down on illegal immigration, they oppose proposals to change the Constitution so that children born here to illegal immigrants would not automatically become citizens, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted Feb. 2-7.

Proposals to deny citizenship to what immigration hardliners call "anchor babies" born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents are unpopular with the public. Fifty-seven percent oppose changing the Constitution's 14th amendment that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Thirty-nine percent favor changing the amendment and 4 percent are undecided.

Republicans are roughly split on the issue with 49 percent saying the amendment should be left as it is and 47 percent favoring a change to the Constitution. Democrats want to leave the amendment as it is by a 66 percent to 32 percent margin and independents agree by 56 percent to 39 percent. Those sympathizing with the tea party movement favor a change to the Constitution to eliminate the automatic birthright by 57 percent to 39 percent.

When it comes to priorities in dealing with iillegal mmigration, a plurality -- 42 percent -- say equal emphasis should be given to stronger border security and enforcement of immigration laws as well as creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here. Thirty-five percent name better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws as the top priority, followed by 21 percent who say the priority should be on creating a way for those already here illegally to become citizens. Three percent were undecided.

Fifty-five percent of Republicans put the emphasis on border security, 11 percent on creating a path to citizenship and 33 percent say equal emphasis should be given to both. Forty-nine percent of Democrats would give equal emphasis to both compared to 27 percent who say creating a path to citizenship is most important and 22 percent who name border security as the priority. Forty-two percent of independents would give equal emphasis to both, 34 percent say strengthening border security is the priority, and 21 percent name creating a path to citizenship as most important.

Sixty-three percent of those who identify with the tea party movement put the emphasis on border security and stronger enforcement of laws while only 8 percent name creating a path to citizenship as a priority. Twenty-six percent would put equal emphasis on both.

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed approve of the Arizona's tough law cracking down on illegal immigrants, just slightly below the 64 percent who supported in last June. (Arizona lawmakers are proposing new immigration restrictions that the New York Times said "might make the controversial measures the state approved last year ... look mild).

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Arizona's Stormy Senate Race: Why the National GOP Is Watching

Luisita Lopez Torregrosa — 2011-02-17T22:49:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Immigration, Campaigns, Moderates, Tea Party, 2012 Elections

When Rep. Jeff Flake, a pro-immigration-reform Arizona Republican, said earlier this week he would run for the U.S. Senate in 2012, he immediately set off a chain of political storms inside and outside his own party, both in his state and in Washington.

His campaign is no home-state affair. It could be a barometer of GOP unity nationwide, illustrating how the party would navigate the divisions between its two major wings -- its hard-line tea party advocates and its traditional conservatives.

Arizona already has been a player at the national presidential level, and Flake's candidacy may be the GOP's first electoral test of conservative solidarity after its triumph in the midterm elections last year. Fractures are already in evidence in the U.S. House, where newcomers elected in large part with tea party support are breaking ranks with establishment leaders.

Rebellious Arizona -- the Perfect Venue for Next Week's Tea Party Summit

Suzi Parker — 2011-02-14T22:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Immigration, Conventions, Woman Up, Conservatives, Tea Party

Arizona -- with its battles over immigration and its liberal gun laws -- has become something of a poster child for the anti-government movement.

Which is why the Tea Party Patriots, the largest tea party group in the country, will hold their American Policy Summit at the Phoenix Convention Center Feb. 25-27.

The Tea Party Patriots, which claim more than 3,000 locally organized chapters and more than 15 million supporters nationwide, state on their summit website that they picked Phoenix because the state's tea party invited them and also to support Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's immigration reforms, which have been challenged by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Arizonans have been under a lot of pressure this past year in regards to their immigration reforms," the website says. "When surveyed, you said you support the changes that Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona legislature implemented. Going to Arizona for this American Policy Summit is a way to show support to those who implemented these changes."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Raises Stakes in Immigration Fight With Obama

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-11T12:12:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Crime, Immigration, Obama Administration, Governors, Video, Congress, Law, Arizona Shooting

As the nation watches Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' inspiring recovery from an assassination attempt, the border state's bitter struggle to enforce immigration laws might seem like yesterday's headlines, far removed from the life-and-death drama of the deadly shootings in Tucson last month.

But the immigration issue, or rather illegal immigration issue, never went away. It is still front and center for state officials -- "by far the number one issue," Gov. Jan Brewer said in announcing this week that Arizona would countersue the federal government for the right to police its border with Mexico.

"Our citizens have lived with this dark cloud for too long," the Republican governor said. "It's time for the federal government to do its job and secure the border."

But the Department of Homeland Security, one of the defendants in the suit, says it is doing its job, and a spokesman said the state's case was without merit.

Arizona's lawsuit serves as an answer to the Justice Department's legal challenge to the state's tough immigration law, which requires police to check the legal status of anyone stopped for a suspected offense in the state. (That part of the law has not been enforced since it was stayed by the pending Justice complaint.)

At the Sandra Day O'Connor federal courthouse Thursday, an angry Brewer nearly shouted as she made her case for the countersuit. "It's the federal government's responsibility to protect the public safety, health and welfare of the people of this country. . . . And the federal government sits by and does nothing," she said. "It's the federal government's responsibility!"

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano -- who happens to be the former Democratic governor of Arizona -- says the Obama administration is meeting that responsibility. "Illegal immigration is decreasing," she says. "Deportations are increasing; crime rates are dropping." Homeland Security Department spokesman Matt Chandler told the Arizona Republic that a "meritless court claim such as this does nothing to secure the border."

Giffords, who is recovering in Houston from a gunshot wound to the head, opposed the Arizona law. But she has been critical of the federal government's record on illegal immigration and does not support the boycott of Arizona backed by some critics of the law, including a colleague, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.).

(U.S. District Judge John M. Roll of Arizona and five others were shot dead in the Jan. 8 attack on Giffords outside of Tucson supermarket.)

In Phoenix Thursday, Brewer and state Attorney General Tom Horne acknowledged that the legal battle they were starting would be difficult and costly. Several states in the past have sued the federal government over immigration and failed. Brewer said $4 million in private donations has already been raised to defend the state law. That money can also help pay expenses for the countersuit, she said.

"We did not want this fight," she insisted. "We did not start this fight. But now that we're in it, we will not rest until our border is secured." She said the federal government "sits by and does nothing" while Arizona spends hundreds of millions of dollars "just to maintain the level we're at."

The claim argues what Brewer says are "simple points." The federal government must maintain "operational security" along the border and finish building a promised fence line; it must provide enough border guards to enforce immigration laws; the U.S. must reimburse Arizona for the cost of jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes; and it should allow the state to enforce federal immigration laws. The complaint also says Arizona should be protected against "invasion," but Horne said that didn't mean one country surging into another, but rather referred to the flood of illegal immigrants streaming into Arizona.

The law signed by Brewer last year requires local police to check for the immigration status of anyone stopped under "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status. Enforcement of key parts of the law was halted in court after the Obama administration argued that only federal authorities have the right to enforce immigration laws.

Watch some of Brewer's news conference, courtesy KVOA.com Tucson:

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Arizona Countersues Federal Government Over Immigration

Christopher Weber — 2011-02-10T20:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Immigration

Accusing the Obama administration of failing to enforce immigration laws, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Thursday the state will counter-sue the federal government for the right to police its border with Mexico.

The claim will be filed as part of the Justice Department's challenge to Arizona's controversial immigration law, The New York Times reported.

SB 1070, signed by Brewer last year, requires local police to check for the immigration status of anyone stopped under "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status. The law was halted in court after the administration argued that only federal authorities have the right to enforce immigration laws.

At a news conference in Phoenix, Brewer called border security "by far the No. 1 issue" in Arizona.

"Illegal immigration is costing us a billion dollars, a billion dollars a year to maintain the level we're at, and the federal government sits by and does nothing," she said.

Brewer says no taxpayer money will be spent on the court fight, CNN reported. Instead, Arizona will raise funds from private donors.

"Arizona did not ask for this fight with the federal government," Brewer said. "But now that we are in it, Arizona will not rest until our border is secured and federal immigration laws are enforced."

Justice Department officials did not immediately comment.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Four Mysteries That Will Shape the Fate of Centrist Democratic Senators in 2012

Jill Lawrence — 2011-02-09T22:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Budget, Immigration, Campaigns, Deficit, Unemployment, Analysis, Economy, Health Care Reform, 2012 Elections

And then there were five.

Two centrist Democratic senators from conservative or moderate states, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jim Webb of Virginia, have announced they will retire rather than run for reelection next year. That leaves Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jon Tester of Montana, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska (who just hired a campaign manager and looks ready to run). Are they doomed, along with their party's fragile 53-47 hold on the Senate?

Sometimes you really can gauge future elections by what happened in the last go-round. The big Republican victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races of 2009 certainly ended up foreshadowing the 2010 GOP sweep in Congress and the states. So the pounding Democrats took last fall was not encouraging for the quintet's prospects or those of the eventual nominees in North Dakota and Virginia. On top of that, Democrats will be defending some very tough territory in 2012.

Yet the shape of so many of these Senate races depends on a host of questions that can't be answered yet.

First and foremost, what will the economy look like as President Barack Obama and other candidates campaign in 2012? Poll after poll shows that by a huge margin, this is the issue the public cares about most. Economists are upbeat about growth this year, yet unemployment is expected to remain well over 8 percent. Projections show accelerated job creation in 2011, but at nowhere near the pace needed to replace some 8.75 million jobs lost in the recession.

It's possible the pace will speed up in 2012 and this very lagging indicator will start catching up to the rest of the recovery. That would ease some pressure on beleaguered Democrats and their president. But it's equally possible the economy will remain problematic for them.

A second, related question is whether Obama, Democrats and Republicans will reach agreement on a long-term plan to stop the frightening swelling of the national debt. Polls show that federal budget deficits and the soaring cumulative debt are alarming to the public, and Gallup just reported that Obama's rating on handling the deficit is at a new low. It's a gamble whatever he does, because it's not possible to predict what would disturb voters more: inaction, or fixing the problem with tax hikes, spending cuts and benefit trims.

Both of those questions contribute to a third, which is how will the public view Obama during the campaign? If his job approval rating is 50 percent or higher nationally, that bodes well for him. It may also help Democrats running in states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia, where Obama won in 2008 and is likely to compete hard again.

Former Virginia governor Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made that explicit regarding his own state. Commenting Wednesday on Webb's decision to retire, he said the eventual Senate nominee will benefit from "the investments that President Obama and the Democratic Party will make in Virginia in 2012." (That nominee conceivably could be him).

The president, however, will be a complication for McCaskill, Manchin and other Democrats whose states are not partial to Obama. The situation is so delicate in Missouri that McCaskill was suspected of privately hoping the DNC would not choose St. Louis for the 2012 convention despite public support for the home team. She tried to quash the controversy the other day with a tweet. "Of course I wanted DNC for St Louis. It would have brought $,organization, and face it, not getting it sure isn't gonna stop political attacks," she wrote.

Some of the litmus tests that may come up for endangered centrist Democrats include immigration, spending cuts and the Affordable Care Act. McCaskill, Tester, Manchin and Ben Nelson are taking a look at alternatives to an unpopular section of the new health law that requires almost everyone buy insurance. McCaskill has teamed up with Republican Pat Toomey to champion an end to earmarks.

On immigration, McCaskill is not playing it particularly safe. In December she made what she called "an emotional, difficult vote" in favor of the DREAM Act, which would allow children brought to the United States illegally to earn citizenship through college or military service. That may or may not go over better than Manchin's approach, which was to skip that vote and another one the same day on repealing the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay troops. Manchin, who was at a family gathering, later apologized and said it wouldn't happen again. He would have voted no in both cases.

The fourth looming question is whether voters will turn against Republicans in 2012. It's not an outlandish notion -- only 25 percent in one poll last month said GOP members of Congress would bring the right kind of change. At that point the party had controlled the House for about two weeks. Still to come: the protracted GOP push for deep spending cuts that would have noticeable impact on voters and their communities if they ever came to pass.

The political pendulum has made dramatic swings in the last five years, with national issues such as war and economics driving the movement back and forth. The major national factor in 2012 may well be how people feel about Obama. The endangered Democratic centrists will have to place a bet either for him or against him, and then cross their fingers.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Facebook and Twitter

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Illegal Immigration: Numbers Holding at 11.2 Million Despite Crackdowns

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-02-02T18:45:00+00:00

Filed under: State of the Union, Immigration, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Congress, Unemployment, Barack Obama

Some 11.2 million illegal immigrants lived in the United States in 2010, virtually the same as a year earlier and holding steady after peaking at 12 million in 2007, according to a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center.

Poll: Democrats and Republicans Strongly Favor Alternative Energy Incentives, Tax Overhaul

Bruce Drake — 2011-02-02T14:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Health Care, Guns, Taxes, Immigration, Polls, Trade, Energy, Afghanistan, Poll Watch, Independents, Congress

One of the big questions for Congress in 2011, now that Republicans control the House while Democrats still hold the reins in the Senate, is what issues both parties might be able to jointly address.

While public opinion is not always the determining factor, given the politics of Capitol Hill, two actions on which there is a good amount of bipartisan agreement would be to pass a bill providing incentives to develop alt ernative energy and an overhaul of the tax code, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Jan. 14-16.

Gallup asked those surveyed about eight possible actions Congress could take this year (although, for some reason, the list did not include health care reform or efforts to repeal it).

The five actions that got majority support were doing something to encourage alternative energy solutions (83 percent), revamping the tax code (76 percent), speeding up the withdrawal from Afghanistan (72 percent), passing an energy bill expanding drilling and exploration for oil and gas (65 percent) and approving a free-trade agreement with South Korea (53 percent).

Passing stronger gun control laws, as some lawmakers proposed after the Arizona shooting tragedy, fell just short of a majority at 49 percent. Two possible actions regarding immigration -- taking steps to deny automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents in the U.S. or providing a path to legal status for those here illegally -- ranked last, at 44 percent and 43 percent, respectively.

When it comes to how the results play out along partisan lines, the action where the results were the most similar was for overhauling the federal tax code, with support for that in the mid-to-high 70s for Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

There is not as much agreement on passing an alternative energy bill, but it still gets decisive majorities across the political board. Ninety-three percent of Democrats favor action on this issue, compared to 82 percent of independents and 75 percent of Republicans.

The complication, of course, is that major energy legislation tends to be tied to other more contentious proposals, as "cap and trade" was last year. If a proposal for encouraging alternative energy was part of such a bigger bill, the other issues could sink it.

Some of the biggest Democratic-Republican divisions were on gun control laws and proposals to provide a path to legal status for unauthorized immigrants. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats favored strong gun control laws compared to 30 percent of Republicans, and 64 percent of Democrats supported giving illegals a path to legal status, compared to only 27 percent of Republicans.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama's Centrist Tone Hits Right Note; State of the Union Ratings Soar

Melinda Henneberger — 2011-01-26T01:46:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, State of the Union, Education, Immigration, Trade, Energy, Obama Administration, Congress, Transportation, Analysis, Economy, Health Care Reform, China

The bar was lower for Barack Obama's State of the Union address because he only recently gave the speech of his life in Tucson -- and in the aftermath of that tragedy, no one in the chamber was going to so much as whisper, "You fib.''

The proof? Early reviews suggest that his calls for unity, "steady as she goes" affect and soothing, recycled rhetoric suited the moment; an online CBS News Poll of speech watchers found that a whopping 92 percent approved of his proposals, and 81 percent of those who watched said they now approve of the Obama's economic plans, up significantly from 54 percent before the speech. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicated that 84 percent of those who watched had a positive response.

Yes, the speech was laudable without ever making me want to cheer; it neither soared nor stumbled, while reminding us that everyone needs an editor. But it did succeed in presenting the president as the centrist he is, picking up on some Republican ideas while giving what in long stretches sounded like a U.S. Chamber of Commerce speech encouraging major investment in clean technology.

I might have been set up for a bit of a disappointment when White House spokesman Robert Gibbs promised that this speech would not be the usual laundry list of hopes and dreams; in a long middle section, that's exactly what it was.

But it was not the "theme-less pudding of presidential prose" that my colleague Walter Shapiro said most SOTUs turn into, either; it did have a theme, which was that the only way to grow jobs is to invest in education, infrastructure and research. And it did have a consistent tone, which was bipartisan throughout. As a result, at an important moment, he's made it at least a little trickier for Republicans to turn him down.

Of course he began by saying he and others were "mindful of the empty chair in this chamber, and pray for the health of our colleague - and our friend - Gabby Giffords.''

And he was at his most effective when he argued that the Tucson tragedy really had brought Congress and the country together: "Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater -- something more consequential than party or political preference.''

But even with Republicans and Democrats seated together for a change and on their best, first-date behavior, "What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow. . . . New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -- for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics."

My vote for most disingenuous line of the night is this one: "At stake right now is not who wins the next election -- after all, we just had an election.'' (Not only has the Republican congressional leadership declared that its top priority is making sure Obama is not re-elected, but his team is of course busy ramping up for '12, too.)

State of the Union: Obama Calls Investment in Innovation 'Our Sputnik Moment'

Alex Wagner — 2011-01-25T21:19:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Republicans, State of the Union, Education, Health Care, Immigration, Social Security, Energy, Obama Administration, Afghanistan, Congress, Arms Control, Deficit, Unemployment, Military, White House, Economy, Health Care Reform, Barack Obama, Iraq

President Obama outlined an ambitious plan Tuesday to "win the future," urging renewed investment in American technology, infrastructure and education, while simultaneously calling for a more streamlined federal government and a reduction of the deficit.

In his State of the Union speech to a joint session of Congress -- some of whose members crossed the aisle in a symbolic show of bipartisanship -- Obama emphasized a common purpose and a shared future. "We will move forward together, or not at all," he said, "for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics."

Early in his address, Obama called attention to the empty seat that would have been occupied by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was severely wounded during the Tucson shootings on Jan. 8.

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal Depicted in Nazi Uniform by Spanish-Language Newspaper

Tom Diemer — 2011-01-25T11:37:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Republicans, Scandal, Gaffes, Investigations, Media, Immigration, Governors, 2010 Elections, Congress, Ethics

Here we go again with the Nazi stuff. A Spanish-language newspaper in Atlanta, El Nuevo, has published a doctored photo of new governor Nathan Deal in a brown Nazi uniform complete with a fake Hitler mustache.

El Nuevo Georgia said its complaint with the Republican governor has to do with strong anti-immigrant rhetoric he used during the campaign last year. The story accompanying the dressed-up photo, headlined "Repression in the Age of Deal," recounted an ethics investigation of Deal during his time in Congress and also details past financial troubles.

Editor Rafael Navarro told CNN he thought the photo represented the fear of immigrants in the state at the outset of Deal's administration, and was also an attention-grabber for Americans who don't speak Spanish but see the newspaper. Navarro said traffic at the paper's website spiked after the picture went up.

Deal has not commented directly. But an aide said, "Those who can't formulate a coherent argument in our society's marketplace of ideas often resort to childish, even offensive tactics. This is pathetic."

Democratic state Rep. Pedro Marin, a Hispanic serving in the Georgia legislature, was quoted in the El Nuevo Georgia article but said he didn't know the photo would be used. "It is disrespectful," he said. "I might disagree with the policies of Governor Deal, but I respect him and the office he represents."

In Washington, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) got some unwanted attention last week when he suggested that House Republicans were using a Nazi-style "big lie" strategy to try to convince Americans that the new health care law is a government takeover of the system.

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Terry Jones, Pastor Who Threatened to Burn the Koran, Banned From U.K.

Delia Lloyd — 2011-01-20T11:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Immigration, International, United Kingdom, Islam

LONDON -- He was the small-town preacher who nearly brought the world to a standstill when he planned a mass burning of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Now, Pastor Terry Jones is back in the news: The British government says he is banned from entering the U.K.

Jones had accepted an invitation to speak next month to England Is Ours, a fringe anti-Islamic group with ties to the anti-immigrant British National Party. He was due to address protesters at a series of demonstrations against the expansion of Islam and the construction of mosques in the U.K.

But in a highly unusual move, British Home Secretary Theresa May put a stop to his visit. The home secretary has the power to exclude or deport anyone whose presence in the U.K. could threaten national security, public order or the safety of citizens, or if the person's views are deemed to glorify terrorism, promote violence or encourage other serious crimes.

After reviewing Jones' rhetoric, May concluded that he did indeed pose a security threat. As a Home Office spokesman put it: "The government opposes extremism in all its forms, which is why we have excluded pastor Terry Jones from the U.K. . . . Coming to the U.K. is a privilege, not a right, and we are not willing to allow entry to those whose presence is not conducive to the public good."

A letter from the Home Office was sent by courier Wednesday to the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., where Jones preaches. According to Wayne Sapp, the church's assistant pastor, the letter said that Jones' views could "foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the U.K."

Jones -- who vows to appeal the ban -- disagrees. "I have done a countless number of interviews, and in those I have stated and assured the media and British government we have no intention of doing anything against British law." He added: "We are not against Muslims, we are not against Islam. We welcome Muslims and have only spoken out against the radical element of Islam."

Sapp echoed this, saying that any risk of "disruption" is "pure speculation because we have never had any violence at any of our events."

But the last time another far-right British group organized an anti-Islam march, 250 of their supporters went on a rampage through a South Asian neighborhood in the town of Luton. Shop windows were smashed, cars overturned and a number of people were attacked.

There's also the possibility that Jones' visit could ignite a wave of counter-violence by pro-Islam groups. At the height of the controversy over Jones' threat to burn the Koran, effigies of the pastor were burned in Afghanistan and there was widespread condemnation across the Muslim world. (President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus all urged Jones not to engage in the provocative act, with Petraeus saying it could endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Americans worldwide.)

Anti-immigrant -- and, in particular, anti-Islamic -- sentiment was rife in Europe throughout the summer and fall. In December, an Iraqi-born Swede set off a car bomb in the Swedish capital of Stockholm before killing himself with a second bomb strapped to his body. In the course of the investigation, it emerged that the man had studied and lived in Luton, a town with a large Muslim population that has become synonymous with Islamic extremism in the minds of many Brits.

Ironically, the same day that news of the Jones ban hit the British press, the Conservative Party chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, made a speech about the extent of prejudice against Muslims in the U.K. Warsi is the first Muslim to sit in the British Cabinet. She said that Islamophobia has "passed the dinner-table test" and become widely socially acceptable in the U.K.

Meanwhile, a press release issued by Stand Up America -- which organizes rallies around the U.S. at which Jones speaks -- said the U.K. ban exemplifies the sabotage of basic human rights such as freedom of speech.

Taken together, these two developments signal that ban or no ban, Jones may just be the tip of the iceberg where this debate is concerned.

Follow Delia on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

From 9/11 to Tucson: No Wonder Our Politics Are So Paranoid

Walter Shapiro — 2011-01-17T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Guns, Immigration, Terror, Bill Clinton, Obama Administration, Conservatives, Deficit, Tea Party, Analysis, Economy, Health Care Reform, Barack Obama, China

Nearly a half century ago - writing in the shadow of the John Birch Society and Joe McCarthy - liberal historian Richard Hofstadter identified what he called, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Perhaps too glibly, Hofstadter tried to link the anti-Catholic and anti-Masonic agitation of the 19^th century with the right-wing conspiracy theories that arose out of the Cold War. (Robert Welch, the founder of the Birch Society, actually believed that Dwight Eisenhower - Ike! - was "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.")

Endorsing the mainstream theories of Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell and others, Hofstadter posited that 1960s conservative extremists felt dispossessed. They believed that - as Hofstadter put it - "America has been largely taken away from them . . . The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals. The old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers."

It all sounds eerily contemporary, like the New York Review of Books trying to explain Glenn Beck's appeal. And, yes, these words do convey more than a whiff of the condescension that East Coast intellectuals have applied to those unfortunates condemned to live in the likes of Muncie, Ind., and Enid, Okla.

Immigration Blues: Obama Scraps Full 'Virtual' Border Fence

Tom Diemer — 2011-01-15T14:28:00+00:00

Filed under: Crime, Immigration, Obama Administration, Video, Military, Technology

The "virtual" border fence isn't a virtual reality anymore.

The $1 billion project to install sensors, radar, video and other technology as a way of spotting illegal immigrants crossing over from Mexico to the United States has been scrapped by the Obama administration, Reuters and the Associated Press reported.

The SBInet program, started in 2006 under the Bush administration, faced a series of cost overruns and missed deadlines. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says proven, commercially available technology -- aerial drones, thermal imaging and other surveillance systems -- will be used in place of a full virtual fence across 53 miles of borderland in Arizona.

The abandonment of the full-scale virtual fence comes as the White House grapples with on-going pressure to improve security along the border. In 2010, Obama signed legislation adding 1,500 Border Patrol agents, customs inspectors and other law enforcement officers to stem the flow of drugs and nab smugglers and other illegals trying to cross into the U.S.

Napolitano said in a statement the "new strategy" would be more realistic -- balancing "cost and capability."

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Rep. Steve King Didn't Get the Immigration Job He Wanted. Smart Move, GOP

Jill Lawrence — 2011-01-11T21:58:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Republicans, Immigration, Analysis, Barack Obama

Rep. Steve King of Iowa fully expected to become chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration -- and his party's leading voice on immigration -- when Republicans took over the House this month. He talked as if it were a done deal, and it was reported that way by many outlets.

But King learned last week it was not to be. Instead, even though he was the senior member of the panel, GOP leaders tapped veteran Rep. Elton Gallegly of California.

Why did they snub King, a quotable cable regular, as their chief immigration spokesman? Just guessing, but . . .

1. He designed a wall topped with electrified wire to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the southern border and explained, "We do that with livestock all the time."

2. He has a plan to prolong conservative rule: "Every time we give amnesty for an illegal alien, we deport a liberal."

3. He says police can sense who might be an illegal immigrant by indicators such as clothing, shoes, accent and "the type of grooming they might have."

4. In 2008 he predicted that if Barack Obama won the election, "radical Islamists" would be "dancing in the streets because of his middle name (Hussein)."

5. Last year he said the president has a "default mechanism" that makes him favor blacks over whites, and also called him "very, very urban."

6. Last month he called Joe McCarthy a "hero for America" and said he favors re-establishing the House Un-American Activities Committee, "but I would support a different committee name so that we don't have to deal with the history, and move forward."

Republicans need to appeal to moderates to do well in the 2012 presidential and congressional races. They also need to attract minority voters, who have been supporting Democrats in droves. Last year, national exit polling showed, Republicans captured 9 percent of the black vote and 38 percent of Latinos - and that was much better than their 2008 performance. Two days after King learned he would not be chairman, in fact, former Florida governor Jeb Bush published an essay about the critical importance of GOP outreach to Hispanics.

Gallegly's California district north of Los Angeles is more than a quarter Hispanic. The California Independent Voting Network notes that he was named one of the top 10 immigration hawks in 2006, is part of the Border Patrol Hall of Fame, and chaired a 1995 immigration task force that saw most of its recommendations become law the following year. "He does not have a history of heated rhetoric behind him," the group said, and because of that may be able to "maneuver the waters of immigration reform" with both parties.

In an interview with National Journal, King blamed his situation on Speaker John Boehner and Boehner's lack of commitment to the immigration issue. He said the Gallegly pick proves the House "is not a meritocracy."

The day before he found out he wouldn't be promoted, King introduced a bill to end automatic citizenship for all children born in the United States and instead limit it to babies of citizens, permanent legal immigrants and immigrants in the military. He doesn't plan to abandon that crusade or others. Plan B is to take his case to the grassroots across the country, the goal being enough support and noise that "the guy with the gavel hears it."

Follow Jill Lawrence on Facebook and Twitter

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hispanics Are Likely to Play Larger Role in Next Elections

Luisita Lopez Torregrosa — 2011-01-06T15:34:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Race Issues, Immigration, 2012 Elections

With historic victories in the midterm elections, Hispanics flexed their growing political muscle, helping elect -- and defeat -- well-known top-tier candidates in places like California and Nevada, New Mexico and Florida.

At the same time, a new political profile of Hispanic Republican leaders emerged, giving a clear and loud warning to the Democratic Party that the Latino vote is not a monolithic bloc that the party could continue to take for granted.

Now, with the changes brought about by the 2010 congressional reapportionment, Hispanics are likely to play a larger role in national politics, says a new Pew Hispanic Center report released on Wednesday, suggesting far-reaching implications for the 2012 elections.

The reallocation of voting strength, based on a new decennial population count of 308,745,538 Americans, gives more congressional seats to the South and West, where Hispanics make up a large percentage of the population, and take away from the Midwest and Northeast (New York lost two seats), where Hispanics are not as prevalent.

Though the shift in seats should expand Latino voting strength and might even empower pro-immigration reform activists who have repeatedly faced opposition in Washington and defeat in their home states, it does not guarantee that Hispanic Democrats will easily gain a bigger foothold in their states.

Some of those states, like Texas, where Latinos make up a large segment of the population, are states under the control of conservative Republicans in state legislatures and state houses. They are likely to redraw districts to dilute Democratic strength and to favor Republicans who generally support the sort of tough anti-illegal immigration laws that many Latinos oppose.

Indeed, a growing number of newly surging Hispanic Republicans could make further gains in Southern and Western states. While no Hispanic Democrat won high office in November, three Hispanic Republicans did: Susana Martinez, 51, whose victory in November made her the first female Hispanic governor of heavily Democratic New Mexico; Marco Rubio, 39, the charismatic new Florida senator; and Brian Sandoval, who was elected the first Hispanic governor of Nevada.

The changes in the redrawn congressional map can't be overestimated. For instance, two states that gained seats, Nevada and Florida, have been major swing battlegrounds in recent presidential elections (voting for the Republic nominee, George W. Bush, in 2004, and for the Democrat, Barack Obama, in 2008). They will play even more crucial roles in 2012 and beyond. If President Obama were to win in 2012 the same states he won in 2008, he would get six fewer electoral votes under the new alignment.

At 47 million strong, Hispanics are the nation's largest minority, making up more than 15 percent of the population. They constitute only about 7 percent of registered voters nationwide. But they make up a higher percentage in Hispanic-heavy states such as California, Texas, Florida and much of the rest of the West and Southwest.

Latinos made up 15 percent of the electorate in Nevada in 2010. In California, their strength rose to 22 percent in the midterms from 18 percent in 2008. Hispanics voted heavily for Democratic candidates in those states, pollsters said. For instance, an estimated 90 percent of Hispanic voters supported Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. Faced with a Republican tea party candidate, Reid was rescued from almost certain defeat by the Hispanic vote.

Still, Latino Democrats have felt taken for granted and neglected by their party. For one thing, immigration reform, much promised and long awaiting, has gone nowhere but to repeated defeat. And, incredibly, the Democrats did not put up a single Latino candidate for major office in the midterms - not one. On the other hand, several Latino Democrats seeking re-election to congressional seats lost to Republican Latinos in Texas, Washington State and Idaho.

A few weeks ago, in the wake of the Senate's defeat of the Dream Act, a 10-year-old piece of legislation that would open a path to citizenship to young illegal immigrants, Latino activists threatened to cut ties to President Obama and the Democrats and take the movement to the streets.

A Hispanic leader, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez of Chicago, vowed to split from the Democratic Party and launch a campaign of direct action like the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Though Gutiérrez is not a household name, he was named the second-most important Latino leader, behind Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor of New York, in a Pew Hispanic Center poll.

Gutiérrez's threat was not the only one coming from militant Latinos. Others across the nation were weighing whether to break ties with the Democrats and form an independent grass-roots organization. They discussed the idea among themselves, inspired by the tea party, not in substance but style, the Las Vegas Sun reported.

They wanted to call it the "Tequila Party."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Republicans and Their Thursday Constitutional

Robert and Donna Trussell — 2011-01-06T11:42:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Republicans, Humor, Immigration, Chaos Theory

Follow the Trussell cartoons
on Twitter at ChaosTheoryPD

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The 14th Amendment: It's What's for Dinner

Donna Trussell — 2011-01-05T09:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Gay Rights, Immigration, Woman Up, Supreme Court

Why's my favorite amendment so nervous?

The 14th Amendment has always been on the hot seat. This Reconstruction-era amendment, adopted in 1868, gave blacks a path to citizenship, made the Bill of Rights applicable to states, and desegregated schools in the 1950s.

Now, new controversies are brewing. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in an interview recently published in California Lawyer that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee equal rights to women, gays and lesbians.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Error? So now equal protection is unconstitutional?

Scalia goes on to explain that he's not defending discrimination, just saying that these pesky questions should be answered by legislatures and ballot boxes, not constitutional amendments.

Simple. Just pass a law. Like the law making discrimination based on age illegal. That's been around since 1967 and I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the over-45 population has borne the brunt of our unemployment crisis.

As if Scalia's assault on the 14th Amendment weren't enough, on Wednesday, Jan. 5, Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce (author of Arizona's infamous SB 1070) and state Rep. John Kavanaugh will hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. and present proposals that would alter the birthright citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants.

Lawmakers from 14 states -- Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah -- will attend. They plan to introduce similar legislation this year (14 states . . . 14th Amendment . . . here's hoping our innate love of symmetry keeps more states from piling on).

The legal term is jus soli, or "right of the territory." Section 1, Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment is quite clear: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SB 1070 was controversial enough, but it targeted illegal immigrants and those who harbor them. A challenge to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment will fly in the face of history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted citizenship to people born on American soil, but the 39th Congress added the law to the Constitution, making repeal much more difficult.

The 39th Congress worried about the staying power of newly minted rights. America had just fought a brutal civil war, and was still deeply divided. With what we now know about events that took place during the Jim Crow era, I think most Americans would have to agree the concern was justified.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Politics Daily

Democrats, Republicans, Independents Differ on Issues That Worry Them Most

Survey Rebuts Rep. Peter King's Claims on Radicals and Mosques

Most Americans Favor Citizenship for U.S.-Born Children of Illegal Immigrants

Arizona's Stormy Senate Race: Why the National GOP Is Watching

Related Stories

Rebellious Arizona -- the Perfect Venue for Next Week's Tea Party Summit

Related Stories

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Raises Stakes in Immigration Fight With Obama

Arizona Countersues Federal Government Over Immigration

Four Mysteries That Will Shape the Fate of Centrist Democratic Senators in 2012

Illegal Immigration: Numbers Holding at 11.2 Million Despite Crackdowns

Related Stories

Poll: Democrats and Republicans Strongly Favor Alternative Energy Incentives, Tax Overhaul

Obama's Centrist Tone Hits Right Note; State of the Union Ratings Soar

Related Stories

State of the Union: Obama Calls Investment in Innovation 'Our Sputnik Moment'

Related Stories

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal Depicted in Nazi Uniform by Spanish-Language Newspaper

Terry Jones, Pastor Who Threatened to Burn the Koran, Banned From U.K.

From 9/11 to Tucson: No Wonder Our Politics Are So Paranoid

Related Stories

Immigration Blues: Obama Scraps Full 'Virtual' Border Fence

Rep. Steve King Didn't Get the Immigration Job He Wanted. Smart Move, GOP

Hispanics Are Likely to Play Larger Role in Next Elections

Republicans and Their Thursday Constitutional

The 14th Amendment: It's What's for Dinner