Thursday, November 30, 2006
"Do You Speak Hispanic?"
Want to denounce English First advocates as racists? Simply confuse (or fuse) the separate catagories of "Spanish-speakers" and "Spanish people," as this contributor to Daily Kos did:
Part of the right-wing agenda at the recent mid-terms was to exploit the race card by disguising it as a question of "immigration" or "language", with the clear target of both being the growing visibility of Hispanic [sic] speakers.
The other side is quick to speak of nuturing linguistic minorities but silent on the real costs of all this nurturing.
This 2004 BBC article on European Union translation costs should even give pause to the language rights lobby:
When 10 new countries join the European Union on 1 May, they bring with them an extra nine languages to add to the EU's existing 11. ...
Twenty languages gives a total of 190 possible combinations (English-German, French-Czech, Finnish-Portuguese, etc), and finding any human being who speaks, for example, both Greek and Estonian or Slovene and Lithuanian is well-nigh impossible. ...
The European Commission already has 1,300 translators, who process 1.5 million pages a year in the EU's 11 languages.
In two years that is expected to rise to almost 2.5 million pages - and the staff, based in two enormous buildings in Brussels and Luxembourg, will almost double in size to cope with the output.
The cost will rise from roughly 550 million euros today to over 800 million euros after enlargement.
As of this writing (November, 2006), one euro is worth about $1.30. So the E.U. is spending over one billion dollars for translations.
What a waste.
|posted by Jim on 1:29 AM|
Link
. . .
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Hispanic Vote Update
The Houston Chronicle reports:
The Pew Hispanic Center found an 11 percent swing of the Latino vote in favor of Democrats when this year's poll results were compared with those taken two years ago. The 11 percent compares with a 6 percent shift toward Democrats among non-Hispanic whites and a 3 percent change among blacks.
Latinos went 69 percent to 30 percent in favor of Democrats, compared with a 58-to-40-percent split two years ago and 61-to-37-percent four years ago.
Must have been the immigration issue? Er, no:
"It is important to note that immigration in the Latino population is never a top-tier issue," said Gabriel Escobar, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center. "Nor is it for the rest of the population."
Of course, even pollsters disagree on the size of the "Hispanic vote":
The National Election Pool, which conducted polling for the media organizations, pegged her Hispanic support at 44 percent. The Velasquez exit poll, however, estimated that nearly 54 percent of Latino voters in Texas supported Hutchison to 36 percent for Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky.
And maybe, just maybe, there really isn't some monolithic Hispanic vote to win:
Adding to the complexity of deciphering the Hispanic vote is the fact that it spans different populations, said Nestor Rodriguez, co-director of the University of Houston's Center for Immigration Research. U.S.-born Hispanics may vote very differently from naturalized citizens or the young, he said.
"The seasoned Latino voters, they may have changed more because of the general concern of the war and dissatisfaction with Bush policies," Rodriguez said.
"Some new Latino voters who have become citizens may have been more affected by concerns of immigration."
Hispanic American voters act just like other American voters? This will be news only to a few Republican campaign consultants.
|posted by Jim on 7:33 PM|
Link
. . .
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Outflanking the GOP on Immigration?
Senator Joe Biden in South Carolina:
Sen. Joe Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's incoming chairman, wants to get tough with Mexico, calling it an "erstwhile democracy" with a "corrupt system" responsible for illegal immigration and drug problems in the U.S.
Can anyone imagine South Carolina's own Republican Senator Lindsey Graham saying the same thing? Therein lies a 2008 problem for the Grand Old Party.
|posted by Jim on 10:36 PM|
Link
. . .
Smile, Puerto Rico is Lobbying You Less
PRFAA closings continue Posted: Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 03:11 PM
SAN JUAN (AP) – After the closing of the office in New Jersey of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration (PRFAA), the dependency only has offices in its Washington headquarters, Orlando, New York, and Chicago.
According to PRFAA Executive Director Eduardo Bhatia, the last employee that remained in the office of Newark, New Jersey, was transferred to the office in New York because of the cuts the agency suffered, according to published reports.
During the current fiscal year, PRFAA suffered a $4 million reduction when compared to the $10.2 million it received in Fiscal Year 2005.
After the cuts, the offices in Hartford, Connecticut; Cleveland, Ohio; Springfield and Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Los Angeles, California; and Houston, Texas were closed.
|posted by Jim on 7:43 AM|
Link
. . .
A Fair Assessment of President Bush, "Conservative"
Via Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly:
[T]he biggest problem with the Bush administration was never its doctrinaire conservatism, which wasn't all that doctrinaire in the first place, but its insistence that it could govern by gut instinct without recourse to serious policy analysis. John DiIulio figured this out after only a few months in the White House, and later told Ron Suskind that "the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking."
|posted by Jim on 7:17 AM|
Link
. . .
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Bush Administration: "When will they ever learn?"
Peggy Noonan's remarks about the mispalced emphasis upon blind loyalty during Bush II could have just as easily been written about Bush I:
I am taken aback this week at the level of disenchantment with and dislike of the president and his men--not among Democrats, but among Republicans. On the Hill they no longer see the White House as talented and formidable. They see it as shuttered and second-rate. ... There is increased criticism too of the habit of high White House staffers to muscle critics, silence dissent, force obedience.
It is assumed by everyone, and accepted as truth that hardly needs expression, that the brilliant and independent Michael Steele was not chosen as head of the RNC for the simple reason that he doesn't look like someone who'd simply take orders. Mel Martinez was chosen for the reason that he will. I heard talk of what is called "the list"--the lengthening White House list of those who are to be treated as enemies. A White House preoccupied with the petty gave too little attention to policy, to the big picture. Thus the history of bungles.
|posted by Jim on 5:34 PM|
Link
. . .
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
"A Backhanded Compliment"
is the most charitable way to view Senator Mel Martinez, President Bush's choice for RNC chairman. A "slap in the face" to those many Republicans who dared oppose the will of President Bush on immigration and language is an equally fitting description of his choice.
Martinez was a coauthor of the Senate's amnesty legislation and an opponent of official English. He owes his rapid rise in politics solely to the favor of George W. Bush. Martinez is the Cuban version of Harriet Miers.
For Bush to choose Martinez instead of, say, Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is not just a slap in the face of the GOP base that loved Bush enough to elect him twice, but loved the Bush amnesty notion a good deal less. The Martinez choice is a thumb in the eye.
A boxer sticks a thumb in his opponent's eye when he is afraid of losing. The only place the Bush immigration plan remains popular is within the grounds of the White House, at least so long as his staff is not allowed to vote by secret ballot on the merits of the proposal.
DC is abuzz with complaints that "had only Bush fired Rumsfeld before the election, the Republicans would have kept control of (blank)." A better question might be: "what if the week before November 7th, President Bush had held a gala signing ceremony for the border fence bill surrounded by endangered Republican candidates?"
|posted by Jim on 1:08 AM|
Link
. . .
Saturday, November 11, 2006
"McCain wins on immigration" Oops. Our mistake.
Media Matters for America catches the Los Angeles Times putting out a story based upon nonexistent facts.
McCain's support for amnesty for illegal aliens may bring him the cheers of the Fourth Estate but politically it still isn't playing in Peoria.
|posted by Jim on 5:29 PM|
Link
. . .
Padding the House Democrat Majority
With a brief exception during 1993-94, only states had a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Democrat's Speaker to be, Nancy Pelosi, has other ideas:
From 1993 to early 1995, [District of Columbia delegate] Norton and delegates from four U.S. territories were allowed to vote on the House floor in most cases. However, if their votes ever provided the margin of victory on a measure, a House member could request a second, binding vote without them. Republicans nixed the limited vote in 1995, after taking control of Congress.
Pelosi's press secretary, Jennifer Crider, said last night that the proposed rule changes would seek a return to those provisions. However, she said, Pelosi had not yet specifically addressed the issue of the U.S. territories' voting rights.
Did I mention that four out of these five delegates are ardent Democrats?
The exception, the delegate ("Resident Commissioner") from Puerto Rico wears the Republican label but represents an island with half the income of America's poorest state. He is also a member of Puerto Rico's Statehood Party, whose slogan is "statehood is for the poor." In other words, think Robert Byrd.
|posted by Jim on 4:52 PM|
Link
. . .
Friday, November 10, 2006
Yugoslavia on the Potomac?
Tito kept Yugosalvia togteher after WWII, but after Tito was gone, there was shortly no more Yugoslavia. Serbs and Croats were at each other's throats.
The House's new Democratic majority is as divided today as Yugoslavia ever was. Just ask The Nation's John Nichols:
The largest ideological caucus in the new House Democratic majority will be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with a membership that includes New York's Charles Rangel, Michigan's John Conyers, Massachusetts' Barney Frank and at least half the incoming chairs of House standing committees.
The caucus currently has 64 members -- up 14 since last year -- and its co-chairs, California Democrats Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, say they expect that as many as eight incoming House Democrats will join the CPC.
It looks like the membership of the ultraliberal Progressive Caucus and the conservative Blue Dogs will be roughly equal int 2007, with each group containing roughly one-third of the House Democratic Caucus:
While the Blue Dogs are predicting that the membership of their caucus may grow from 37 to 44 members, and the New Democrats hope their membership will edge up from the mid-forties to over the 50 mark, the Progressives are looking at the prospect that their caucus -- the most racially and regionally diverse ideological grouping in the Congress -- could number more than 70 members once the new House is seated.
.
|posted by Jim on 3:10 PM|
Link
. . .
The Washington Post and I agree on something, plus "ding dong, 10 RINOs are gone"
I didn't have the exact numbers handy for my posting last night on the regional nature of the Democratic victory Tuesday. This morning's Washington Post does:
Of the 28 House seats that Democrats picked up in the midterm elections, 10 were in the Northeast and 10 more were in the Midwest. They added five seats in the South and three in the West.
Meanwhile the new House Republican caucus will house 10 fewer RINOs (Republicans in Name only):
The elimination of GOP moderates could push House Republicans farther to the right. ... [Ten] of the 28 most liberal members of the Republican conference were defeated. With fewer moderates, Republicans are less likely to feel pressure to bow to the wishes of moderates, especially on fiscal issues.
A swap of 10 RINOs, who only voted with Democrats when the Republicans really needed their votes, for ten actual Democrats means the Democrats actually netted just 18 House votes from the 28 seats they gained on Tuesday.
|posted by Jim on 2:45 PM|
Link
. . .
I wasn't kidding about a Chafee switch
The first of my "Nine Thoughts About the 2006 Election" analysis was that Rhode Island's Republican Senator John Chafee might well have switched parties, especially if his switch would break a 50 to 50 Senate tie.
Via the Boston Globe (and hat tip to Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online's "The Corner":
PROVIDENCE, R.I. --Two days after losing a bid for a second term in an election seen as a referendum on President Bush and the Republican Party, Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he was unsure whether he'd remain a Republican.
"I haven't made any decisions. I just haven't even thought about where my place is," Chafee said at a news conference Thursday when asked whether he would stick with the Republican Party or switch to be an independent or Democrat.
|posted by Jim on 2:30 AM|
Link
. . .
My Nine Thoughts on the 2006 Election
are now posted here.
|posted by Jim on 2:27 AM|
Link
. . .
Election Predictions Update
Other than saying the Dems would not win 40 seats, my predictions were pretty worthless. I thought the narrowing trend would continue but it did not. The Republicans lost 28 seats overall.
Funny, but all the liberal bloggers were telling us to expect a 40 to 50 seat blow out of the GOP. Arizona Senator Kyle was supposed to lose his race. Kyle was returned to Washington. Michele Bachmann (Minnesota 6) was supposed to lose but didn't. John Doolittle (California 4) was supposed to lose, but didn't and so on.
A majority or races decided by 5,000 votes or fewer went to Republican candidates, at least as of now. There are 11 races awaiting recounts, provisonal ballot tallies etc.
A blowout was what Democrats themselves suffered in 1994 when 34 of their incumbents lost and their party lost 54 seats total. In 2006, the Democratic landslide was effectively confined to Indiana, Ohio, upstate New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
|posted by Jim on 1:56 AM|
Link
. . .
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
My Election Day thoughts and predictions
here.
|posted by Jim on 6:44 PM|
Link
. . .
Want an easy way to follow tonight's election results?
Print out this Election Night Scorecard, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.
|posted by Jim on 2:52 PM|
Link
. . .
Friday, November 03, 2006
The Vote Fraud Begins . . .
in Memphis, Tennessee: "The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is reviewing reports by the Shelby County Election Commission that two people voted twice during early voting in Memphis."
Worse, "Election Commissioner O.C. Pleasant said staff at the sites should have immediately detected the efforts to double vote and promptly notified election headquarters, yet failed to do so."
There is some alarming history here:
[T]hree poll workers were indicted in June on charges they cast fake votes to alter the outcome of a tight state Senate race last year. . . . The aunt of U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., Ophelia Ford won a 13-vote victory in that Sept. 15, 2005, race against Republican Terry Roland. The election was later voided and Ophelia Ford was expelled from the Senate when evidence of fraud surfaced, including votes being cast in the names of dead voters.
(Hat tip: ABC News, "The Note")
|posted by Jim on 12:52 PM|
Link
. . .
|
. . .
|