Wednesday, November 21, 2012
RAG on Bloggingheads!
The smart young liberal journalist Adam Serwer of Mother Jones invited me to sit down -- in separate cities -- for a fine conversation on various political and cultural topics: Mitt Romney's "gifts" that keep on giving; demographics and the political parties; and, oh yeah, the rise of the Black Nerd on TV (I take full responsibility for introducing that topic -- while somehow forgetting to include the inimitable Donald Glover of Community in my list! D'oh!)!
Anyway, we had a good time. Hope y'all enjoy it -- either in small doses or for the full43 55 minutes!
And without further ado:
|
Anyway, we had a good time. Hope y'all enjoy it -- either in small doses or for the full
And without further ado:
Labels: 2012 presidential election; Barack Obama; race, Latinos; Hispanic; Asian-American, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, women voters
Sunday, November 18, 2012
RAG on WSJ: Obama's Presser & Romney "Gifts"
On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley and I discussed President Obama's first post-election press conference and Mitt Romney's conference call with his donors. This was the now much-criticized session where Romney blamed his loss on the various "gifts" that he distributed to various parts of the electorate.
Jason and I both shared our horror at Romney's comments -- not merely because of the content, but also because of the political foolishness demonstrated by allowing the press in on a call to one's donors! Apparently, there was more than one lesson Romney failed to pick up in the fallout from the "47 percent" debacle!
In any event, here's the video:
A rather perceptive observation on the "gifts" statement was also made by my former boss Newt Gingrich. If it was all about "gifts," why did Republicans do worse with Asian-Americans than they did with Hispanics? ("Right, seventy-three percent of Asian-Americans, seventy-one percent of Latinos," the Texas Tribune's Erik Smith corroborates.)
Gingrich follows up: "This is the hardest working and most successful ethnic group in America, okay. They ain’t into gifts. Second, it’s an insult to all Americans. It reduces us to economic entities who have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy..."
Some might want to jump on Gingrich by implicitly buying into the notion that the other groups Romney are into gifts, but put that aside. But his overall point is simply dead-on. If you go by the stereotype of Asian Americans being as family-oriented as Latinos and even more entrepreneurial, why would they be so hostile to the GOP (or friendly to Obama/Democrats, if you will). I would argue that this may well be considered "collateral damage" of Romney and the GOP's immigration problem.
The party's blocking of comprehensive immigration reform didn't just send a signal of being tough on immigrants coming across the Southern border. It also made things remain difficult for those trying to enter the country for either education or technology jobs. A significant number of those, duh, are coming from Asia. If all Asian Americans see is a GOP seemingly opposed to overall immigration reform -- and hear its presidential nominee talking more "self-deportation" than actual policy -- it's only logical they might conclude that this is a party that isn't so friendly to their presence either.
Yes, elections have consequences.
So, does the combination of ill-focused strategy and thoughtless rhetoric.
I think the same conclusion has come to Bobby Jindal -- the nation's first governor of South Asian descent. This may explain why, perhaps moreso than any other outraged Republicans, he's been the most vocal in denouncing Romney's "gifts" comments. And Jindal doesn't sound like he's just making a rote "distance myself from our recent embarrassing party standard-bearer." He seems genuinely appalled. And I think there's a reason for that. This is as much personal as it is political for Jindal.
The contrast with Marco Rubio's going rather easy on Romney is fascinating. These different post-election statements may be tactical moves by young Republican leaders who will be the ones seeking to define the party in the coming years.
|
Jason and I both shared our horror at Romney's comments -- not merely because of the content, but also because of the political foolishness demonstrated by allowing the press in on a call to one's donors! Apparently, there was more than one lesson Romney failed to pick up in the fallout from the "47 percent" debacle!
In any event, here's the video:
A rather perceptive observation on the "gifts" statement was also made by my former boss Newt Gingrich. If it was all about "gifts," why did Republicans do worse with Asian-Americans than they did with Hispanics? ("Right, seventy-three percent of Asian-Americans, seventy-one percent of Latinos," the Texas Tribune's Erik Smith corroborates.)
Gingrich follows up: "This is the hardest working and most successful ethnic group in America, okay. They ain’t into gifts. Second, it’s an insult to all Americans. It reduces us to economic entities who have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy..."
Some might want to jump on Gingrich by implicitly buying into the notion that the other groups Romney are into gifts, but put that aside. But his overall point is simply dead-on. If you go by the stereotype of Asian Americans being as family-oriented as Latinos and even more entrepreneurial, why would they be so hostile to the GOP (or friendly to Obama/Democrats, if you will). I would argue that this may well be considered "collateral damage" of Romney and the GOP's immigration problem.
The party's blocking of comprehensive immigration reform didn't just send a signal of being tough on immigrants coming across the Southern border. It also made things remain difficult for those trying to enter the country for either education or technology jobs. A significant number of those, duh, are coming from Asia. If all Asian Americans see is a GOP seemingly opposed to overall immigration reform -- and hear its presidential nominee talking more "self-deportation" than actual policy -- it's only logical they might conclude that this is a party that isn't so friendly to their presence either.
Yes, elections have consequences.
So, does the combination of ill-focused strategy and thoughtless rhetoric.
I think the same conclusion has come to Bobby Jindal -- the nation's first governor of South Asian descent. This may explain why, perhaps moreso than any other outraged Republicans, he's been the most vocal in denouncing Romney's "gifts" comments. And Jindal doesn't sound like he's just making a rote "distance myself from our recent embarrassing party standard-bearer." He seems genuinely appalled. And I think there's a reason for that. This is as much personal as it is political for Jindal.
The contrast with Marco Rubio's going rather easy on Romney is fascinating. These different post-election statements may be tactical moves by young Republican leaders who will be the ones seeking to define the party in the coming years.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, immigration, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich
Sunday, November 11, 2012
RAG's WSJ Election Wrap
The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley and I had a feisty few minutes doing an election post-mortem.
First, we congratulated ourselves on predicting the Electoral College breakdown for President Obama fairly accurately. The final result was closer to my "likely scenario" construct. In fact, with Florida at last being given to the president this weekend, he slightly overperformed on my prediction -- concluding with 332 EVs. But, hey, my "likely" scenario of 303 votes for Obama was at least in the same universe -- as opposed to the forecasts of punditry all-stars like Michael Barone, Dick Morris (BWAHAHAHA!!) and George Will.
So there.
But Jason and I primarily wrestled over the import of the president's re-election strategy. Jason termed it "winning ugly" because of the negative campaign emphasizing the "war on women," blacks being disenfranchised over voter ID, seniors losing their benefits, etc.
While I partially agree with Jason that the Obama Campaign '12 was not the inspiring "hope and change" effort of '08, I take the argument that Republicans over the last few years gave Obama a number of swords that the Democrats used to great effect to attack the GOP -- and to inspire their base.
Personally, I think having to show ID when you vote is not necessarily a bad idea. However, was it such a good idea that Republicans at the state level almost uniformly decided that this would be a major goal as soon as they took power following the 2010 election? Did Eric Holder demagogue the issue suggesting that voter ID could potentially disenfranchise black voters? Yes. But did Republicans more than suggest that the a major intent behind the initiatives was pure electoral politics? Most definitely. The fact is that too many Republicans believe that not only is voter fraud rampant, but that Democrats can only win with it. Are there isolated cases of voter fraud. Yes. Is there any evidence that it is so wide-spread that it requires a partisan one-sided approach for voter identification laws? I would argue no.
The fact that many GOP voter ID plans also placed restrictions on use of college ID sent further signals (beyond that given by the above-referenced Pennsylvania House majority leader) that ballot integrity wasn't the motivating force on the drive to voter ID: It was solely about hampering the Obama base.
Indeed, I would then posit that by making voter ID such a cause, the GOP did more to inspire parts of that base -- African-Americans in particular -- than anything that the Obama campaign or administration could have done by themselves. BREAKING NEWS: Voting is a big effing deal for black Americans. Learn from history. Combine that with the larger issue of immigration reform and GOP engagement with Latinos. So, frankly, how hard a lift was it for Barack Obama to "win ugly" -- when Republicans effectively gave away a menu of potential attacks to the other side?
In any event, here's Jason and myself:
|
First, we congratulated ourselves on predicting the Electoral College breakdown for President Obama fairly accurately. The final result was closer to my "likely scenario" construct. In fact, with Florida at last being given to the president this weekend, he slightly overperformed on my prediction -- concluding with 332 EVs. But, hey, my "likely" scenario of 303 votes for Obama was at least in the same universe -- as opposed to the forecasts of punditry all-stars like Michael Barone, Dick Morris (BWAHAHAHA!!) and George Will.
So there.
But Jason and I primarily wrestled over the import of the president's re-election strategy. Jason termed it "winning ugly" because of the negative campaign emphasizing the "war on women," blacks being disenfranchised over voter ID, seniors losing their benefits, etc.
While I partially agree with Jason that the Obama Campaign '12 was not the inspiring "hope and change" effort of '08, I take the argument that Republicans over the last few years gave Obama a number of swords that the Democrats used to great effect to attack the GOP -- and to inspire their base.
Personally, I think having to show ID when you vote is not necessarily a bad idea. However, was it such a good idea that Republicans at the state level almost uniformly decided that this would be a major goal as soon as they took power following the 2010 election? Did Eric Holder demagogue the issue suggesting that voter ID could potentially disenfranchise black voters? Yes. But did Republicans more than suggest that the a major intent behind the initiatives was pure electoral politics? Most definitely. The fact is that too many Republicans believe that not only is voter fraud rampant, but that Democrats can only win with it. Are there isolated cases of voter fraud. Yes. Is there any evidence that it is so wide-spread that it requires a partisan one-sided approach for voter identification laws? I would argue no.
The fact that many GOP voter ID plans also placed restrictions on use of college ID sent further signals (beyond that given by the above-referenced Pennsylvania House majority leader) that ballot integrity wasn't the motivating force on the drive to voter ID: It was solely about hampering the Obama base.
Indeed, I would then posit that by making voter ID such a cause, the GOP did more to inspire parts of that base -- African-Americans in particular -- than anything that the Obama campaign or administration could have done by themselves. BREAKING NEWS: Voting is a big effing deal for black Americans. Learn from history. Combine that with the larger issue of immigration reform and GOP engagement with Latinos. So, frankly, how hard a lift was it for Barack Obama to "win ugly" -- when Republicans effectively gave away a menu of potential attacks to the other side?
In any event, here's Jason and myself:
Labels: 2012 presidential election; Barack Obama; race, immigration
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Election Day!!
So, The New York Times endorsed Obama (duh!), The Post went with Romney (duh!); the Daily News announced for Romney (surprise!). And now, it all comes down to the public (obviously, in many states they've been voting for days.
Anyway, no endorsements on this page as my political blogging has been de minimus this year. More in 2013? Stay tuned.
In any event, here's how I see the states playing out when all the votes are counted today -- or tomorrow; or next week; or December (hey, Mercury's retrograde -- just like in 2000)!!
I used the very nice American Research Group electoral calculator which uses the 2008 Electoral College result as a baseline. I then used the aggregate of most recent polls to decide whether to keep a 2008 Obama state in the same column or move it over to Romney.
I then did two scenarios -- what I feel is the most likely outcome and the everything-but-kitchen-sink possibility raised by possible late moves in states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
Bottom line: In both scenarios, I have Barack Obama winning re-election. For me, the state that actually turns out to be pivotal is not Ohio. The state that may actually cause Mitt Romney grief is Virginia.
LIKELIEST scenario is Obama with 303 electoral votes (vs. 235 for Gov. Romney). In that, Romney wins Florida and North Carolina, but Obama sweeps the other swing states including Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia and Paul Ryan's Wisconsin.
In the ALTERNATE scenario: Obama wins the almost-barest minimum Electoral College victory -- 271-267. There, Romney gets Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and -- wild card -- Minnesota. Obama, however, holds the previously mentioned swing states (save OH and NH). While many people are forecasting Romney grabbing Colorado back from the Democrats, I think the Latino undercount (which played out in Sen. Michael Bennett's 2010 victory) will play a part in keeping this in Obama's column.
So, that's it. Of course, if I'm wrong on, say, Colorado in the ALTERNATE scenario, Mitt Romney is the next president. However, I feel confident in saying this: Look at New Hampshire and Virginia: If Romney wins both, this could be a very long night (possibly week). If the president wins both, it will be a fairly early and good week for him (if not necessarily for nearly half the country).
Do your duty, my fellow citizens and cast your ballots!!
|
Anyway, no endorsements on this page as my political blogging has been de minimus this year. More in 2013? Stay tuned.
In any event, here's how I see the states playing out when all the votes are counted today -- or tomorrow; or next week; or December (hey, Mercury's retrograde -- just like in 2000)!!
I used the very nice American Research Group electoral calculator which uses the 2008 Electoral College result as a baseline. I then used the aggregate of most recent polls to decide whether to keep a 2008 Obama state in the same column or move it over to Romney.
I then did two scenarios -- what I feel is the most likely outcome and the everything-but-kitchen-sink possibility raised by possible late moves in states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
Bottom line: In both scenarios, I have Barack Obama winning re-election. For me, the state that actually turns out to be pivotal is not Ohio. The state that may actually cause Mitt Romney grief is Virginia.
LIKELIEST scenario is Obama with 303 electoral votes (vs. 235 for Gov. Romney). In that, Romney wins Florida and North Carolina, but Obama sweeps the other swing states including Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia and Paul Ryan's Wisconsin.
In the ALTERNATE scenario: Obama wins the almost-barest minimum Electoral College victory -- 271-267. There, Romney gets Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and -- wild card -- Minnesota. Obama, however, holds the previously mentioned swing states (save OH and NH). While many people are forecasting Romney grabbing Colorado back from the Democrats, I think the Latino undercount (which played out in Sen. Michael Bennett's 2010 victory) will play a part in keeping this in Obama's column.
So, that's it. Of course, if I'm wrong on, say, Colorado in the ALTERNATE scenario, Mitt Romney is the next president. However, I feel confident in saying this: Look at New Hampshire and Virginia: If Romney wins both, this could be a very long night (possibly week). If the president wins both, it will be a fairly early and good week for him (if not necessarily for nearly half the country).
Do your duty, my fellow citizens and cast your ballots!!
Friday, October 19, 2012
RAG On WSJ: Debate #2
My alter-ego, Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal and I chatted yesterday about the second presidential debate, including overtures to women, Romney's "binders" comment and the possible element of race in President Obama's rhetorical and political efforts.
Enjoy. Or don't! ;-)
|
Enjoy. Or don't! ;-)
Labels: 2012 campaign, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, race, women voters
Sunday, August 12, 2012
An Olympic Rule of Three
Can take the boy out of the country (ies), but can you fully take the countries out of the boy?
Okay, I'm a proud American. I exulted when Gabby Douglas shocked the world and won gold in the gymnastics all-around. I cheered when Serena Williams pounded the field on her way to her first singles gold medal. And, like everyone else, I applauded as Michael Phelps still walked (swam?) away from London with the most medals of any athlete in these Games. And that Team USA left with both the most overall medals and the most gold.
And yet...and yet...while a resident for more than forty years and a citizen for about a quarter century, American is not all I have ever been. I was born in the West Indies -- Trinidad & Tobago, to be exact. And then I moved to Great Britain barely a year later, where I lived until I was eight. How much of an impression did that leave (besides a now-lost accent)?
Well, enough that I could totally "get" this Times piece observing cracks in the usual stoic British sensibility have appeared due to hosting the Games. Despite the US-delivered nationalism, I was feeling, not far away was a need to see Great Britain do well (which it did -- registering the third most golds and fourth most overall, behind the US, China and Russia -- its best showing ever).
But beyond that, I realized that, while friends and colleagues " took the piss out of" the over-the-top opening ceremonies, I couldn't bring myself to go along. Why? I found myself truly enjoying the wild melding of artistry, campiness and -- most definitely, THE MUSIC. Not even the oddly fawning "tribute" to the National Health Service could seriously put a damper on my enjoyment. For that matter, not even the participation of one I usually find painfully unfunny -- Roward "Mr. Bean" Atkinson -- could forestall more than a few chuckles and belly laughs.
As the two weeks passed by, it was, as mentioned, great to see the US rake in medals. But it was more than excellent to also see adopted Brit Mo Farar get the gold medal in the 10,000 long-distance (and his US training partner, Galen Rupp, win silver). It was a great weekend to see Serena get her singles medal and followed by Scottish-born Andy Murray getting gold on the Wimbledon courts. Yes, the English and the Scots have a relationship considered "complicated" hundreds of years before Facebook adopted the term for status updates. But, so what? The English adopted Murray -- and "dour Scot" Murray basked in the adulation Great Britain showered upon him (if only he had managed to solve that pesky Roger Federer one month before AT Wimbledon, and, well, never mind...good job, lad)!
And then, on the final weekend, something surprising happened. While my two adopted countries engaged in a friendly rivalry for my Olympic allegiances, the nation of my birth put in a surprise appearance! In one of the most exciting relays ever, Usain Bolt-led Jamaica set a world record in the 4x100m; the US squad got.silver, equalling the old mark. And, winning bronze? Yes, little Trinidad and Tobago! Yes, T&T was the beneficiary of a Canada's disqualification (stepping on the line at the third exchange), but, hey, rules-is-rules. We'll take it -- especially this month which happens to be the 50th anniversary of British West Indies independence from, yes, Great Britain!
So, hey, one Commonwealth country excelled at the expense of another! Besides, Trindad and Tobago also scored a bronze in the 4x400m relay on Friday -- all fair and square.
The world of rhetoric loves the number three. On the other hand, we're only supposed to pledge allegiance to one country. On that score, it's not too difficult -- it's the United States. However, I can't honestly say that Great Britain didn't play a not minor part in shaping who I am. Finally, we all come from somewhere -- and that origin plays often unexplainable influences upon us.
I salute and thank my Olympic Three -- the nation who birthed me and adopted me. You have my sincere gratitude for medalling in my life!
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
RAG @ WSJ on Gun Control
Jason Riley and I at our weekly chat -- this week on the issue of gun control post-Colorado-theatre shooting. I reveal my wobbly tendencies on the issue by asking the question of whether someone buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition may be an important fact that conservatives should seriously take into consideration in this debate.
|
