Wednesday, May 08, 2013
James Sanders, "PhD"
PhD=Piled. High. And Deeper.
Today, the Post ran an editorial strongly criticizing comments by freshman state senator, James Sanders (D-Queens) in Saturday's New York Times. The editorial took issue with Sanders characterizing Shirley Huntley's agreeing to wear a wire as "snitching" -- which he asserted demonstrated that she "had no honor."
As The Politicker reported Wednesday afternoon, Sanders responded with the following:
However, Sanders does include his full statement that ran in the Times:
Contrary to Mr. Sanders' Wednesday statement, actually it's his original words that "speak volumes." When you insert "probably" right before "doing a public service," far from "encouraging" people to do public service, you're actually raising an element of doubt into their true motives. And then, after doing so, you're stating that ensnaring people "just proves you have no honor."
Again, "ensnaring" does not equal entrapment (except, it appears in James Sanders' mind). And nowhere in his original comments is there an unequivocal "encouragement" for people to cooperate with the authorities in an investigation.
But, hey, in sharing both statements and revealing precisely how confused is his thinking, Sen. Sanders has provided a public service.
Probably.
|
Today, the Post ran an editorial strongly criticizing comments by freshman state senator, James Sanders (D-Queens) in Saturday's New York Times. The editorial took issue with Sanders characterizing Shirley Huntley's agreeing to wear a wire as "snitching" -- which he asserted demonstrated that she "had no honor."
As The Politicker reported Wednesday afternoon, Sanders responded with the following:
“In response to the New York Post editorial on May 7, 2013, what was not said speaks volumes,” Mr. Sanders said. “While the Post highlighted a portion of my statement made to the New York Times that mentions ‘ensnaring’ others, which in the context used, described entrapment, which is prohibit under the law, the article neglected to mention my encouragement to perform a public service by exposing actual corruption that one knows of. Deliberately leading people into a crime that they would not have committed, be they legislators or private individuals, is wrong and shows no honor. I have always and will always encourage full cooperation with law enforcement to root out real corruption.”This is total BS. First of all, Sanders clearly makes the insinuation that ensnaring and entrapment are the same thing. He further makes the assumption that Huntley entrapped her erstwhile Senate colleagues -- where there is absolutely no indication that that occurred. It's also remarkably ironic that Sanders calls wearing the wire demonstrates Huntley "has no honor" -- when it was her original indictment on corruption charges that provided him with the opportunity to challenge and defeat her in a primary last fall.
However, Sanders does include his full statement that ran in the Times:
“There are few among us who can stand up to 20, 30, 40 years without, as the streets call, snitching,” [Senator Sanders] said. “I think that it is tragic that one finds themselves in a world of pain and even more tragic if you’re trying to buy down your sentence by ensnaring others,” Mr.Sanders added. “Now, if you are merely speaking of what they have done, then you’re probably doing a public service. But if you are ensnaring people, then it just proves you have no honor.”Note the second to last sentence: "Now, if you are merely speaking of what they have don, then you're probably doing a public service." Probably?
Contrary to Mr. Sanders' Wednesday statement, actually it's his original words that "speak volumes." When you insert "probably" right before "doing a public service," far from "encouraging" people to do public service, you're actually raising an element of doubt into their true motives. And then, after doing so, you're stating that ensnaring people "just proves you have no honor."
Again, "ensnaring" does not equal entrapment (except, it appears in James Sanders' mind). And nowhere in his original comments is there an unequivocal "encouragement" for people to cooperate with the authorities in an investigation.
But, hey, in sharing both statements and revealing precisely how confused is his thinking, Sen. Sanders has provided a public service.
Probably.
Monday, April 01, 2013
RAG on RedEye
After a lengthy absence, I returned to Fox's "RedEye with Greg Gutfeld" last Thursday. It was funny and raucus -- especially my exchanges with comedian Sherrod Small!
Take a gander:
And, yes, I believe that's the first time I've ever been bleeped! I guess, to this day, dodgeball still brings out the worst in me!
|
Take a gander:
And, yes, I believe that's the first time I've ever been bleeped! I guess, to this day, dodgeball still brings out the worst in me!
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
