Like clockwork, as soon as Rick Perry joined the GOP presidential field, the liberal media started slashing at the Texas Governor, impugning him as a “name-calling,” “human tornado,” “anti-science” racist —just “Bull Connor with a smile,” according to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Plus, Perry’s best-in-the-nation record on job creation is really a myth — not a “Texas miracle” but a “Texas tragedy,” according to CBS News. As for Barack Obama, CNN shows they play no favorites, holding the President’s feet to the fire in a grueling interview: “The last time you were elected, you got Sasha and Malia a cute little puppy, Bo. What are you going to get them the next time, if you’re re-elected?” These quotes, plus many more, in the latest edition of MRC’s Notable Quotables (best quotes after the jump; full issue posted here at MRC.org). Media Slash at Rick Perry, the “Human Tornado” “On the broadcast tonight, fighting words. Rick Perry comes out swinging and talking, and the White House tells him to watch what he says….The rest of the country is learning what Texans already know about their Governor, what he says, what he does, how he does business….Today’s debate had to do with money, name-calling, and whether or not the President of the United States loves his country.” — NBC’s Brian Williams opening the August 16 Nightly News . Anchor Diane Sawyer: “The human tornado from Texas, Governor Rick Perry, who electrified the Republican race, raised the decibel level today against the President, challenging to a kind of political duel on ways to jump-start jobs, fast….” Correspondent Jake Tapper : “Democrats say that until Perry came along, they never thought they’d meet a candidate who made the other Republican candidates look responsible.” — ABC World News , August 16. “Unmistakably Texan, unabashedly conservative, Governor Rick Perry does not care about the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is largely produced by humans burning fossil fuels.” — ABC’s Jim Avila on Good Morning America , August 18. [ Watch the video on MRC-TV ] Perry’s “Texas Miracle” Really a “Texas Tragedy” Correspondent Wyatt Andrews: “It’s his most important accomplishment, and one Texas-sized claim.” Clip of Rick Perry: “Texas continues to lead the nation in job creation.” Andrews: “Some call this the Texas miracle….But Perry also got lucky when high oil prices boosted energy-related jobs….Perry’s bedrock pledge to never raise taxes also had a reckoning this year when his budget faced a $27 billion shortfall. With taxes not an option, the state cut deeply into health care, and so deeply into education, some 49,000 teachers are being laid off. [to teacher Rachel Zertuche] Do you see a Texas miracle?” Rachel Zertuche : “No. I see a Texas tragedy.” — August 12 CBS Evening News . Is Rick Perry Just “Bull Connor With a Smile?” “I know you’re an objective reporter, but I smell birtherism about this guy. His attack on Obama isn’t just policy. It’s about the nature of the person who’s President….This could be Bull Connor with a smile.” — Host Chris Matthews to Dallas Morning News senior political writer Wayne Slater, MSNBC’s Hardball , August 16. “Do you think Rick Perry would be for that? Do you think he’d be cheering for Ike today if he brought the troops in to desegregate the schools in Little Rock? I don’t think so!…He talks about secession. He talks about states’ rights. He’s got all the idiom of the guys who hate civil rights….I compared him to Bull Connor with a smile yesterday. Maybe that was too far, but I’m still learning about this guy.” — Matthews on the August 17 Hardball . Smearing “Radical” Tea Party and “Queen of Rage” Bachmann “In Iowa, where she was raised, [Representative Michele] Bachmann has become the living embodiment of the Tea Party. She and her allies have been called a maniacal gang of knife-wielding ideologues. That’s hyperbole, of course. But the principled rigidity of her position has created some challenges for her campaign….Far more damaging than the charge of double standards may be the growing realization among Americans of just how radical the Tea Party movement really is….For now, Bachmann revels in the Iowa crowds, which don’t fuss about the missing fine print behind her ideas, the perceived contradictions among them, or their radicalism.” — Newsweek ’s Lois Romano in the magazine’s August 15 cover story on Bachmann headlined “The Queen of Rage.” ABC Already Spending New Taxes from “Mega Rich” Anchor Diane Sawyer: “Is it time for the mega-rich to pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries? And if they did pay their fair share, would it fix America’s schools or roads?…” Correspondent Bianna Golodryga: “An additional one percent tax on the richest Americans is estimated to raise $100 billion in extra revenue during the next decade….And while experts agree that $100 billion over the next decade wouldn’t be enough to even make a dent in the deficit, it would go far in other ways. For example, it’s enough to build almost 7,000 new elementary schools or more than 2,000 new high schools, Diane.” — ABC’s World News , August 15. CNN Anchors’ Tag Team Advocacy on Tax Hikes Co-host Ali Velshi : “Senator, we haven’t seen a tax increase in a long time. In fact, we got an extension of the Bush-era tax cut.” Co-host Christine Romans: “We’ve been cutting taxes for 10 years.” Velshi: “And we haven’t seen the job creation. So, where is the evidence that not cutting taxes creates jobs? We haven’t seen it.” — Grilling Republican Senator Pat Toomey on CNN’s American Morning , August 11. [ Watch the video on MRC-TV ] Only “Far Right” Blames Obama for Nation’s Woes Host Al Hunt: “What kind of shape is Barack Obama in for the 2012 campaign in Iowa?” Former NBC News President Michael Gartner : “I think he’s in pretty good shape. First of all, people out here have an attachment to him because he was out here. I think people have a fondness for him and I don’t think people blame him for anything that’s wrong in this country, unless — I think the far-right of the Republican Party does, but I don’t think the moderates do, and certainly the Democrats don’t.” — An exchange on Bloomberg’s Political Capital , August 12. Undoubtedly the Question 14 Million Unemployed People Want Answered “The last time you were elected, you got Sasha and Malia a cute little puppy, Bo. What are you going to get them the next time, if you’re re-elected?” — CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to President Obama in an interview shown on The Situation Room , August 16.
Continue reading …How dare Warren Buffett call for higher taxes for the rich , when America’s super-wealthy already contribute to the country’s “societal well-being” through “business and non-profit investments”? Billionaire business mogul Charles Koch penned this argument in a 50-word retort to Buffett’s New York Times op-ed Friday. After reading it, Lee Fang…
Continue reading …Since September 11, 2001, 45 NYPD officers have died of cancer. It may not seem like a huge number, until you consider that it’s nearly twice as many as the 23 who died in the 9/11 terror attacks—and that hundreds of other cops also have the disease. But even…
Continue reading …Click here to view this media David Axelrod appeared on ABC’s This Week to answer some questions about President Obama’s upcoming speech after Labor Day and he also fielded questions by the Congressional Black Caucus and Michael Moore about how disappointed the liberal base has been as the administration has moved constantly to the right since he took over the Oval Office. This strategy took shape when Rahm Emmanuel began to push his DLC politics around and made it clear he didn’t mind attacking the base whenever we disagreed with their tactics . The anger on the left shows that Mr. Obama is caught in an internal battle over both the course of his administration and the Democratic Party. Many in the party, particularly in the wake of the loss [..] of a Massachusetts Senate seat, contend that the White House should chart a centrist approach focusing on the economy. They point to polls showing Mr. Obama’s approval rating among independent voters has dropped by nearly 20 percentage points since early last year. — Activists and former campaign staff members watched with dismay as Mr. Emanuel and his team pursued a traditional Washington style of Capitol Hill negotiations and deal making. Activists on the left had hoped the administration would use Mr. Obama’s grass-roots campaign network, Organizing for America, and its email list with 13 million names to pressure lawmakers into adopting a more left-leaning agenda, such as pushing for universal health-care coverage. The WSJ article said the election of Scott Brown was a turning point for the administration, but that seems a shallow response to one special election with a candidate like Martha Coakley, who ran a terrible campaign against the tea party-backed Brown. You may remember that Michael Moore wrote a sarcastic letter to the President and said that he’d welcome the chance to be his new Chief of Staff. Jake Tapper read a question to Axelrod from Moore, asking if the administration is aware of or considering the consequences of this callous assumptions of those who elected him. ABC Transcript: TAPPER: Lastly, David, I know that you’re well aware that you have a big task ahead of you when it comes to motivating Obama supporters from 2008 and potentially future Obama supporters, rallying the base. Progressive filmmaker Michael Moore had this question that he wanted me to ask you. Quote, “Are you aware of how profoundly disappointed so many of the president’s supporters are? Do you realize that each time the president moves to the right, he picks up no votes and loses many? Or do you cynically believe that because these people have nowhere else to go, they’ll end up voting for Obama?” How do you respond to liberals like Michael Moore, who want to vote for the president, but are just profoundly disappointed? How do you convince them to turn out in November 2012? AXELROD: Well, first of all, no one is cynically moving one way or the other. The president is not moving left or right; he’s interested in moving the country forward. And we’ve got a very, very sharp debate here. And the question is, are we going to take steps in the short run to help stimulate this economy, to help create jobs, to help create growth? And are we going to take the steps in the long run that will protect the investments that can grow our economy and, most importantly, Jake, can create good middle-class jobs in the future on which people can raise their families? That’s what education is about. That’s what research and development to create new technologies and advance manufacturing is about. That’s what the infrastructure — that’s what roads and bridges and repairs that put people to work now, but also create the opportunity to move — to move our goods across this country. And all of these things are part and parcel of a strategy that is completely opposed by the other side, who want to go back to the same trickle-down, deregulation. You know, the same mantra we heard in the last decade that led up to this problem we’re hearing again. I think that this is such a profound choice that the president’s supporters and independent voters and people across this country will rally, because the future will be determined by this debate and the path we take. The fact that Axelrod is still playing at the bipartisan game is really sad. Rahm’s strategy to attract independents did not work, nor did the same strategy work in the debt ceiling negotiations under Daley after he was gone. And it was no secret that the administration did decide to swing right when it adopted deficit reduction as a huge priority. Yes, the two parties clearly do have different positions on our social safety nets. Axelrod can try to explain it to death as most liberal elitists do instead of taking strong stands that can rally Americans behind them. Just look at all the polling. Telling middle class Americans we have to tighten our belts and supporting austerity measures during a terrible economy was a political decision, but more importantly, is nothing more than a conservative philosophy. We know that President Obama is reading Rick Perlstein’s book; I hope Axelrod and his boss will read his Time piece before the Labor Day speech: How Democrats Win: Defending the Social Safety Net Here’s what LBJ knew that McGovern didn’t: There are few or no historical instances in which saying clearly what you are for and what you are against makes Americans less divided. But there is plenty of evidence that attacking the wealthy has not made them more divided. After all, the man who said of his own day’s plutocrats, “I welcome their hatred,” also assembled the most enduring political coalition in U.S. history. The Republicans will call it class warfare. Let them. Done right, economic populism cools the political climate. Just knowing that the people in power are willing to lie down on the tracks for them can make the middle much less frantic. Which makes America a better place. And which, incidentally, makes Democrats win (h/t Heather of Video Cafe for the video)
Continue reading …As someone who runs a business specializing in commercial and political web consulting, I sometimes tell people that were I to suddenly become interested in advising Democratic campaigns or liberal groups, my ability to get free media plugs for my business would probably triple overnight, just simply by virtue of the fact that I would become so much more useful to the left. The same phenomenon exists with regard to RepubIican political figures. The moment they're out of power and no longer a threat to the current Democratic powers-that-be, they begin to be regarded as statesmen and great leaders by America's media elite–particularly when compared to the extremist yobs who call themselves Republicans today. This sudden respect for the likes of Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower is quite humorous to behold, particularly because it's so laughably incorrect. The Republican party has indeed drifted in a direction but it's been leftward. After showing one of the recent media manifestations of this phenomenon in a conversation between the slavishly conventionally liberal Chris Matthews and his pal Howard Fineman, the Weekly Standard takes a knife to the absurd notion that conservative figures like Texas governor Rick Perry or former Alaska governor Sarah Palin are somehow out of the mainstream when it comes to Republicans of the past by focusing on the record of former GOP president Gerald Ford, often hailed as a casualty of nefarious conservatives on the warpath: 1.
Continue reading …Elizabeth Warren just made it official– or official enough for ActBlue to open up a contribution slot for her– which means she filed with the FEC. So… we added her to the Blue America Senate page , a page with two candidates– her and Bernie. If we collect $2,000 for her over the weekend, one random lucky donor will win a gorgeous RIAA Lenny Kravitz platinum award for his Greatest Hits album (above). enlarge Last Sunday I posted about the likelihood that she would run for the Massachusetts Senate seat currently occupied by Tea Party flip-flopper Scott Brown. It seemed all but certain. Disappointed and disallusioned progressives in at least one state will sure have a reason to flock to the polls in November of 2012! At the time she said “I spent years working against special interests and have the battle scars to show it– and I have no intention of stopping now. It is time for me to think hard about what role I can play next to help rebuild a middle class that has been hacked at, chipped at, and pulled at for more than a generation– and that that is under greater strain every day.” Music to all of our ears. Let’s encourage her– and imagine her and Bernie Sanders working together for ordinary American families… in the U.S. Senate, that hideous, hidebound bastion of privilege and entitlement. So, again, contribute any amount before midnight and if we reach $2,000 for her, one donor will be thanked by Blue America with the beautiful Lenny Kravitz triple platinum award.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Former White House spokesman Bill Burton called out Karl Rove Sunday for lecturing about President Barack Obama’s economic record when former President George W. Bush squandered a record budget surplus. “[Republicans] won the House and since that time they have done nothing to produce jobs and put nothing forward to partner with the president to create jobs and move this economy in the right direction,” Burton explained to Fox News’ Brett Baier. “Karl, At the GOP debate in Iowa, I asked all the candidates the question, whether would accept this deal in which Democrats agreed to $10 in real spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases,” Baier told Rove. “And every single hand on the stage went up, saying they would walk away from that deal, opposing any tax increases… When Democrats complain about idealogical rigidity in the moderate republican party do they have a point? ” “Bret, with all due respect, that was a lousy question for a debate,” Rove charged. “Let’s set the record straight. There is rigidity in the political system and it starts with the president of the United States… I love it. The Republicans passed a budget, the Democrats in the Senate haven’t. The Republicans have passed a slew of job creating measures, and the Democrats in the Senate haven’t. And the president now sits here and lectures us about how we need to take action. What is his action? He has yet to put pen to paper and issue a jobs plan or a deficit reduction plan in the last nine months. So, please don’t talk to me about ideological rigidity. It comes from the White House.” “I appreciate that you have an opinion on this, Karl,” Burton shot back. “But as someone who was a leader in the White House that turned a record surplus into a deficit, that got us involved in a war that we never should have been in, and turned the floor of the New York stock exchange into a casino, I don’t think the American people are quite ready to hear a lecture from you on good governance.” “What the president needs in Washington are partners who will work with him to make progress in this country, not just people like Eric Cantor and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, who would much rather see the economy do poorly so that they can score political points than see America succeed,” he added. “Bill, with all due respect, do not question the motivations and integrity of the people on the other side,” Rove said. “I don’t think all due respect means what you think it means,” Burton pointed out. Transcript below the fold. BAIER: Hey, Karl, at the GOP debate in Iowa, I asked all the candidates the question, whether they would accept this deal in which Democrats agreed to $10 in real spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. Every single hand on the stage went up, saying they would walk away from that deal, opposing any tax increases. Now, I was expecting some of them to push back and to ask for time for a nuanced answer. They didn’t. There was no push back. So, when Democrats complain about ideological rigidity or stubbornness in the modern Republican Party, do they have a point? ROVE: Well, look, first, with due respect to your question, that was a question that had a predictable answer to it, and that kind of a thing when you’re asking people to raise their hand and not offering them a chance to get a nuance answer, you’re going to get raising hands. Let me go back to what Bill said — BAIER: Wait a second. Hold on. I mean, we gave them the opportunity, Karl. You know, so I mean — ROVE: With all due respect — Bret, with all due respect, that was lousy question for a debate. And if you wanted a better answer, ask that question to candidates individually. BURTON: These guys wanted to be president of the United States. They can’t talk to Bret Baier about what their vision is, or how to deal with the economy? ROVE: Let’s set the record — let’s set the record straight about what Bill said earlier about rigidity. Yes, there’s rigidity in our political system and it starts with the president of the United States. Republicans had ideas to try and make stimulus bill better. And in a meeting in the White House, maybe Bill was even in the room. President Obama dismissed Eric Cantors’ suggestions about how to make the bill better by saying, “I won.” This president had a Democrat Congress, I repeat, by overwhelming margin for two years and got everything he wanted. Now, what have the Republicans done this year? The Republicans have insisted that — the president set up political battle. He had the votes in November and December of last year to get his, quote, “clean debt” ceiling. But instead, he said he wanted the Republicans to, quote, “have ownership” in the deficit. So, he waited until there is a Republican House and then tried to jam them, insisting on a clean debt ceiling. The Republicans said we want to have deficit reduction before we vote for an increase in the debt ceiling. They got it. The president applauded that bill and signed it. So, you know, I love it. The Republicans passed a budget. The Democrats in the Senate haven’t. The Republicans have passed a slew of job creating measures and the Democrats in the Senate haven’t. And the president now sits here and lectures us about how we need to take action. Well, what is his action? He has yet put pen to paper and issue a jobs plan or a deficit reduction plan in the last nine months. BURTON: You know, Karl –ROVE: So, please, don’t talk (ph) to me about ideological rigidity. It came from your White House. (CROSSTALK) BURTON: — but as someone who is a leader in the White House that turned a record surplus into a deficit that got us involved in a war that we never shouldn’t have been in and turned the floor of the New York Stock Exchange into a casino, I don’t think the American people are quite ready to hear a lecture from you on good governance.
Continue reading …As NewsBusters has been reporting, Obama-loving media have been working overtime excusing the President for taking a vacation at Martha's Vineyard as average Americans struggle in a down economy. Perhaps the most disgusting example yet came on this weekend's “The Chris Matthews Show” when the host actually connected the attacks on 9/11 to former President George W. Bush's vacation in August the month before (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Before we break, it's a busy August. Turmoil in the markets, a president under heat for taking even ten days off with so many people out of work and the approaching tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It’s fascinating to see how different things were just ten years ago in August, 2001. While Osama bin Laden's henchmen were in the final stages of planning the 9/11 attacks, America slept. We were consumed by sensational news. The big story then: the disappearance of Congressional intern Chandra Levy. As the investigation of that began, local police and the media placed the spotlight on U.S. Congressman Gary Condit of California after it was confirmed he'd had an affair with Levy. The focus was totally unfair, but egged on by Condit's refusal to answer questions even until he finally talked to ABC News in late August. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you kill Chandra Levy? FORMER CONGRESSMAN GARY CONDIT: I did not. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: What a question. Anyway, Condit’s political career was halted of course, and it wasn’t until this year that the convicted killer went to jail. Well August of ’01 was also the so-called summer of the shark. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's happened again and again. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, six swimmers and surfers off the coast of Florida were bitten by sharks over the weekend. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Meantime, George W. Bush faced the biggest decision of his presidency up to that point: whether federal funds could be used for research on stem cells from human embryos. Bush decided those funds could only be used for research on existing stem cells not new ones. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well President Bush gave that speech from his Crawford ranch where he spent the entire month of August on vacation. Jon Stewart had this quip. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON STEWART, “THE DAILY SHOW”: My president went on vacation. All I got was this lousy sense of impending doom. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Impending doom. While clearly a joke, it was very prescient. That was just five weeks before 9/11. How disgusting. Of course, what Matthews and other Obama-loving so-called journalists conveniently ignore is that Bush's sojourns to Crawford were considered working vacations. This should have been obvious even to a shill like Matthews who noted during this segment that Bush's stem cell address came from Crawford. As USA Today reported at the time: White House officials point out that the president is never off the clock. They refer to the 30 days at his Texas ranch — now it's called the Western White House — as a working vacation. He'll receive daily national security updates and handle the duties of the Oval Office from his 1,583-acre spread near Crawford. When Bush retreats to his ranch, aides say, the White House just changes location. “He'll be returning to Texas and operating out of Crawford,” says Karen Hughes, counselor to the president, referring more to the small town where reporters will gather than the exact site of Bush's command center. He'll be 7 miles down narrow, winding Prairie Chapel Road. Hughes rattles off a list of things that will take up the president's time, from daily national security briefings to whatever national and international matters may come up. And addressing the nation when necessary. Does that seem like ten days of golf, swimming, boating, and fine dining on Martha's Vineyard to you?
Continue reading …As illegal workers flee the threat of police checks, southerners are uniting to fight the laws dividing communities and killing economies which rely on immigrants to thrive The mobile home that Nancy Lugo and her two children live in might not seem like much to many people. It sits off a dirt road, by a slow-moving creek, on the outskirts of the tiny Georgia town of Uvalda. It is surrounded by thick forest and fields full of the local speciality: Vidalia onions. But for Lugo, 34, it is a symbol of a better life in America. Here in Georgia, far from her native Mexico, Lugo has a solid job, sends her kids to school and loves the rhythm of rural life. “It is peaceful. I am happy here,” she said. The patch of land she bought for her trailer was vacant before she came. But she dug a well and sank septic tanks, carving a home from the wilderness in a grand American tradition. She got a job. She paid her taxes. Now it is all under threat. For Lugo is an illegal immigrant in the deep south. In the midst of general anti-immigrant sentiment, several southern states have passed strict anti-illegal immigrant laws that critics say raises the prospect of a new Jim Crow era – the time when segregation was law –across a vast swath of the old Confederacy. They will ostracise and terrorise a vulnerable Hispanic minority with few legal rights, encouraging them to leave or disappear further into the shadows. In Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina, new laws have been signed that represent the toughest crackdown on illegal immigrants – the vast majority of whom are Hispanics – in America. They give the police sweeping new powers and require them, and employers, to check people’s immigration status. In Alabama, they even make helping illegal immigrants, by giving them a lift in a car or shelter in a home, into a serious crime. For many, the laws echo the deep south’s painful history of segregation, sending out a message to people of a different colour: you are not wanted here. “That is exactly right,” said Andrew Turner, a lawyer with the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Centre. “We view it within the context of the history of the deep south. It is using the law to push out and marginalise an ethnic minority.” The new laws’ defenders deny that. They are merely enforcing the law, they say. Their problem is not with immigrants, but with those who came to America illegally. They say the laws are colour-blind and aimed at making sure everyone obeys the same rules and does not cheat the system. Yet illegal immigrants have become a fundamental part of the American system. Huge swaths of the economy rely on the cheap labour they provide. From construction to agriculture, to restaurants to gardening, to childrearing, hotels and home help, illegal immigrants are a major driver of the US economy. They may have no papers, but that does not stop them paying taxes, buying homes and raising children who, if born in the US, are American citizens. It has also – as happened during the civil rights era – put these southern states in direct conflict with the federal government. Last week, the White House moved to suspend many deportations of illegal immigrants without criminal records, putting it at odds with the new, harsher state laws. Which is why Lugo is speaking out. Though illegal, she is angry at feeling suddenly hated by a society she has contributed to. She has two kids and a hard, low-paying job in a factory that makes US army equipment. When Georgia passed its law she was laid off by a manager fearful of prosecution. Yet, within a month, she was rehired. No one had wanted her work. But suddenly it showed how vulnerable her new life was. “You fear that if you look Latino then they will stop you and send you home. But I have to stay here for my kids. I don’t know how, but I will stay. I am afraid. But more than that I am angry,” she said. She repeated the word like a mantra: “Angry. Angry. Angry.” Someone else who is angry is Paul Bridges, mayor of Uvalda. “I don’t believe the state should tell me who can get in my car or that I should ask to see their papers before they come to my house,” he said, sitting in the new city hall of the community of 500 souls. Later, driving around the sleepy town on a day when temperatures topped 100F (38C) and the air felt like treacle, Bridges pointed out where Uvalda’s Hispanic population lives. He knows everyone and showed where abandoned houses had been fixed up by a Hispanic family or vacant lots transformed into homes. Aside from being racially tolerant, Bridges is self-interested: new homes equal more taxes for his city budget. “There is also lots of mixed status here. In one house you could have a citizen, an undocumented person, and someone with a work visa,” he said. But across the southern states that have passed new laws, Hispanic people are leaving. In Uvalda several families have upped sticks, either selling homes or shuttering them. It is the same in Alabama. Maria Santiago, 23, is a child minder in Birmingham, the state’s largest city. She has been in the US for 11 years, her son is a US citizen, but she is illegal. “A lot of our neighbours have left. They have lost their jobs. Every week people go back to Mexico,” she said. In Alabama, that is no wonder. It has passed the harshest anti-illegal immigrant law in America. It allows police to check people’s immigration status on traffic stops. It makes it a crime to transport or to rent property to people known to be illegal. Alabama church leaders have complained that it criminalises performing marriages, baptisms or simply giving people lifts to church if they involve an illegal immigrant. Other states have not gone quite so far. The Georgia law had similar harsh provisions suspended by the local courts, although the state has appealed against the decision and could get them re-instated. South Carolina contents itself with more efforts at having police check people’s status and forcing employers to make more stringent checks. But, critics say, the impact is the same across the region. Concerned parents are afraid to register their children in schools. Many Hispanics are worried to drive, out of a fear that they will be stopped. By involving the police in immigration enforcement, Hispanic activists say crimes will go unreported as people will not come forward in case their immigration status is checked. That has huge implications for tackling domestic abuse, gang violence or any crime that a Hispanic person might witness. Isabel Rubio, director of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, described it in colourful southern terms: “Getting a Hispanic witness is going to be like pulling teeth from a lizard’s mouth.” Theoretically, some Hica activities could even become unlawful. In a back office near a dilapidated-looking mall in suburban Birmingham, Hica recently hosted a women’s meeting. Everyone was illegal. But they – like most people who come to Hica – are taking English lessons, and getting legal help and advice on coping with domestic abuse. Rubio shook her head at the potential impact of the law. “It’s a huge step backwards. After all the progress that has been made in terms of race, and then his happens. Where do I begin?” she said. Then she produced a copy of the law and pointed out a shocking segment. In the text there is an exemption for domestic service, meaning that anyone with an illegal immigrant maid is not defined as an “employer” under the law. It was a grim reminder of old social realities. “It’s Alabama,” said Rubio. “It means you can still have your Latina household help.” Back in Uvalda, Howard Morris’s business is not so lucky. Leaning on a tractor with his forearms coated in Georgia mud and sweat pouring down his face from the late-afternoon heat, Morris is worried. He owns 40 acres of onion fields, but fears no one will harvest his crops. “The people that we normally hire are just not here,” he said. That is bad news for somewhere like Uvalda, which is reliant on agriculture. Morris knows that if the Hispanics who have left do not come back, there will be trouble. “The crop could rot in the ground,” he said. That concerns Bridges, the mayor. “If we can’t harvest, it will decimate this community,” he said. The problem is not unique to Uvalda. The Georgia Agribusiness Council estimates the labour shortage has left so many crops unpicked and rotting that it has cost $1bn. The industry currently has 30% fewer workers than it needs and, contrary to accusations that illegals take American jobs, no one is stepping in. Nor is it just agriculture. The Georgia restaurant trade is in convulsions as staff flee. Karen Bremer, head of the Georgia Restaurant Association, says a quarter of her members’ businesses are struggling with too few staff. “The damage has been done. The bad news has already gone through the communities,” she said. From an economic standpoint, passing such stringent laws has been a dramatic own goal. Recently a violent tornado tore through the Alabama city of Tuscaloosa, wreaking havoc and devastation. But the exodus of Hispanics from Alabama has been so great that building firms say they will struggle to employ enough people for rebuilding. Indeed, Tuscaloosa’s Hispanic soccer league saw a third of its teams disbanded in a week. This is the paradox: the political backlash has come as Hispanics, and illegals, have become an integral economic and demographic part of the south. The region, outside Florida, has traditionally had only a small Hispanic community but now – fuelled by illegal immigration – it is rapidly growing. The Pew Hispanic Centre estimated that Georgia had an illegal population of some 425,000, most from Hispanic countries. The same study showed Alabama had a population of 125,000 illegal immigrants and has seen its Hispanic population jump 145% in a decade. That is a major ethnic shift in a region whose very history is riven with struggles over race, economic exploitation and southern identity. But a fightback for a Hispanic place in the deep south has begun. One of the more dramatic moments happened when a car pulled up outside Georgia’s state Capitol in Atlanta recently. Out got the frail figure of Salvador Zamora, a Hispanic activist. Zamora has been on hunger strike since 1 July, when Georgia’s law came into effect. In that time he has shed more than 2st 2lb (13.6kg). He was so weak that he sat in a wheelchair as he was taken into the building to hand over a protest letter to Georgia governor Nathan Deal. “I want these laws to change. I am not worried about me. I am worried about other people. I will do this as long as it takes,” Zamora told the Observer . Zamora, who was accompanied by leading Atlanta church figures who were black, white and Hispanic, conducted his protest in the vein of the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. That was no accident. Across the south, other activists and groups are taking that lead by combining street protest and activism with legal challenges in the courts. Demonstrations and candlelit vigils have been held in Alabama and Georgia. In Atlanta, thousands of protesters marched through the streets in one of the biggest demonstrations since the civil rights era. In another action, six young students revealed their illegal status and were arrested for a sit-down protest. One was Dulce Guerrero, 18. She was born in Mexico but has lived in America since she was two. She is a high-flying student with excellent grades. But Georgia’s new law – which threatens her with deportation – has been a radicalising event. She had no regrets about her time in jail. “It was time to take action,” she said “I am American in everything but papers. I speak better English than I do Spanish. I don’t remember life in Mexico.” Many others have spoken out. Church leaders have joined forces with lawyers and business groups and police officials. Suits have been filed attempting to get the law overturned. The federal government has weighed in via the courts, as it did in Arizona when that state attempted a similar act. In general, like many illegals themselves, most opponents want a “path to citizenship” or a work scheme for people already here. Among them are people like Bridges, who is far from a typical liberal campaigner. He is a proud southerner and Republican who has little time for President Obama. But he joined a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union; a conservative bête noire. “I dislike the ACLU but I find myself on the same side. It is shocking to me,” he joked. But he insisted the new law was the work of politicians ignorant of new economic and social realities. “The vast majority of Georgians are not racist. Things have truly changed here,” he added. The outcome of the battle remains to be seen. People like Guerrero say they will not stop fighting their new Jim Crow. She recalled the feeling of handcuffs being put on her. She remembered her happiness at the policemen who said they sympathised as much as anger at those who did not. And she swore to keep fighting. “That was only the beginning,” she said. Alabama Race issues State of Georgia US politics US economy United States Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sometimes I wonder how liberal media members could possibly live in the same country as I do and hold such startlingly absurd ideas about it. Take for example Fareed Zakaria who on the CNN program bearing his name this Sunday is going to tell viewers that America would likely still have a AAA credit rating if we had a parliamentary system of government with a prime minister rather than a president (video follows with transcript and commentary): FAREED ZAKARIA : I wrote a blog post for the Global Public Square website that has gotten a great deal of reaction. So let me talk about it for a moment. It all started because I read a website that pointed out that after the S&P downgrade of the United States, no country with a presidential system of government had a AAA rating from all three major ratings agencies. Only countries with parliamentary systems have that honor, with the possible exception of France which could be characterized as having a parliament, a prime minister as well as a president. Got that? S&P's downgrade had nothing to do with our debt. It was our system of government. So why did it take this credit rating agency so long to realize that we weren't a parliamentary democracy? The stupidity on display here was offensive, but what should one expect from a guy who two weeks ago flat out lied about the reason for the downgrade in the first place? With total disregard for the facts, Zakaria was continuing to make the case that S&P's decision was political and not about our debt explosion getting totally out of control: ZAKARIA : This brought to mind my years in political science grad school and an essay by a famous Yale scholar , Juan Linz , who said that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems because they allow for greater stability and purposeful action. In a parliamentary system, he contended, the legislature and the executive are fused so there is no contest for national legitimacy and power. So a Spanish sociologist and political scientist thinks parliamentary systems are superior to presidential ones. Does that mean he's right? A 1993 paper written by professors at the University of Notre Dame and the University of California at San Diego took a critical view of some of Linz's conclusions. Experts on both sides of the aisle could have a marvelous debate about which system is better and more stable, but ours seems to be working quite well. Of course, not according to Zakaria : ZAKARIA : Think of David Cameron in England. He is the head of the coalition that won the election, head of the bloc that has a majority in parliament, and head of the executive branch as Prime Minister. Remember the political battle surrounding the debt ceiling. It's actually impossible in a parliamentary system because the executive controls the legislature. There could not be a public spectacle of the two branches of government squabbling or holding the country hostage. In the American presidential system, in contrast, you have a presidency and a legislature, both of which claim to speak for the people. As a result, you always have a contest over basic legitimacy. Who is actually speaking for and representing the people? In America today, we take this struggle to an extreme. We have one party in one house of the legislature claiming to speak for the people because theirs was the most recent electoral victory. And of course you have the president who claims a broader mandate as the only person elected by all the people. Obama was elected by all the people? Last I checked, Obama got about 67 million votes, or roughly 53 percent of those cast out of a population of 300 million. Of course, Zakaria's point was that the president and vice president are the only ones on a national ticket, but I felt the need to bust his holier than thou, high and mighty, sanctimonious chops: ZAKARIA : Now these are irresolvable claims and they invite constant struggle. There are, of course, advantages to the American system – the checks and balances have been very useful on occasion. Let me give you an example: in 1945 Britain enacted a quasi-socialist economic plan that set the country on a bad, bad path. But look at the situation we're in today. Western countries have all created welfare states and governmental systems that are cumbersome, sluggish and expensive –especially as the population ages. These need to be reformed and many of these reforms are fairly obvious – in social security, tax policy, energy policy. But the American government has lost the ability to actually implement any policy solutions because of political gridlock. Speaking of Social Security, the need for its reform, and political gridlock, former President George W. Bush proposed such in 2005 while his Party controlled both chambers of Congress. Only the wishes of the minority Party prevented that from happening. Had we been a parliamentary system back then, Social Security would have been reformed with legislative implementation on January 1, 2009. What this means is our current total debt might presently be lower as would our unfunded liabilities making it quite likely S&P wouldn't have felt the need to downgrade us last month. But folks like Zakaria weren't griping about minority obstructionism when Republicans controlled our government. No, it's only when Democrats are getting their agenda blocked liberal media pine for a better way: ZAKARIA : Look at what the S&P actually said in its downgrade. “America's governance and policymaking [is] becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed.. . Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge.” Indeed, but S&P specifically referred to our nation's debt 28 times in its August 5 press release regarding the downgrade. No matter how much media members insist on making S&P's decision political, the agency rates the ability of companies and governments to pay off their debt. Why is this such a hard concept for liberals to grasp? ZAKARIA : This is not just about the presidential system alone. Recent developments have added to polarization and paralysis. The fillibuster for example, is not in the constitution but it is now routinely used in the Senate to allow a minority of one house to block all legislation. In a fast-moving world, where other countries are acting quickly and with foresight, we are paralyzed. It's all very well to keep saying that we have the greatest system in the histroy of the world but against this backdrop of dysfunction, it sounds a lot like thoughtless cheerleading. We are paralyzed? Certainly not. What gives that appearance is our leaders have a tendency to wait until the very last minute to address looming crises thereby limiting the options in front of them. If Congressional Democrats would have even offered a budget in the past two years, or the President had included a debt ceiling resolution in last December's tax extension agreement, there wouldn't have been a crisis in August. It was this very negligence on the part of the Left that made it appear the government was taken hostage and had become paralyzed. The problem, therefore, isn't our presidential system at all. It's those that are currently running it. I'm quite sure Zakaria would fervently agree if Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ( D-Nev .) were Republicans. In fact, he'd probably begin his show this Sunday saying, “Maybe we'd still be AAA if we had a real president instead of the man currently residing in the White House.” Of course, if Zakaria said that, he probably wouldn't get invited back to advise the Commander-in-Chief on foreign policy. Being a media shill does have its tradeoffs.
Continue reading …