A new McCain ad, "God's Children," targeting Latino voters
Of all the fights Barack Obama and John McCain could pick with each
other--Iraq, health care, taxes--immigration is perhaps the silliest.
Why? Because the Democrat and the Republican don't actually, you know,
disagree.
Not that this minor hitch has stopped them, of course, from throwing
punches at a series of Latino-centric events over the past three weeks.
Appearing yesterday at the annual National Council of La Raza
conference in San Diego, Calif., for example--NCLR is a non-profit
focused on helping Hispanic
Americans--Obama accused McCain of "walk[ing] away from...
comprehensive reform when it bec[ame] politically unpopular." And in
his speech today to the same audience, McCain plans to slam Obama for
"vot[ing] for and even
sponsor[ing] amendments that were intended to kill the legislation."
That's on top of Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a top McCain surrogate,
declaring on a recent conference call with reporters that Obama "was
AWOL" and "working against us" during last year's heated immigration
battles in the Senate.
Is there any truth to these attacks? Sure. In the spring of 2007, Obama
voted for five amendments--later dubbed "poison pills" by critics--that largely
tweaked the bill's guest-worker provisions. Supported by labor unions
and liberal interest groups and designed to make the bill more
"expansive, balanced, and fair," the amendments nonetheless upset
the "carefully crafted, but always
fragile, compromise package that Democrats and Republicans [had]
cobbled
together." (Although, as one commenter notes, conservative Republicans had much more to do with torpedoing the bill than Obama.) Similarly, McCain backed away from the failed legislation
after conservative criticism almost collapsed his Republican primary
campaign, emphasizing a "secure the borders first" approach meant to
pacify the right and even admitting
at a Jan. 30 GOP debate that he "would not" vote for the bill again if
given the opportunity. So when it comes to standing firm on immigration
reform in the face of political pressure, neither candidate deserves a
perfect score.
But that doesn't change the fact that both Obama and McCain crossed party lines to pursue legislation that would include
tighter
borders, a crackdown on employers who break the law, a
new guest worker program, 700 miles of fence along our southern border
and a pathway to citizenship (with penalties) for illegal immigrants
currently in the country--or the fact that both candidates plan to
enact similar initiatives once in the White House.
It's well-known that
McCain co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform with archliberal Ted
Kennedy, risking his reputation among anti-amnesty Republicans--and,
consequently, his nascent presidential campaign--in the process. Now,
despite his "secure the borders first" rhetoric, the Arizonan still
says comprehensive reform is a "top priority... today and tomorrow."
While the stakes weren't quite as high for Obama, he did partner
with Martinez in 2005 to lay out the "first principles" of reform, then spent the next year negotiating with an elite group of senior
senators to hammer out the final compromise. In fact, Obama's
contribution was substantial enough to elicit praise last May from
McCain himself, who lauded the Land of Lincolner for "commitment to
this issue, and [for] working to ensure
this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process." And a
month later----long after Obama had voted for the amendments in
question--Martinez sent the senator a note
thanking him for his "support." "While it failed, your backing of this
important legislation meant a lot to me personally," Martinez wrote. "I
know that standing firm in the face of extreme pressure has not been
easy." Not exactly the kind of thing you'd say to someone who was
"working against" you. Or "AWOL."
Of
course, it's easy to see why McCain in particular is making a mountain
out of this molehill: Latinos will be one of November's decisive voting
blocs. As I've written before, experts predict that 9.2 million Latinos
to cast ballots this fall--a 21 percent increase over 2004. (In the
Democratic primaries, Hispanic turnout was up 42 percent.)
What's more, many of these votes tend to be concentrated in a quartet
key swing states--Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. In 2004,
George W. Bush received record Latino support (for a Republican) of
between 40 and 45 percent, which propelled him to victory in each of
those crucial contests--and the election overall. The problem for McCain is that McCain is trailing Bush by 15-20 points
among Latinos, and Obama's beating John Kerry's final numbers by 10.
That's one reason the latest polls show him leading in Colorado and New Mexico and closing in Florida and Nevada.
The math is pretty simple: if McCain loses two of those four states,
he'll probably lose the White House. Which is why he's telling Latino
audiences that Obama can't be trusted on immigration----despite his previous praise. And it's why Obama is responding in kind.
Ultimately, this silly spat doesn't tell us anything new about the
candidates' (identical) stands on immigration. What it does prove,
however, is that both senators are willing to play politics with
the issue when necessary. If that comes as a surprise, you may want
to crawl back into your hole--and set an alarm for November 5.