Centrist Pundits

So here it is, Monday, and the Palin resignation fallout is still the news story of the day.

I still think those who say she’s done in politics are underestimating her chances; more specifically, they are over-estimating the American people.  I’m a strong believer in democracy but unfortunately the electorate rarely gives me reasons for confidence.  And while all the people who talk about “knowing politics” think she’s done for – one even compared her to Kathleen Harris, which I thought was fairly cruel – I’m still not sure her base will see it that way.  Of course, one needs more than a base to run for office with, and Palin has always had some issues with going beyond the base, at least outside of Alaska.

I find it interesting how many major news stories seem to happen the Friday before the Daily Show and Colbert are off for a week.  I’m beginning to think it is planned.

While I don’t know that this is a death blow to Palin the way some think it is, it certainly was… weird.  Her news conference was bizarre.  You hold a news conference to make announcements and answer questions, not raise new ones.  And I’m curious as to who she was referring to in a followup when she said that there are plenty of people who’ve resigned with honor, but since it is her, she gets mistreated by the press.  I’m not going to say the press hasn’t been harsh on her in the past (though not as harsh as she makes them out to be) but I can’t think of anyone who’s resigned from office halfway though their first term that we now think of as a major American influence.  And she still needs to improve her speaking skills.

The current Lt. Governor, the next Governor of Alaska, says that Palin is Alaska’s greatest gift to America.  I don’t know.  Natural splendor, hockey players, and oil reserves are good gifts too.

But lastly, I’d like to take a moment and blast the DNC spokesperson, Brad Woodhouse, for coming on a bit overly strong and partisan.  He said of Palin: “Her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today.”  And I believe that Woodhouse truly thinks that.  And I know that the DNC is diametrically opposed to Republicans and will do what they feel necessary to tear down Republicans.  But, everyone else was saying pretty much the same thing.  The DNC could have made the official response of the party feel a bit classier than that, a bit more reflective and a bit more positive for the future.  “We wish Palin luck in her future endeavors, and we’ll be ready to run against her and win if she chooses to rejoin politics” type thing.

Oh, and to those who are counting her out: hey… we’re still talking about her, aren’t we?

JC 2012 Election, Media, State Politics 2012, Palin

As Greg mentioned, Sarah Palin has decided not only to not seek re-election as the governor of Alaska, but to step down by the end of the month.

JC 2012 Election, National Politics, Personalities, State Politics 2012, Palin

Anyone who understands even the most basic parts of demographics knows that this country is shifting.  Shortly, within the next 20 years, the Latino vote will be amongst the most important demographic to appeal to if you want to remain in office, especially in states in the Southwest and in populous cities nationwide.

What will be interesting to watch will be how ideologies and practical politics collide.  We already see it at times, such as with the Sotomayor nomination.  Republicans have generally been very careful to avoid doing things that could be construed as racist.  For some, this is no doubt because they aren’t racist, and for some, it’s a matter of keeping their record clean.  Those Republicans who tried to pin the racism on Sotomayor herself have either reversed their position (Gingrich) or have moved on (Limbaugh). 

More interesting will be how the 2012 Republican platform takes shape.  Will hot-button issues for the Latino vote be downplayed?  What will be the fate of the Republican stance on amnesty for immigration, tighter border crossings, denial of access to services like health care, and English as the national language?

English as a national language might still be fair game, as long as its implemented with sanity.  Making people learn the common language of the nation for citizenship can be presented in a light that makes it not different than having to learn our history.  But you can’t just leave people to die in hospitals or go without legal representation in court because they don’t speak English.  Those things probably wouldn’t happen anyway, but that seems to be the fear raised when English as a national language crops up.  A more robust explanation of the party stance would be in order.  “English as a national language to facilitate communication, while acknowledging that emergency services must be granted despite language barriers” would be a start.

Denial of services like health care, education, and driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants will be a trickier one.  The question will be where the line is drawn.  No one seems to think much of denying driver’s licenses to people, but on the flip side, no one wants to see people at a hospital denied treatment because they aren’t an American (the common argument being they are still human).  Education is a hot-button middle ground.  Both parties will have to choose where they stand on this, but it is the Republicans who would tend to the more restrictive policies in the past, and will need to decide if these policies still represent their views in the future.  Similarly, amnesty for immigration will need to be examined.  The current view is that amnesties encourage illegal crossings, but if these amnesties would please potential voters by reuniting families, it may be worth it to abandon this plank.

Tight border crossing controls have a good backup in place.  The discussion will need to be turned, in the Republican point of view, from one of immigration to one of national security.  If the Republicans can convince Latinos that tight border controls are in place to keep terrorists out, not to keep their families out, then they might have a chance.  Of course, that will require the groups along the border who have taken it upon themselves to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border to not seem quite so stereotypically white, racist, and Republican.  Unity will be the watchword here.

What it boils down to is principle versus practicality.  I think there are many conservatives who honestly have a problem with amnesties, with tax money paying for services for people who don’t pay taxes, and with a porous border.  I even sympathize with some (but not all) of their arguments.  But the Latino vote is a rapidly growing segment of our population and unlike, say, the African-American vote, it isn’t inherently attached to either party, and probably won’t be, unless one party or the other makes a mistake.  So the question is, is sticking to those principles that will most likely drive a vote away from your party a mistake?

That’s an old political question – do what’s your heart says is right or your head says gets the most votes?

JC 2012 Election, National Politics, Political Parties 2012, elections, gop, immigration, Sotomayor

Back before we started this blog, Greg and I would often discuss politics.  Sometimes it would be with others.  I remember one particular discussion in which Greg and I posited that the first African-American President would be a Republican.  Since the Republican party is the party of old white men, some of our friends were confused by our claim.  But we were basing it on some simple math.

If a Presidential candidate were African-American, and Democratic, it wouldn’t change the electoral math in any way, given that most African-Americans vote Democratic anyway.

If, on the other hand, a Presidential candidate were African-American, and Republican, it would skew things.  While certainly not all, many voters for whom race is important would change over to the Republicans.  And while there might be some switch-over to the Democrats by a small group of voters – we call them racists – who didn’t want to see a black man President, it wouldn’t be enough to offset the influx.

Of course, Greg and I were both gloriously wrong, and the first African-American President is a Democrat.  Perhaps America is more racially mature than we expected.  Or perhaps we simply forgot that African-American Republicans are a rare enough group that we just don’t see them on the ballot.  Amongst the prominent African-American Republicans, Powell wasn’t interested, Rice was associated with a disastrous White House, and Keyes is just crazy.

Bobby Jindal is all set to give the response to Obama’s not-quite-a-State-of-the-Union address tomorrow.  Its been called in some circles his coming out party; Jindal is believed to be a major player in the future of the Republicans and some pundits say the only reason he wasn’t the VP pick last year was name recognition.  (I disagree with those pundits as I had heard of Jindal, and not of Palin, but a sample of one is not a good sample size)

Bobby Jindal’s actual first name is Piyush, and he’s not your father’s Republican.  He’s young.  He’s Indian-American.  He’s the son of immigrants.  He’s more the description of some hypothetical success story that no one thinks could actually happen than a real person.  Oh, and most sources agree that whether or not you agree with him politically, he is wicked smart in general and especially about politics.

His negatives are mostly fairly minor.  Some questions about his ability to lead (he actually faced recall at one point) but no worse than the questions about Obama’s being ready on day one.  And something about exorcisms in there, but while that amuses me greatly, I don’t know that it would knock him out of any race.  It certainly hasn’t kept him out of Congress or the Governorship of Louisiana.

If Michael Steele is the knock-off, second-rate Obama of the Republican party, Bobby Jindal is the real-deal answer to Obama.  And it may not make the racists happy that the person who will carry the banner of the Republican party isn’t an old white guy, they may have to learn to live with that fact.  As I implied yesterday in my discussion of the next election, Jindal’s real choice is simply 2012 or 2016, which is he more likely to win?  But he will be the candidate somewhere down the line.  Count on it.

JC 2012 Election, National Politics, Political Parties 2012, culture, elections, Jindal

The election cycle gets longer, and longer, and longer.  CNN has a brief article on their political ticker today talking about 3 prominent Republicans who didn’t rule out a run for the office in 2012.  While Centrist Pundits loves politics, I’m curious as to what the Sunday morning shows could possibly expect people to say 3 years out when the President hasn’t been in office long enough to know how his term will go.  Of course no candidate would rule it out at this point.

All these candidates are probably hopeful- politically speaking – that Obama will have something disastrous happen that will drop his ratings like a stone.  That in 2011 his ratings will be at the same level as George Bush’s and it will poison not only his own campaign but all Democrats running.  If Obama is looking toxic in 2011 then there will probably be a wide field of Republicans looking to run.

All these candidates are probably equally fearful that Obama’s ratings will remain high.  Not as high as they were as Obama entered office – that’s essentially impossible – but high enough that a re-election is a slam-dunk or at least fairly easy.  In this case, lots of Republicans… especially younger ones like Jindal… may hold off until 2016.  The Republicans will throw out some sort of sacrificial lamb.

The hardest part will be if things move to the middle.  If Obama is popular, but not that popular.  The question of whether or not to run against an incumbent is a tough one.  At this point, I would have to think its a bad idea – yes, one has seen how Obama runs a campaign, but since Obama runs a good campaign you’d have to be pretty confident that you can run a better one.

Its still ridiculously early to say to much about 2012, but the news programs seem to want to go there.  But with 2.5 years and a census to go before things really heat up, the questions are fairly ridiculous.

JC 2012 Election, Political Parties 2012, elections