Message of the Week (originally aired October 9, 2005)
Rep. Matt Santos begins closing the gap in polls with Sen. Arnold Vinick, though the state-by-state polls show Santos still far behind in the electoral votes he needs to get elected (1). Vinick responds to Santos's gains by switching his message of the week to issues relating to illegal immigration, such as a guest workers visa program and a Central American Free Trade Agreement, though he also criticizes the Minutemen as "vigilantes" (2). Vinick lies to the lobbyist for a religious group by saying that he would nominate pro-life federal judges once president (3), an error which his running mate tries to fix. Vinick's support of CAFTA pushes Santos into trying to reconcile two apparently inconsistent votes ("I voted for CAFTA before I voted against it") and thus making a fumble reminiscent of Sen. John Kerry (4) in his own campaign.
(back to top)
Electoral Map (last updated October 10, 2005) (back to top)
As of this episode, the presidential campaign is going very well for Sen. Arnold Vinick, based on the electoral maps that both campaigns are working off of. Based on these maps, Vinick has real leads in at least 26 states with a total of 249 electoral votes, whereas Santos has similar leads in just 10 states with a total of 96 electoral votes. Vinick is just 21 electoral votes short of the 270 needed to become president, and Santos has a lot of work to do.
The following map shows Vinick states in red, Santos states in blue, and apparently undecided states in white. Alaska probably goes for Vinick, and Hawaii and D.C. presumably go for Santos, but were not visible in the maps seen in the episode.
Given the current state of play, Vinick's campaign should be focusing on securing one or two more key states and solidifying his current positions in his states. Santos, on the other hand, needs to carve into Vinick's support nationwide and secure some big states, such as by securing Santos's own home state of Texas or winning back traditionally Democratic-voting California (Vinick's home state).
The big swing states - and thus the key battlegrounds in this campaign - right now are Texas (34 electoral votes), Florida (27 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes), Illinois (21 electoral votes), and Ohio (20 electoral votes). Both campaigns presumably are focusing on these states.
Vinick - 249
Alabama - 9
Arizona - 10
Arkansas - 6
California - 55
Colorado - 9
Georgia - 15
Idaho - 4
Indiana - 11
Iowa - 7
Kansas - 6
Kentucky - 8
Louisiana - 9
Mississippi - 6
Missouri - 11
Montana - 3
Nebraska - 5
Nevada - 5
North Carolina - 15
North Dakota - 3
Oklahoma - 7
Oregon - 7
South Carolina - 8
South Dakota - 3
Tennessee - 11
Virginia - 13
Wyoming - 3
| Santos - 96
Connecticut - 7
Delaware - 3
Maine - 4
Maryland - 10
Massachusetts - 12
Michigan - 17
New Mexico - 5
New York - 31
Rhode Island - 4
Vermont - 3
| Undecided - 193
Alaska - 3
District of Columbia - 3
Florida - 27
Hawaii - 4
Illinois - 21
Minnesota - 10
New Hampshire - 4
New Jersey - 15
Ohio - 20
Pennsylvania - 21
Texas - 34
Utah - 5
Washington - 11
West Virginia - 5
Wisconsin - 10
|
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration has an on-line electoral calculator that you can use to calculate the results of different scenarios here.
(back to top)
Issues relating to Illegal Immigration (last updated October 10, 2005) (back to top)
Vinick switches his message of the week to focus on various issues relating to illegal immigration, including border control, free trade with Central America, and a program that would give some legal status to illegal aliens.
- First, some numbers. The number of illegal aliens in the United States has grown in recent years. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated in 2003 that there were 7 million illegal immigrants in the United States in January 2000, almost doubling since 1990 (on-line as a PDF here). A more recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center (on-line as a PDF here) estimated that there were 10.3 million illegal aliens in the United States in March 2004.
Both studies estimated that Mexicans comprised the majority of illegal aliens. Both studies also found that many states that had relatively few illegal aliens around 1990 experienced large increases in their illegal alien population over the 1990s. The INS study estimated that Arizona's illegal alien population tripled between 1990 and 2000 and that illegal aliens comprised 5.5 percent of the state's population as of 2000.
- Border Patrol, Minutemen, Vigilantes. The Vinick press appearance with the Minutemen evoke the real-life Minuteman Project (on-line here), which organized hundreds of citizens in the spring of 2005 to patrol the US-Mexico border in Arizona in order to stop illegal immigration. Like Vinick, President George W. Bush did criticize the Minutemen as "vigilantes" earlier this year. "I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America. I'm for enforcing law in a rational way. That's why you got a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border," Bush said in a March 23 press conference (on-line here). White House spokesman Scott McClellan further elaborated that Bush supported citizens monitoring for illegal activity and reporting that to proper authorities, but opposed citizens trying to enforce laws themselves (transcript on-line here).
The border between Arizona and Mexico in real life is known for being prone to illegal entry into the United States, and it has gotten special attention in recent years. The Department of Homeland Security announced the Arizona Border Control Initiative in March 2004 (fact sheet on-line here), increasing the number of border-control agents in Arizona, prosecuting offenders, and disrupting human trafficking operations, and expanded the initiative in March 2005 (fact sheet on-line here). According to DHS, the initiative in FY 2004 resulted in the apprehension of 384,954 individuals, 42 percent more than in the previous year.
- Guest Worker Program. Vinick's proposal echoes one made by President George W. Bush. In January 2004, Bush proposed a temporary worker program that would allow illegal aliens currently in the United States to pay a fee and become legally eligible for jobs which U.S. employers cannot fill with U.S. workers. Such temporary workers would be able to stay in the United States for three years and would have to return to their home countries afterwards, but would get legal protections while in the United States, Bush said.
"This new system will be more compassionate. Decent, hard-working people will now be protected by labor laws, with the right to change jobs, earn fair wages, and enjoy the same working conditions that the law requires for American workers. Temporary workers will be able to establish their identities by obtaining the legal documents we all take for granted. And they will be able to talk openly to authorities, to report crimes when they are harmed, without the fear of being deported," Bush said on January 7, 2004 (transcript on-line here.
Bush's proposal did not get very far in 2004. A senior administration official said after the 2004 election that the Bush administration continued to view such a temporary worker program as a "high priority" and that it would be part of the 2005-06 legislative agenda (transcript on-line here.
The United States has gone even further at times. In 1989-92, many former illegal aliens were also given permanent resident status under the legalization provisions of the Immigration and Reform and Control Act of 1986. Bush said in January 2004 that he opposed amnesty programs, saying that it "encourages the violation of our laws, and perpetuates illegal immigration. America is a welcoming country, but citizenship must not be the automatic reward for violating the laws of America."
- Central American Free Trade Agreement. The United States did enter into the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement in August 2005, when President George W. Bush signed the legislation implementing CAFTA-DR. Bush cited many factors in favor of the agreement, including economic growth within the United States and preventing illegal immigration. "This economic growth will raise working standards and will deliver hope and opportunity to people who have made the choice for freedom. The more opportunity that Central Americans have at home to provide for themselves and their families mean it's less likely that someone looking for a job will try to come to this country illegally," Bush said (transcript on-line here).
CAFTA-DR eliminates tariffs on goods going from the United States to six countries (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), opening up those countries to more US trade, while opening up some markets in those countries as well. It also requires enforcement of labor laws by the participating countries. A site on CAFTA-DR by the U.S. Trade Representative is on-line here.
The agreement received support from a mixture of Republicans and Democrats, with more support from Republicans. In the House, 202 Republicans and 15 Democrats supported the agreement, with 27 Republicans and 187 Democrats opposed. In the Senate, 43 Republicans, 11 Democrats and one independent supported the agreement, with 11 Republicans and 34 Democrats opposed. Notably, former President Jimmy Carter urged passage of CAFTA-DR in letters on-line here.
(back to top)
Nominating Judges (last updated October 10, 2005) (back to top)
When it comes to judicial nominations and abortion, Sen. Arnold Vinick is walking a fine line between the religious right and the general public. He should have continued giving vaguer answers that those opposed to abortion rights could take some comfort in.
George W. Bush has not gone so far as saying that he would nominate pro-life judges who would try to overturn Roe v. Wade. Instead, he has said that he has no such "litmus test" for nominations and has said that he would nominate judges and Supreme Court justices who share his broader judicial philosophy. "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States," Bush said in one of the 2004 presidential debates (on-line here).
Some, such as John Kerry, have said that such Bush's judicial philosophy is code language for wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that first established abortion rights as encompassed within a federal right to privacy. However, while it seems clear that a judge following such a philosophy would not have voted for Roe v. Wade in 1973, it is less clear how such a judge would rule on abortion now, given that such rights have been recognized throughout the United States for more than three decades.
For example, the new Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, was asked about abortion several times in his Senate confirmation hearings. He declined to say how he would rule in particular cases, but he did say that Roe v. Wade was a court precedent entitled to respect and that the 1992 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood was also entitled to respect both in how it re-affirmed and modified that right and also in how it set forth when prior decisions should be re-visited. "There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the court faithfully under principles of stare decisis," Roberts said (transcript on-line at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300876.html).
Under principles of stare decisis, past decisions are treated as precedent that generally should be followed in future cases. In the 1992 Casey case (on-line here), a majority of Supreme Court justices evaluated several factors as to whether Roe should be overturned - such as whether its central holding had been found unworkable, or whether the factual premises for the decision or the law had changed so much in the ensuing time to make the central holding irrelevant - and upheld the prior case.
Following such principles, a judge who personally opposed abortion rights could still decide that abortion rights should continue to be protected in some way by the Constitution.
Most Americans do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to a Gallup poll taken in July 2005. According to that poll, 63 percent of those polled said that they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the opinion, with 28 percent saying they did want the Court to do so. At the same time, such polls also find that most Americans do think that abortion should be legal in all circumstances.
(back to top)
"I Voted for CAFTA Before I Voted Against It" (last updated October 10, 2005) (back to top)
Rep. Matt Santos's obvious fumble in answering a question about his votes on CAFTA ("I voted for CAFTA before I voted against it") is understandable in context but is reminiscent of Sen. John Kerry's infamous statement regarding the $87 billion appropriation that Bush requested in September 2002 to fund ongoing military operations and rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry made the statement in a March 16, 2004 appearance at Marshall University in West Virginia. In response to a question about his vote against the appropriation, Kerry said that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." This comment came to haunt Kerry throughout the campaign, with the Bush campaign using it as an example of Kerry "flip-flopping" on issues.
Kerry tried explaining that he was referring to his support for an earlier version of the appropriation. Congress did in fact debate various ways of providing this money, with the Senate considering 92 different amendments to the basic funding measure.
One amendment that was sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and co-sponsored by Kerry (S.Amdt.1796) would have funded the $87 billion by suspending the tax cuts enacted in 2001 for the highest tax bracket. Kerry supported this version.
"We should not abandon our mission, and we understand the downsides of doing so. But we ought to demand that whatever we spend in Iraq be paid for with shared sacrifice, not deficit dollars. We are already shortchanging critical domestic programs to pay for unwise tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," Kerry said on October 2 (transcript as printed in the Congressional Record on-line here). "It is simply not unfair to ask those earning the most, those who are the most fortunate, those who are the most talented, the hard-working Americans who are earning more than $300,000, not as matter of any kind of targeting except for the fact that they are the best off and have the greatest ability, to make this sacrifice without a negative impact on their lifestyle, on their choices, on their quality of life."
This amendment failed.
Most Republicans and Democrats ultimately voted in support of the final form of the request in mid-October 2003, with the Senate voting 87-12 in favor of the request (one Republican did not vote). Kerry, his future running mate Sen. John Edwards, nine other Democrats, and 1 independent voted against the request.
Kerry said at the time that he would have voted for an appropriation that was structured differently.
"We should do this the right way," Kerry said on October 17, 2003 (transcript as printed in the Congressional Record on-line here). "The American people deserve a strategy that decreases the bill, pays our costs fairly, and makes America safer. We must have a new approach, one that maximizes international cooperation and burden sharing and minimizes the risk of failure. If the President adopts that new approach, I will gladly support any proposal that funds it."
(back to top)
|
|
|
Home / Calendar
The West Wing
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
Saturday Night Live
Commander in Chief
Law & Order
*
Issues
Resources
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Ripped from the Headlines?
West Wing: Santos discusses a lawsuit about intelligent design
West Wing: Electoral map as of the 10/9 episode; Santos needs to catch up big-time
SNL: The Miers nomination
South Park: Inspired by Katrina
Boston Legal: End to assault-weapons ban
Daily Show: A 2004 study found that 21 percent of young people regularly get their campaign news from comedy shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live. So, some footnotes.
NOTE: All photos are copyright their respective owners.
| |
