Globalization

Talk about a paradox: just days after Americans made history by electing the first black president, the AP reports that threats against a president-elect spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than any president-elect ever before. And in New York, seven teenage thugs in Patchogue replicated a shameful page of what we'd like to call "history" by forming what one prosecutor called a "lynch mob." Why are people bent on hate? More importantly - how do we fight ignorance and intolerance? A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." A wise friend once said, "the same people who hate immigrants and immigration reform hate Latinos, and hate other races, and the people who hate these groups are the same who speak out against women's rights, and against choice, and against gay rights...." Arguing that any one group is better or worse than another constitutes hate speech, and hate speech has consequences.

A New York Times editorial this week, The High Cost of Harsh Words opens with the name of our column - words have consequences. And Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, is learning that the hard way. Seven teenagers were arrested and charged in the fatal stabbing last Saturday of Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorean immigrant, on a street in the Long Island village of Patchogue. Local lawmakers in Suffolk would speak out complaining about immigration, but Levy went farther - he founded a national organization to lobby for crackdowns. He went on "Lou Dobbs." He sought to drive day laborers from local streets, yet rigidly opposed efforts to create hiring sites. Even as tensions escalated in places like Farmingville, a hot spot for anti-immigrant resentment, Mr. Levy parroted extremist talking points, going so far as to raise the alarm, utterly false, that illegal immigrants' "anchor babies" were forcing Southampton Hospital to close its maternity ward. He now denounces racist hatred, yet his words have made him a hero to white supremacist hate groups, and certainly contributed to the atmosphere that allowed these men to feel angry enough to want to kill another human being, and protected enough to think that they could get away with it.

It's difficult to tell whether Levy even cares about the responsibility he bears in relation to this crime, immigrant advocates assailed him for having poisoned the atmosphere. Some called for his resignation, and with tactless self-pity, Mr. Levy complained to Newsday that the killing would have been a one-day story anywhere but his home turf. He insists that people have a distorted picture of him, but "Mr. Levy needs to realize that distortions cut both ways." Some white supremacists hide behind the alleged legal status argument - alleging Lucero was "illegal," so what if he was? If you think that his legal status excuses taking his life, then you are a racist. Then where do we draw the line? Is the life of a thief, an adulterer, or an unscrupulous wall street executive also expendable? And to further make the point - these thugs didn't stop to ask for papers before attacking, which would put you, or me, or anyone at risk. The murder is just the tip of the iceberg - it's not a "story" when Hispanics are assaulted and beaten, but don't die, or when rocks or other items are thrown at them in places like Suffolk around the country, or when a Latino family's house burns down because two teens thought it would be "cool" to throw firecrackers into the house and see the family scurry out.

Where is the outrage against the cruel murder of an Ecuadorian man? I applaud Peter Applebome, Angela Macropoulos, and Kirk Semple of the New York Times for reporting on it, but what about national news, national networks? Why isn't Lou Dobbs talking about this war by the middle class, against the Hispanic middle and poor class? Oh yes, he's against illegal and legal immigrants, I almost forgot. Where is the Hispanic Bill O'Reilly, angrily mobilizing mobs to speak out against this horrible crime? That's a rhetorical question, it would be awful for Latinos to fuel the fire by drawing additional racial divides - the idea is for no group to predicate division, but rather hold Dobbs, Beck and O'Reilly and people like them accountable for all acts like this murder, because words do have consequences.

On the day these men killed Mr. Lucero, they were identified by witnesses as having battered two other Hispanics earlier in the afternoon. What if the story had been the other way around, and a group of Latinos went out hunting for a U.S. born high school boy, or a "frat boy?" What kind of coverage would that story receive? Dobbs would have dedicated a month's worth of programming to it. And what kind of justice would those murderers get? I sincerely doubt a gang of Hispanics would get off on a first or second degree "manslaughter" indictment (only one of the seven attackers is charged with murder). A very unfair double-standard still exists, and it's appalling. Make no mistake, these weren't young kids who didn't know any better, they were a gang as defined in the U.S.: "a street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes the involvement in illegal activity." And to be clear, assault - which doesn't even involve putting a hand on someone, battery, murder, are all illegal activities.

Murder is murder - manslaughter means you didn't intend to kill. A requirement of murder is that a person acts with intent to kill and knowledge that their actions will result in someone's death. And the police reports that this gang was out to - self-describedly - "kill a Mexican," and they stabbed the guy - they beat him, and then they stabbed him - let's not confuse things, they were out to kill. And if they can do this to another man for no reason, what's not to say that these same men would be just as willing to assault a woman just because they can, or a child? They are a menace to society, as is anyone who thinks like them. One of the killers, Chris Overton, 16 years old, is awaiting sentencing in another case. He pleaded guilty to burglary in another fatal attack in May 2007 in which a 38-year-old East Patchogue man was shot dead when a group of teenagers robbed his home. A neighbor found the victim, Carlton Shaw, dead in his backyard, his 3-year-old son sleeping on his chest.

But the Lucero murder was fueled by hate, and it's up to each community to not allow these crimes to go unreported, underreported, or unpunished. Let us not forget; now Levy plans to have a scholarship for children in honor of Marcelo Lucero, and that's all well and good, but I care more about what he personally is going to do to admit his rhetoric was hateful and unacceptable, and to change the atmosphere in Suffolk. Remember Luis Ramirez? The Mexican man who was also killed by another high-school age gang in Shenandoah, PA? The picture above is of Ramirez just before he died...let's not forget, and let's not allow hate crimes to become a "fact of life," let's stay vigilant in our communities to avoid adding another name to the list of victims.

In a remarkable spectacle, an Administration with a sustained record of economic blunders and failures finds itself aghast at the mistakes and mismanagement of U.S. automobile companies. Imagine Confederate General John Pemberton, after leading his forces to an historic defeat at Vicksburg, dismissing his cook for squandering the rum rations.

Yes, America's big three automobile makers (with an assist from the auto workers' union) have been so consistently unimaginative, self-regarding and inept that they've brought themselves to the brink of bankruptcy. Now they find themselves pleading for a bailout which, under normal circumstances, most sane policy makers would dismiss out of hand. But circumstances today are as far from normal as most Americans have ever experienced, and the request requires a serious second look.

The automakers had been in deep trouble for some time; but until the economic crisis hit, their condition was far from terminal. The Bush Administration's inept strategies and incompetent management of the crisis then dealt a weak industry new, serious body blows. First, the sudden upheavals across the financial system, along with the Administration's inability to explain how it happened or how they intended to protect the rest of us from the fallout, bred such extreme caution and even panic among consumers, that most demand for Detroit's products dried up. Moreover, much of the shrinking cohort of Americans still prepared to purchase a new U.S.-made car can't find financing for it. That's because two decades of deep federal distrust of regulating most financial institutions allowed them to speculate so recklessly with borrowed funds, that now, even with the bailout, their balance sheets are so precarious that they won't provide a new loan to anybody who couldn't pay for a new car without one. Finally, the crisis turned off the lines of credit and other routine financing that auto manufacturers need to operate. All three blows are consequences of the remarkable failures by the White House, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to comprehend the dangers of the sub-prime mortgage market as it began to unravel and address effectively those dangers as the crisis snowballed.

So, the American auto industry now faces a kind of life-or-near-death moment, and if the President and Congress turn their backs, the results could drive down the economy much further. That's the only reason to countenance a bailout for an old industry that doggedly resists modernizing itself -- but under the current circumstances, it's a compelling one.

American businesses and consumers remain dangerously vulnerable to yet another economically-bloody shock which could further shift expectations downward, which in turn could produce a Depression-like state of mind and what economists call a "sub-optimal equilibrium." That's a very unpleasant condition in which markets produce much less wealth, jobs and incomes than they could, because consumers, businesses and banks no longer believe that the conditions to support better times can be sustained.

Since the Bush Administration is at least partly responsible for what now faces the auto industry -- and now faces the rest of us, too - they should put their weight behind new help for automakers and auto workers. But the bailout shouldn't be a handout. The industry needs both a shake-up and a technological shift, and strings tied to the federal assistance can help make both happen. The first part of the shake-up is simple: the current executive teams are out, and everybody takes real pay cuts -- including some workers who at GM reportedly earn an average of $71 per hour (including benefits), compared to Toyota's U.S. workers at $49 per hour. The aid also should be tied to a greater commitment to develop and produce new engines and cars with extremely high mileage per gallon and a small carbon footprint, because that's the market being created by high energy prices and climate change. And to provide additional motivation, the government can conduct the kind of competition the Pentagon carries out routinely, in which the first automaker to produce a 75- or 100-mile-per-gallon, low-carbon automobile wins a 10-year contract to supply the federal government fleet. And the taxpayers providing the aid should not only get an equity share in return for their investments, but public-representative seats on their boards, to keep watch and keep tabs. Finally, the government should commit itself to cajoling or coercing the Big Three's lenders to enter into debt-equity swaps with the auto companies, and so improve their balance sheets enough to attract new private investors (and so avoid a second bailout).

Rescuing the auto companies is, of course, a slippery slope, but the alternative may be to skip past the slope and head directly for the cliff. As it is, it still may not be enough. Home foreclosures continue to rise, and the additional losses to mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives may soon absorb much of the current Wall Street bailout. Further, the global recession has pushed a number of emerging-market and transition economies perilously close to sovereign debt defaults, which would deal another serious blow to the financial institutions that today hold the debt of those countries. At a minimum, neither the economy nor the auto industry will tread water while Americans wait for the new President and new Congress to take office. That's why, this time, the extraordinary conditions to justify bailing out a failing industry are present. And if a Republican President and his party in Congress keep their ideological blinders on and ignore those conditions, Detroit's demise could take the GOP with it for a long time.

While nearly everyone recognizes that the current financial crisis is the worst since the Great Depression, the economic challenges and the changes in the political landscape hearken back more to 1980 than to 1932. The distinction matters, because a misplaced metaphor or inapt historical analogy that takes hold of the political imagination can produce serious missteps.

In 1932 and 1980 -- and again less than two weeks ago -- the country strongly rejected an incumbent presidential party, with the White House and substantial majorities in both houses shifting, respectively, to Democrats, then the Republicans, and now the Democrats again. In retrospect, it’s clear that the political realignment of 1980 and the years following was not the political upheaval of 1932 and the decades which followed it. 1932 began a revolution in the federal government’s role in economic and national life that persists today, while 1980 jumpstarted a continuing shift in political preferences from center left to mainstream right, with policy evolving within a familiar framework.

If our times were truly most like the turmoil of the early 1930s, the basic character of government, the basic path for the economy, and the country’s role in the world would all be at stake. Times like that require deep and fundamental changes in both policy and politics, with a realigned electorate eager to back seismic shifts. And that’s what we hear from some members of Congress, urging President-elect Obama to make deep and fundamental changes in the economy, the health care system, the way we use energy, and the Middle East--and do as much of it as possible as soon as he takes office. If this were 1932, we would need such basic changes to head off profound social divisions and political upheaval – and a president like Franklin D. Roosevelt who could recognize that need and take it on.

1980 provides a different model which seems much closer to the country’s present predicament. There’s no popular demand to change the government’s essential role in national life and the nation’s basic role in the world. Instead, much as in 1980, the public demands major improvements in the quality of the President’s economic performance and the success of his foreign policies. Yes, the economic crisis almost certainly will be the most damaging since the 1930s. But still there’s a profound difference between unemployment rates of 7 percent or even 10 percent, and the 25 percent jobless rates of the 1930s. One reason is that today we understand much of the sources of our economic failures–which we didn’t in 1932—and so we can reasonably expect to be able to address them without fundamentally changing the government’s role in our lives. Similarly, we know that we face profound problems with our health care system, especially with the financing to ensure its universality and sustain its quality. If this time were a political and economic reprise of the 1930s, the health care debate would revolve around a government-run, single-payer system with comprehensive price and wage controls. Instead, President-elect Obama –and every other serious presidential candidate this year--could and did promise to address these problems in a serious way without fundamentally changing the government’s role there, too.

If our economic and political conditions recall 1980 and not 1932, what’s the best course for the new administration? The President-elect should be able to draw on an extraordinary level of public and congressional support for some time; and he has said, so many times and in so many ways, that his presidency will tackle the country’s problems from inside the policy discussions the two parties have carried on for the last decade. If that’s the path, the new President’s best strategy is to press for change step-by-step, rather than try to drive a wave of sweeping congressional actions in the storied, first 100 days. For one thing, when a president fails at sweeping initiatives, his political support for another go at it usually disappears. Anyway, step-by-step change doesn’t mean marginal or modest changes. Rather, it can describe a political process where the President’s initial round of reforms in, say, health care, regulation, energy and tax policies over the first year are followed by a second round of reforms the following year. And if the nation is lucky, there can even be a third and fourth round after that. This is the time for an Obama administration and Congress to finally fix the systems we have--and not, as it was for FDR, the moment to invent wholly new ones.

Tomorrow, America's Voice will release more detailed information on races in which the immigration debate took a prominent role, and how that affected candidates. In the meantime, how might the Democratic gains in the House and Senate affect the likelihood for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) in 2009? Democrats have a 259-176 majority in the House and 57-40 in the Senate, pending the outcome of a few close races. Of all the Senators who voted for the cloture motion in the Senate, we lost Sen. Biden (D), Sen. Craig (R), and Sen. Hagel (R) - we can expect that the Governor of Delaware will appoint another CIR-friendly Senator - Craig has been succeeded by Jim Risch (R) and Hagel by Mike Johanns (R), both anti CIR. Luckily, there are gains for CIR in the Senate with the loss of anti CIR Senators: Elizabeth Dole (R) and Gordon Smith (R), and the retirement of John Warner (R). With the loss of Sen. Smith to Jeff Merkley (D), both Oregon Senators are now pro-CIR democrats. At least 5 pro-CIR candidates defeated anti-CIR advocates, turning Senate seats around. However, immigration reform will most likely begin in the House this time. There are several House races where pro-CIR Democrats defeated anti-CIR Republicans (click on the candidates to see their stance), that we would like to highlight:

Virginia 2 - Of note, Glenn Nye (D), defeated the fervently anti-CIR Thelma Drake (R) after her 2 terms in Congress. Nye has said that he won't support "amnesty for those who have jumped the line," but since comprehensive immigration reform doesn't call for amnesty, but rather for legalization of the undocumented and placing them at the end of the line of those already waiting for citizenship, his position should not differ from CIR advocates.

Virginia 5 - Tom Pereillo (D) has defeated very anti-immigrant Virgil Goode (R) in a close election, 50%-49%.

Virginia 11 - For Tom Davis's open seat, Gerry Connolly (D) defeated Keith Fimian (R) 53%-45%.

The Republican losses in Virginia serve as proof that anti-immigrant rhetoric does not pay. The Republican-held Virginia State Assembly has spent the last few years concentrating much of its energy on demonizing immigrants and Hispanics, and the Republicans who lost these seats had been major proponents of this strategy and fighters against a solution to the broken immigration system - clearly, there is a price to pay for hate-mongering and for inaction on immigration reform.

Oregon 5 - Rep. Darlene Hooley, a member of the New Dem Caucus, left an open seat and pro-CIR Kurt Shrader (D) defeated Mike Erickson (R) 56%-37% to succeed her.

Connecticut 4 - Jim Himes (D), who was actually born in Peru and lived in Peru and Colombia for the first 10 years of his life and still speaks fluent Spanish, defeated Republican incumbent Chris Shays (R), 51%-48%.

Arizona 1 - Ann Kirkpatrick (D) defeated Sydney Hay (R) for Rep. Rick Renzi's open seat 56% - 40%.

New Mexico 3 - Ben Lujan (D), another Latino joins the House Democrats after defeating Dan East (R), 54%-32%.

New Mexico 2 - Harry Teague (D) defeated Ed Tinsley (R) 55%-45% for Rep. Pearce's open seat.

Colorado 2 - Jared Polis (D), CIR advocate, defeated Scott Starin 62%-34%.

Colorado 4 - Another interesting win for Democrats, Betsey Markey (D) defeated incumbent Marilyn Musgrave (R) 56%-44% .

Nevada 3 - Dina Titus(D) ousted incumbent Jon Porter (R), 55%-43%, in this district with a large and growing immigrant population, not to mention the district represents part of a county that contains the large share of the state's total population (Clark County). Titus is for CIR and the DREAM Act.

New York 29 - After 2 terms in Congress, Randy Kuhl (R) was defeated by pro-CIR Eric Massa (D).

Idaho 1 - Incumbent Bill Sali (R) was defeated after 1 term by Walter "Walt" Minnick (D).

Other House Races of Note: In these races, the Dem candidate has defeated the Republican, however, we remain uncertain as to the winner's stance on immigration.

Pennsylvania 11 - Again, hate mongering doesn't pay: Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) won his bid for re-election against former Mayor of Hazelton, PA, Lou Barletta (R). While Kanjorski is not exactly a CIR advocate, we can count our blessings that Barletta, who did not miss an opportunity to verbally attack Hispanics and immigrants and who worked to vilify immigrants in their own community, lost this race 52%-48%.

Pennsylvania 3 - Kathy Dahlkemper (D), small business-owner and the first woman elected to Congress from her district, defeated incumbent Rep. Phil English (R), who was very much anti-CIR.

North Carolina 8 - Rep. Robin Hayes (R ) was defeated by challenger Larry Kissell (D).

Ohio 1 - Incumbent Steve Chabot R) was defeated by Steve Driehouse (D), who seems to be for increased enforcement.

Florida 8 - Alan Grayson (D) defeated incumbent Ric Keller (R).

Michigan 7 - Mark Schauer (D) defeated incumbent Rep. Tim Walberg (R).

Senate Races Where CIR Democrat defeated Enforcement-only Republican:
NC - Kay Hagan (D) v. Incumbent Elizabeth Dole (R), 53%-44%.

CO - Sen. Allard's open seat, Mark Udall (D) v. Bob Schaffer (R) 52%-43%.

NH - Jeanne Shaheen (D) defeated incumbent John Sununu (R), 52%-45%.

VA - Mark Warner (D) defeated Jim Gilmore (R) for John Warner's open seat, 64%-35%.

NM - For Sen. Domenici's open seat (R), Tom Udall (D) defeated Steve Pearce (R), 61%-39%.

Races where CIR Democrat has challenged enforcement-only Republican and results are not final:

AK - Incumbent Ted Stevens (R) v. Mark Begich (D); race too close to call. UPDATE 11/13/08: This morning Begich was declared ahead by about 800 hundred votes, but the count continues.

MN - Incumbent Sen. Coleman v. Al Franken; race too close to call and we hear both campaigns are lawyering up for a battle.

GA - Incumbent Sen. Chambliss (R), who was a loud voice anti-reform in 2007 threatens to return to the Senate. Luckily, the race against Jim Martin (D) is still too close to call. However, we hear that after a challenge against the citizenship of voters in Georgia, around 5,000 ballots were thrown out and not counted. At the same time, Chambliss has allegedly raised an additional $1 million for this race and has called in all the big guns: Sen. McCain, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich and Giuliani to campaign with him in Georgia before the Dec. 2 run-off election. Martin is good on immigration, so supporters of CIR should remain focused on this race.

Other House Races to Watch:

California 4: In the race to succeed Republican Rep. John T. Doolittle , Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock continues to open a lead, as of the latest totals totals, McClintock led by 451 votes in California's 4th District race. However, pro-CIR Democrats have a majority of the CA delegation, with 34 House seats, to 18 held by enforcement-only Republicans.

Louisiana 2: Nine-term Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson is awaiting trial on federal corruption charges, but he is still heavily favored to defeat Republican lawyer Joseph Cao in a black-majority, heavily Democratic swath of southeastern Louisiana that includes the bulk of New Orleans.

Maryland 1: State Sen. Andy Harris, who defeated longtime Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest in the Republican primary, trails Democratic county prosecutor Frank M. Kratovil Jr.

Ohio 15. Republican state Sen. Steve Stivers leads Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, a county commissioner in Columbus, by 321 votes, with thousands of provisional votes to be counted.

Washington 8: In suburban Seattle, slow tabulating means a rematch race between two-term Republican Dave Reichert and Democrat Darcy Burner. Reichert's lead has grown to 4% with 90% of precincts counted.

Today's New York Times editorial page argued that the federal government must do more to keep people in their homes. Since the financial crisis started, NDN has observed that homes are at the root of the financial crisis.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson does not seem like the sort of man who suffers fools gladly. Yet, he apparently is tolerant of, or powerless against, a White House that remains opposed to direct government action to prevent foreclosures — a program that is essential to keep millions of Americans in their homes and head off an even deeper financial catastrophe.

Nearly three weeks ago, Sheila Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, told Congress that the agency was working closely with Mr. Paulson’s department to develop a robust anti-foreclosure plan. Since then, the Treasury Department has balked and equivocated while the White House has argued that it is already doing plenty to help homeowners.

After a year of doing far too little to stem a flood of foreclosures, the problem is getting worse. Defaults lead to foreclosures that push down all house prices. Those falling prices — combined with rising unemployment, falling incomes and another expected surge in monthly payments on adjustable rate loans — will surely lead to more defaults and deeper price declines, threatening bank solvency and prolonging the credit crunch.
...

All roads, into and out of this crisis, run through the housing market. Mr. Paulson should be pressing for a streamlined plan that includes permanent modifications to troubled loans. That is the only way to keep Americans in their homes, save the banks and the economy.

For more on NDN's campaign to keep people in their homes, click here. 

It has been a remarkable week for NDN in the media; this is my fourth news round up in eight days (see the others here, here, and here).

First off, Simon's election analysis appeared in a major article in BBC News today, which began like this:

Democratic strategist, Simon Rosenberg, director of the New Democrat Network, is one of those who argues that the pattern of the last four decades has been broken.

Since the the 1960s, when the Democrats passed civil rights legislation, the southern states have mostly voted Republican in presidential elections.

This has given them an in-built advantage, and only two Democrats, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (both southerners), have won the White House in the last 40 years.

Now Mr Rosenberg argues the Democrats have created a new paradigm that means they could dominate politics for a generation.

He gives three reasons:

• Demographics: The Democrats are appealing to the fastest-growing groups in the electorate

• Technology: The Democrats have mastered the new digital technologies, enabling them to fundraise and mobilise their supporters more effectively than their opponents

• Issues: The Democrats are better equipped to deal with the new issues, like global warming, immigration, and the global financial crisis, which go beyond traditional left and right divisions

He also argues that the Republican brand has been irrevocably damaged.

At the same time, he recognises that the main issue for many voters in this election was an old-fashioned one - falling living standards - and this will represent a major challenge for President Obama.

Simon is also quoted extensively throughout the body of this excellent article, which lays out many of NDN's main arguments, so be sure to check it out.

Since Friday, Simon has also been quoted in a plethora of sources about how Obama is likely to use technology to govern, including Wired, Agence France Press, the Houston Chronicle, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TCMNet, Business Intelligence Middle East, and Real Clear Politics; NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Michael Hais are also quoted in the RCP story talking about Millennials. 

From the Wired article:

Obama is widely expected by the inside-the-Beltway community to use the web to redefine the relationship between the President and his constituents, just as he did so with voters during the 2008 campaign when he often used tech tools like YouTube and text messaging to communicate directly with voters, bypassing the media.

"I think you're going to see this new model used throughout his presidency that Obama's pioneered that allows him to reach many more people in a much more meaningful way," says Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the non-profit think-tank NDN in a recent interview. "Just like the advent of radio changed the relationship between those that govern and their voters, President (elect) Obama will start to re-invent the relationship of American citizens to their president using the new and modern internet-based tools."

This could take shape in the form of Saturday YouTube addresses instead of or in addition to the President's weekly Saturday radio address, Rosenberg speculated. The point is that Obama is expected to use the tools to go "over the heads" of the media to communicate and to mobilize voters.

Simon was also quoted in several more stories about the Hispanic vote, appearing in the Los Angeles Times, the Las Vegas Sun, the Latino Journal, and Burnt Orange Report. Tom Brokaw also quoted Simon in an interview with U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez on "Meet the Press," and Markos (Kos) from DailyKos linked to Simon's blog post about the interview.

Finally, Andres appeared in the Las Vegas Sun discussing Latino turnout, and Rob discussed Obama's possible economic policies in the Chicago Tribune and Ireland's Independent. 

Following a campaign that closed strongly and successfully with a promise to focus on everyday people, Obama plans to do the same as President. In his first press conference as President-elect on Friday, Obama pledged to pass a stimulus package, and Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff designee, again emphasized the Obama’s economic plans.

From the front page of the Washington Post:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to push ahead with a middle-class tax cut soon after taking office, his choice for White House chief of staff said yesterday.

Rahm Emanuel also hinted that Obama would not postpone a tax increase for families earning more than $250,000 a year despite the deepening economic gloom. He said Obama's proposals would reduce taxes for 95 percent of working Americans by an average of $1,000 each, resulting in "a net tax cut" for the overall economy.

"The middle class must be the focus of the economic strategy," Emanuel said on ABC's "This Week." Over the past eight years, he noted, median household incomes have decreased, when adjusted for inflation, while the costs for essentials -- including education, energy and health care -- have soared.

Emanuel’s comments on the economy are dead-on: rising costs and dropping wages and incomes have put everyday Americans in tough economic place. Simon has been writing extensively about the need to keep the focus on everyday people, and NDN looks forward to an Obama administration that does just that.

For more on NDN’s analysis on making the economy work for all Americans, visit the Globalization Initiative page.

On this Sunday's meet the press, Senator Mel Martinez acknowledged that the way the national Republican Party has demonized Hispanics these past few years may make it in impossible for their Party to win Presidential elections for years to come. MTP quoted NDN and Simon, "If the Republicans don't make their peace with Hispanic voters, they're not going to win presidential elections anymore. The math just isn't there." This back and forth has now put tremendous public pressure on the GOP to turn around the full-on condemnation of their party among Hispanics. The GOP could help itself avoid political annihilation by abandoning the stance seen by many as a level of racial intolerance unacceptable in a new age of Obama, and by working with President-elect Obama to pass comprehensive immigration reform ASAP. This moment may really be a game-changer for both parties.

Let's not forget, Obama's victory among Hispanics may still be short-lived if he does not follow through on his promises to this community - as stated by Dan Schnur, Republican strategist: "Candidates don't cause realignments, presidents do. Candidate Obama has certainly created the conditions for potential realignment, but it's going to be up to President Obama to govern in a way that can make that happen." And that means passing immigration reform during his first year. Hispanics are not forgetting about his promise - on this Sunday's Al Punto, Jorge Ramos asked all his guests about the prospects of immigration reform. He asked Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ): Will [Obama] fulfill the promise he's made to Hispanics to pass immigration reform? Polls show that people care about the economy, education, etc. but the issue of immigration is still at the forefront for the Hispanic community....This is a big promise, how will he do it? Sen. Menendez responded that Barack Obama has remained steadfast on immigration since his votes for reform last summer. 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez was also asked and noted, "Barack Obama owes his victory to the large Hispanic turnout," as Obama invested more resources in reaching out to this community than Kerry and Bush together in 2004. When asked, "Can he fulfill this promise, or is it just rhetoric?" Luis Gutierrez reported that he has already spoken to Obama staff and that he is already working to strategize how to move on immigration reform, "It's really important to fulfill those promises," that's why on November 15 Rep. Gutierrez is holding a rally and inviting all U.S. citizens who know of undocumented persons to demand action - "We have to continue putting pressure on the administration." And Republican Mario Diaz-Balart agreed, although he opposes Sen. Obama's stance on Cuba policy, etc., he agreed to work to pass immigration reform alongside Rep. Gutierrez.

An article in the Politico today discusses how all "Dem groups" are claiming the win for Barack Obama - the truth is that while Hispanics are still not a "Dem" group, it is undeniable that it was Hispanics - the ultimate swing electorate - who delivered key battleground states like IN, NM, and FL for Barack Obama, and allowed for a sizeable lead in CO and NV due to their numbers in those states and because they held record shares of the electorate. "Without the Latino vote, we would not have won those states," said Federico Pena, national co-chairman of the Obama campaign. And Hispanics were also influential in Obama's victory in Virginia and North Carolina.

For their part, Republicans must decide how to become part of the 21^st century if their party is to survive. The immigrant-issues coalition is expanding to include other ethnicities. Mercury News reports, this election was not only an appreciation for Obama's multicultural upbringing, but also a rejection of the Republican-led "demonization" of immigrants, particularly of Hispanic and Muslim backgrounds, in recent years. John McCain could help his party in this regard, at least alleviating some of the strongest negative feelings towards the Republican Party by supporting comprehensive immigration reform in 2009.  Beto Cardenas, former counsel to Kay Bailey Hutchinson: "When we have laws that make it easier to get that labor legally, it will be easier to enforce the laws. Such reform could also protect the rights of the workers, who too frequently are subject to exploitation because they are afraid to report abuses...I think there's a will to address the issue if it can be shown it enhances the economic health of the country," he said.

This election had important results for immigration issues, not just because of the individuals elected, but because of the ballot measures passed or rejected:

1) Proposition 202 in Arizona, which would have risked extreme penalties for businesses by linking employee immigration status to their business license, failed: 59.2% No, to 40.8% Yes. It was called, "a racist proposition that should not be enacted because the U.S. can't get a responsible solution to the broken immigration system." UPDATE: In response to my reader's comment, first - please be assured that NDN will never comment on policy without having full understanding of an issue. Second, Prop 202 would have made individuals involved in the hiring process accountable for hiring undocumented immigrants, which many businesses supported because it would liberate them from the responsibility of checking work authorization and pass it on to their HR employees (or employee). It has been called a racist proposition because as with the current flawed electronic employer verification system, there is a potential for misuse, "screening" prospective employees even before they're hired, which would only be more likely to happen if an individual bears the full responsibility of checking status and faces fines or criminal charges for potential violations. The bottom line is that at NDN we agree that propositions like these are not a solution, the U.S. needs a responsible solution to the broken immigraton system at the federal level, since states have no authority to change federal immigration law.

2) In Missouri, a proposition making English the official language in all government activities passed, 85.8% Yes, to 14.2% No. Clearly, people don't understand the consequences of making English an "official language," does this mean that state hospitals won't provide for translation if necessary when they get a patient that is less than proficient in English? Or that Court's in their daily business won't need to provide a translator to the accused so that he/she understands the charges against them? Yes, and yes. Clearly we still have more to do when it comes to "social progress..."

3) In Nebraska, a ballot measure prohibiting affirmative action in state institutions passed.

4) In Florida, an initiative intended to end a legacy of bias against Asian-Americans was defeated Tuesday, apparently because voters incorrectly assumed it would prevent illegal immigrants from owning property. Had it passed, the initiative, known as Amendment No. 1, would have removed from the state's Constitution language adopted in 1926 allowing the Legislature to prohibit foreigners who were barred from citizenship - Asian-Americans at the time - from owning land. No such legislation was ever enacted here, and every other state that had such laws has scrapped them on grounds of equal protection. But Florida's effort to delete the provision failed with 52% No and 48% voting Yes.

5) "Demography is Destiny" - Pat Buchanan finally recognizes the importance of the Hispanic community, but just when you think we've made progress, just when I thought Buchanan was finally the wiser and about to give his party sage advice, he followed up with a statement that shows his complete ignorance of the Hispanic community. He thinks Hispanics voted for Obama because, "They look to government," and "the idea of small government doesn't appeal to them." Are you kidding,me? Native-born Hispanics most certainly don't fall into this category as they largely sided with the Republican party, until the GOP decided to go on the attack against them for fear they might not be "legal." And foreign born Hispanics have come to this country largely because of their distrust of government! Latin American governments have been known for corruption and scandal, which has caused a very deeply rooted mistrust of government and politicians among foreign-born Hispanics, in general. So I say no Pat, Hispanics do not want handouts, they want a government who is a partner, not a parent. If you ask them, large government scares most Latinos, while the idea of small government does appeal to them (the opposite of what Pat says in this video). And I'm shocked by Joe Scarborough, saying that Latinos will come around once they "understand working hard"....really? I take it Joe hasn't been out on the tomato and orange fields in Florida,and he must not go to restaurants or hotels, and he must not have walked around South Florida and noticed that the engine of that economy is made up of Latino-owned businesses. No, Hispanics didn't vote for Barack Obama because they're "socialist" or "liberals," they voted for him precisely because of the ignorance shown by these two Republicans, and reflected by the GOP brand. They voted for the Democratic Party because that party has not insulted all Hispanics, ubiquitously questioning their very right to be in this country. Latinos resent that racial profile, that is why they didn't vote for Sen. McCain. But you are right Pat, demography is destiny, so the GOP has a lot of soul-searching to do.

6) Immigration to Go Paperless - The Washington Post Reports:

The Bush administration has launched a major overhaul of the nation's immigration services agency, selecting an industry consortium led by IBM to reinvent how the government handles about 7 million applications each year for visas, citizenship and approval to work in the United States, officials announced yesterday. If successful, the five-year, $500 million effort would convert U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'case-management system from paper-based to electronic, which could reduce backlogs and processing delays by at least 20%, and possibly more than 50%. The new system would allow government agencies, from the Border Patrol to the FBI to the Labor Department, to access immigration records faster and more accurately. In combination with initiatives to link digital fingerprint scans to unique identification numbers, it would create a lifelong digital record for applicants. It also would eliminate the need for time- and labor-intensive filing and refiling of paper forms, which are currently stored at 200 locations in 70 million manila file folders.

7) Bye-bye Ms. American Pie - Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) has resigned and will be leaving her post on November 15. She has been a controversial figure since the day that President Bush nominated her, possessing almost no immigration or customs experience. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and career immigration lawyer spoke of Ms. Myers's lack of qualifications as a major issue during our forum on immigration: "This is the worst administration I've ever seen, starting at the top of ICE...I served with Jim Sensenbrenner, one thing Jim was insistent on was that there be competent people in the job....you had to know something about immigration law, that you had to have managed a large organization...instead, we had Julie Myers, appointed at age 36, she held a variety of jobs, never managed more than one or two people," so Rep. Lofgren believes that, no doubt, an important qualification of hers might have been that she worked for Ken Starr, and that her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs - oh, and her husband, John F. Wood, also served as Chief of Staff to Secretary Chertoff. This lack of expertise has caused ICE to "be run in a way that has elicited condemnation, the lack of qualification has become apparent." During her tenure, ICE was heavily criticized for carrying out politically-motivated immigration raids, for having unacceptable conditions in detainee centers that caused the death of who knows how many detainees who were denied care, and most recently the Department as been resistant to Rep. Lofgren and Sen. Menendez's legislation to quantify basic medical health standards, and there has been a clear degradation of due process under her watch. What bothers Rep. Lofgren the most is that "they also just don't same to care."

In September, the Pew Hispanic Center's report on the overall state of Latinos found that Latinos were in a significantly worse economic condition and reported a decline in their general well-being. We have continued to see how the economic crisis is hitting Latinos particularly harshly, and today we find that the unemployment rate for Latinos has sky-rocketed to 8.8% in October. The overall national unemployment rate for October reported today is 6.5%, with 240,000 jobs cut during the month. Hispanics have been particularly affected, as the number of unemployed Hispanics went up in September to 1.72 million, and in October Hispanics comprised 1.96 million of the 10 million people unemployed nationally.