Latest Paul Goldman News | Fox News

GOP Presidential Nominee May Face Backlash from Latino Voters on Immigration

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:23:48 -0500

It wasn’t exactly Don McLean singing “Bye, bye Miss American Pie.” But the sound coming from the audience on September 12, 2011 appears to mark the day the music died for the Republican Party. The GOP is the home of “them good ole boys” in the iconic pop song. The famed singer had them “drinking whiskey in Rye, Singin’ this’ll be the day that I die.”

That may have been true 41 years ago when the song hit #1 on the charts. But in late middle age, they were singing a far different tune on a warm, summer evening last year on the west coast of Florida. The GOP faithful had gathered in Tampa for the CNN/Tea Party presidential debate

Republican hopefuls had flown cross-country after a spirited contest at the Reagan Presidential Library. But none in attendance likely appreciated the symbolism of that flight from California, best explained by this background:

In 1992, the surprising strength of H. Ross Perot’s third party presidential bid stemmed from his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The billionaire claimed NAFTA would “suck” good manufacturing jobs South of the Border. But there was an unspoken flip side to the message: white working class voters increasingly also saw themselves burdened by illegal Hispanic aliens living and working North of the Border.

Two years later, trailing badly for re-election, California Republican Governor Pete Wilson played that side of the Perot card. A state legislature had put the so-called “Save Our State” referendum on California’s ballot, it's backers using provocative language in promising this new law, if approved, would crack down on the rising cost of social services, including education, provided illegal aliens and their children. The state’s growing Latino population considered it a not-so-subtle “go back to Mexico” message from the GOP. Immigration had historically been a federal, not state’s rights issue. Wilson needed a "wedge" issue. He went "all-in" for SOS, saying the state needed to act. California voters agreed, powering him and the referendum to victory

But the backlash from Latino voters caused California to morph overnight into a reliable Democratic electoral college bastion, totally changing the politics of reaching the magic 270. Yet the GOP suffered an even bigger loss. Californian's Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had brought the GOP back to power after the long reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Democratic coalition. Today, no California Republican could win statewide without taking positions on the hot-button immigration issue that would ruin his or her chances of being the national party’s presidential nominee.

Governor Rick Perry’s demise, sealed in that CNN/Tea Party debate, dates the moment the GOP music died. He hails from Texas, which along with California has produced every GOP presidential winner since Goldwater’s conservative movement captured the GOP in 1964. Perry became Dead Candidate Walking when he defended the Lone Star State policy giving in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants.

He got loudly booed by those good ole boys and gals drinking whatever they were serving that night in Tampa, then derided again by saying the “idea that you’re going to build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso...is just not reality.”

Perry is the longest serving chief executive of the state with the longest border with Mexico. This is a special issue for Texans. But the Governor of the biggest GOP state in the Union got laughed out of his own party. The takeaway: It now appears Texas, like California, is no longer able to produce GOP presidential contenders.

Such elimination of those areas which have produced your only winners in nearly half-century is mind-boggling. It raises the question whether continued national GOP hostility to Texas’ immigration policies foreshadows the Long Star State eventually going the way of California in terms of the electoral college.

We believe it does. Texans, rightly or wrongly, believe they know what is best for their state. Perry seemed genuinely shocked that night at the audience's total rejection, spurred on by his opponents, of the the 10th amendment argument he rightly thought conservatives had long supported.

In 1964, Goldwater’s reversal on civil rights legislation - he had previously supported it in the Senate - sent once loyal African-American voters from the party of Lincoln over to the Democrats. Ironically, he said the federal law infringed on state's rights! They have never returned. Governor Wilson turned California from red to solid blue, destroying the equation that had elected 5 Republicans in 6 elections.

A close reading of recent GOP national platforms indicates the presidential candidates were careful in their discussion of the various elements of the immigration issue. But in 2012, there is a first time real possibility of the national GOP insisting on a presidential nominee seen as openly hostile by the growing Latino community. In politics, like business, the customer is always right on his or her view of your product.

Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes understood. But their GOP music has apparently died.

Paul Goldman is former chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia. Mark J. Rozell is professor of public policy at George Mason University.

Follow us on twitter.com/foxnewslatino
Like us at facebook.com/foxnewslatino

Trump vs. Carson: What the doctor needs to tell The Donald at Wednesday's debate

Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:23:00 -0400

Does Dr. Ben Carson have what it takes to be president of the United States? That question will likely be answered Wednesday night at the third Republican debate in Boulder, Colorado.

We have all heard the joke about something not being that difficult – “it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure it out.” However in this instance, while the right political debate strategy is obvious, it remains to be seen whether one of the world’s most renowned neurosurgeons can figure it out.

Former casino owner businessman Donald Trump must surely hope that Carson doesn’t have the nerve to knock Trump out with the following strategy…

“Events” said Ralph Waldo Emerson, “are in the saddle and they ride mankind.” A slew of Iowa polls now show Carson leading in the first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucuses. There is also a brand-new CBS News/New York Times poll out Tuesday showing the good doctor ahead of Trump nationwide for the first time.

The Donald says no one should believe these polls because the pollsters are either losers or don’t like him.

Admittedly, the new CBS News/NYTimes poll which has Carson leading Trump by just one point is within the margin of statistical error. But the Iowa polls giving Carson a clear lead are consistent with previous surveys that have gathered the opinions of Iowans who actually participated in the last two presidential caucuses. Previously, very conservative female born-again or evangelical Christians looking for a candidate who shared their values on social and character issues determined the winner in Iowa. Right now, Carson is their favorite.

But Carson’s supporters need a dose of realism: For example, a surprisingly large segment of Iowa caucus goers said they didn’t settle on a choice until the campaign’s closing days. For months, the press, pundits and political elite have been saying Donald Trump’s smash-mouth politics can’t win. But he has remained consistently atop the GOP polls every time, in every state.

Until now, that is, in tiny Iowa. Is it the canary in the coal mine? All eyes in the media “spin” room and across TV-land Wednesday night will be on the angry knife fighting teenage boy from gritty urban Detroit who matured into the scalpel wielding maestro at John Hopkins’s famed hospital.

Americans will be watching the surgeon vs the showman. Could they be any different?

Carson is soft-spoken, almost papal in his humility toward God’s universe. He is the “we” candidate.

Trump stomps across the political landscape brandishing a flogging stick in each hand: in Trump-land, carrots are for losers. The Donald is the “me” candidate.

The eight candidates on the debate stage will hope to utter just one memorable sound bite. But the big event, the defining moment, has already been pre-set. Trump recently suggested that Dr. Carson’s faith – he is a Seventh-day Adventist – may make his rival unfit for the presidency.

Based on prior debates, the moderator will confront both men on this issue. Carson can wait to be asked or be pro-active. Either way, what he needs to say is this:

“Mr. Trump, you have criticized my religion, Carly’s appearance, demeaned Jeb’s family, and called many here tonight losers or worse. You are a braggart, a bully and a bigot. You couldn’t last 10 minutes in my neighborhood growing up. You worship money and find no sight greater than what you see looking in the mirror. You disrespect Hispanics, women, and those who pray to God differently than you do. Your impulse is always to divide, not unite, to label, not love, to hit, not heal. With all due respect, your ego and vanity are appalling, no wonder you are more unpopular than Hillary Clinton.”

Carson’s advisers may have another strategy for tomorrow night. Trump’s campaign can only hope so.

Why the Democratic Party wins if Biden runs

Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:55:00 -0400

Begging Joe Biden to run should be a no brainer for Democrats, as his candidacy can only help the party’s chances. Why?

There are three general scenarios where the 2016 Democratic nominee is the likely loser to a credible GOP presidential ticket.

1. Senator Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination. The self-described “Democratic Socialist” and his platform are too easily painted outside the mainstream.

2. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination but only after moving consistently further left in her political positioning to ward off the Senator’s challenge.

3. Clinton is the Democratic nominee but too wounded politically to recover due to future events, such as consequences from her email mess.

It is problematic right now whether Republicans will nominate a credible ticket. Their path to 270 Electoral College votes is not simple. The must-win swing states for the GOP are Florida and Ohio; and probably Virginia too. The most credible candidates to win those states, Floridians Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, as well as Ohioan John Kasich, remain far behind the current leaders in preference polls.

Donald Trump continues to lead the GOP field even though he is the most unpopular candidate in either political party with even a fanciful hope for winning the White House.

Dr. Ben Carson has a resume unlike any previous president. His success in polls continues, however. It suggests that many GOP primary voters are determined to find a non-politician.

Of the others in the large GOP pack, Ted Cruz seems to be slowly gaining money and supporters based on a strategy pitching him as the most ideologically rigid Senator running for the GOP nomination since Barry Goldwater in 1964 suffered the biggest loss of any Republican in history.

Carly Fiorina has gained traction but her nomination seems a fantasy. The other contenders are not taken seriously yet by GOP voters.

The top tier are all likely to lose badly unless one of the three troublesome Democratic scenarios is present. The advantage to Democrats in Biden running should therefore be self-evident: his being on the field gives them protection against the party’s three big vulnerabilities. Why?

Democratic presidential nomination fights are ultimately about winning a majority of the delegates to the party’s National Convention. Delegates are apportioned to the states and awarded by a formula basically giving a candidate the same rough percentage of these elected delegates as he or she got in the state’s primary or caucus vote.

In a competitive three way race, it is going to be almost impossible for either Biden, Clinton or Sanders to win anywhere near a majority of the elected delegates. For Sanders to win the nomination, he would either need to cut a deal with Hillary or Joe, since the party’s Super Delegates, representing the Democratic Party Establishment, would never vote for him.

Such a deal isn’t possible, and he knows it. Therefore Biden’s candidacy takes scenario one off the table.

In a three fight, Clinton would also have less need to “me too” Sanders. Biden’s candidacy therefore largely if not wholly moots out scenario two.

The last potential calamity, scenario three – the Democrats being stuck with fielding a fatally wounded Hillary – is likewise erased by Biden running.

Thus the Party’s not-so-subtle attempt to thwart a Biden run is short-sighted. Suppose Sanders, in a two way contest with Clinton, wins both Iowa and New Hampshire. The next big primary – South Carolina – will be 18 days away. Presidential nomination history says this period will be defined by positive stories about Sanders’s surprise surging campaign and negative articles wondering what is wrong with establishment candidate Clinton.

Party leaders believe Clinton’s support from African-Americans, especially women of color, will allow the six Super Tuesday Southern primaries on March 1 to stave off Sanders’s challenge. But the presidential campaign momentum driven historically by news stories about winning and losing will give Sanders a big tailwind even if he loses South Carolina three days before. There is a good chance the “firewall” will not knock Sanders out of the race. This means the fight will go all the through the last primaries in June.

Bottom line: This leaves months for any of the three bad scenarios to germinate. But there would not be time for Biden to make a late entry in the race to effect the delegate math.

When viewed from the prism of what is best for the Democratic Party and its supporters, a Biden candidacy therefore could be a life-saver. Those claiming his late entry is unfair to the party and thus pleading with him not to run might want to reconsider.

Mark J. Rozell is acting Dean and Professor of Public Policy at the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders dare Joe Biden to run and defend Obama

Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:31:00 -0400

“Can I get a witness?” sang Marvin Gaye 50 years ago. With Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now publicly opposed to yet another major Obama-Biden administration policy – the 12 nation Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement – the president is surely signing the lyrics:

“Can I get a witness, can I get a witness, can I get a witness. Somebody!”

The president must be wondering whether Joe Biden’s reluctance to run is due to a sense that being the most pro-Obama candidate is a losing image. He can laugh off Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump saying it.

But now this?

It is useful to put the current Democratic nomination fight in historical perspective. Unless Biden enters the fray, Democrats are poised to make modern political history: they will nominate a presidential candidate running on a platform openly opposed to key policies of the party’s sitting president.

The contest 120 years ago presents the closest analogy. Little- known former Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan scored an upset victory at the 1896 Democratic National Convention. The party’s newly minted presidential nominee won by promising to oppose sitting Democratic President Grover Cleveland’s policy of tying the dollar’s value to the price of gold. He blamed lingering woes felt middle class families from the 1893 Depression on Cleveland’s policy.

In 1896, Democrats were desperate for a winning strategy. Since the Republican Party’s founding in 1854, they had been unable to secure the popular vote majority that would be needed to win the expected two-way race.

As 2016 approaches, Democrats confront a totally different presidential election landscape. They have won the popular vote 5 of the last 6 times. President Obama is the first Democratic president to win his two consecutive terms by a popular vote majority since 1936. Republican candidate George Bush won 271 electoral votes, barely more than the required 270. His meager 50.7 percent re-election winning total is worst for any two-term Republican president ever.

Presidential politics is not shuffleboard, winning requires making tough choices. It is no coincidence Mrs. Clinton reversed her stand – although brilliantly nuanced -- on the trade deal right before Vice President Biden is expected to decide on his political future. The same for her decision to oppose the Keystone Pipeline.

I get it: Hillary and Bernie are daring Joe to run and defend not only the trade deal, but other key Obama-Biden policies the two front-runners are opposing. The polls show these policies are not popular among likely primary voters.

But there is a fine presidential campaign line between having honest differences with President Obama on certain issues and being seen as expediently being anti-Obama, using him as a political dart board for political self-interest.

In the fog of political battle, this line can become invisible, only seen when the smoke clears. Has it been crossed and if so, what are the consequences, if any, in key electoral states where economic prosperity relies heavily on trade? It is an open question right now.

But this much is known: Hillary and Bernie have thrown down the gauntlet to Joe, daring him to run as the most pro-Obama guy in the race.

The trade pact is only the latest shot across the Obama-Biden administration’s bow. There are key differences on Obamacare, Middle East policy, engaging the Russians and more.

The last Democratic president to win back-to-back popular vote majorities is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 80 years, every Democratic presidential hopeful feared uttering a single word of criticism.

But roughly 8 years after President Obama won election, the leading Democratic hopefuls fear not to.

So the president understandably asks: Can I get a witness?

President Obama was Hillary Clinton's boss, so why isn't he defending her?

Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:00:00 -0400

Did Hillary Clinton have the right to use a private server and email account for all official State Department correspondence, including those containing classified – indeed, top secret – information?

“Everything I did was permitted” the former Secretary of State told CNN in July.

“What I did was allowed,” she said Monday. “The State Department has confirmed that.”

Then on Tuesday, she told ABC news “[e]verybody in the government I communicated with, and that was a lot of people, knew I was using a personal email.” This included people at the “White House” and “across the government.”

The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination appears to be sending a clear political message as her political fortunes come under increasing attack: the White House knows I am right, as do key officials then serving in the Obama administration. -- They all had ample opportunity, directly or indirectly, to suggest my doing government business on a private email account violated administration policy or worse, might compromise any classified information.

None did.

According to the Constitution, the president is solely responsible for conducting foreign policy. The State Department is the primary governmental entity for exercising this responsibility, often relying on sensitive, indeed highly classified information provided by the nation’s intelligence and military organizations.

Presidential executive orders, along with other governmental regulations, have been issued and are constantly updated to ensure this information is properly handled and accounted for.

The scope of these orders and regulations is carefully explained to all top State Department officials and their key aides.

Yet the clamor created by former Secretary of State Clinton’s email practices seems, oddly, to be missing the most important voice of all: The president of the United States. He has remained mute for months as to whether his former secretary of state did have the right she is claiming.

Did she, or didn’t she? This a straightforward question. A basic Yes or No will suffice.

The White House seems to be claiming the president’s silence is due to the existence of an ongoing investigation into whether the emails in question contained classified information.

Admittedly, the content of a particular email may raise issues pertaining to its handling, identification, protection or redistribution. These touch on legal issues that may be under investigation.

I get that.

But Clinton’s claim, like my question, addresses a different matter entirely. It is separate and apart from her wisdom in using a private system.

The fact that someone has a right to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. This decision, however, is a matter of judgment. Questioning the wisdom of her choice, therefore, becomes germane only if the right itself exists.

Mrs. Clinton’s assertion also doesn’t address her actions regarding storage and handling of official correspondence in her possession after she left office. It is limited to her tenure working for President Obama.

Did the rules operative during the first term of the Obama administration give her the right she claims?

This isn’t a difficult question to answer. It doesn’t ask the president to address the qualitative content of any email currently under review or likely to be in the future. Clinton says she never sent or received an email marked as containing classified information.

This is a carefully nuanced position due in part to the laws and regulations addressing what is, and what isn’t, classified at any given point in time.

But these legitimate matters of inquiry are not germane to the simple question at hand.

American history is replete with controversies involving actions taken by top cabinet members. I am not aware of any time a president or former president failed to support a former cabinet member claiming to have been following administration policy – unless, of course, it was not true.

Mr. President, with all due respect from someone who voted for you two times, I believe you are being unfair to former Secretary Clinton, not to mention the American people.

If she did not have the right she claims, then you need to address this breach in your government’s policy publicly.

However, if she had the right – and the weight of the evidence suggests she did – then she deserves, like any worker, public support from her former boss. It is the necessary and honorable action.

You might favor Vice President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination. He’d make a great Democratic president. But as a long-standing supporter of worker's rights, Mr. Biden would surely agree with my position.

Yes or No, Mr. President. Your view of your administration’s policy is the only one that matters, since the former secretary of state worked for you.

Hillary Clinton's emails: Why it doesn't matter what's in them

Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:26:00 -0400

The State Department released a new batch of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails Monday evening, totaling many thousands of pages. Her defenders will be searching through the electronic missives to find vindication, her critics parsing every key stroke to prove wronging, at least politically. The former first lady’s strongest backers, aligned with the Democratic Party, believe the email controversy is based on partisanship, not principle. They believe she is being subjected to a double standard. Her most dogged attackers, aligned with the Republican Party, say the real truth is the opposite, that she is the one benefiting from a double standard, claiming anyone else would have been forced to quit the presidential race.

What then is the truth about her emails? Clinton’s admirers say they show a good public servant who made, in hindsight, a bad but defendable choice to run all her business through one private email account and server. Her detractors say they show a deceitful politician intentionally skating on the edge, knowingly using an unsecure system putting sensitive information at risk, allowing herself and a few close aides to operate outside of any oversight for their own political self-interests.

To all this I answer: At this point, fair or not, what’s in this new batch of emails is not likely to settle this debate. Those looking for exoneration are as likely to find more exasperation: those searching for proof of worse mistakes are equally likely to be disappointed.

One person’s molehill is another’s one mountain in this controversy: and at this point, roughly one-half year into the back and forth, where you stand is based on where you sit.

This is not unusual in these types of politically charged matters unveiled during a political campaign especially in today’s 24/7 wired world.

The laws and regulations in this area are difficult for the lawyers and intelligence experts to explain succinctly, and intentionally so. Wiggle room to prevent unfair consequences to those who made human mistakes in a classification system meaning different things to different agencies of government should not be allowed to trap good people. Those who say the Clinton campaign botched her defense at the start have the benefit of hindsight.

But those who attacked her without waiting to get the all the facts lost their claim of impartiality and giving her the benefit of the doubt, a necessity in our culture.

The point being: After all that has transpired to date, perception may have already become reality to most Americans, indeed most commentators, not to mention defenders and detractors, on both sides. Or put another way: Another batch of emails isn’t going to change the bottom line.

The drop in Clinton’s support from 69 percent among Democrats nationally when she announced in April to now only 45 percent in one recent poll surely has some cause and effect relationship to the email issue.

The Clinton campaign says no one really cares. But as Yogi Berra famously said, some things are too coincidental to be a coincidence.

Since her announcement, you can count on one hand the number of days Clinton’s vision led the political news. But you don’t have enough fingers and toes to count the times the email controversy dominated the 24/7 campaign cycle.

This reality – her inability to speak about the future due to the media noise created by these emails from the past – is likely the greatest danger to the Democratic front-runner’s candidacy for president. There are going to be monthly email dumps for the foreseeable future, not to mention leaks from various investigations and court documents.

Voters have been waiting, impatiently, for the controversy to be resolved or at least this question answered: Did she or didn’t she do something that will scuttle her campaign for president?

The chances are that after this latest batch of emails is reviewed, we will be no closer to answering this question. If this is true, this could mean the time is near when the public will no longer expect an answer.

The question will now be answered by the old adage: The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

The substance in the emails should, at least in theory, matter the most. But given political reality, the substance might, in the end, matter the least.