AZ-Sen: Even If He Survives the Primary, John McCain Is Vulnerable

Some very interesting polling coming out in AZ from Democratic Senate candidate Rodney Glassman, by way of The Political Carnival:

McCain is vulnerable as a majority of voters in Arizona dislike him, disapprove of the job he is doing as U.S. Senator, and are not inclined to vote to re-elect him. This provides an opportunity for Rodney Glassman to defeat the 28-year incumbent. [...]

Even if McCain can pull out a victory, this bodes well for Glassman’s campaign prospects.

Most incumbents who lose in the general election had previously faced a contentious primary election. The fact that McCain is going through a bruising primary that will likely remain close means he will come out of the primary with a fractured base, higher negatives, and a much smaller war chest than when he started. This is a formula for success for Rodney Glassman’s campaign as a challenger to a long-time incumbent.

McCain is under 50 percent in the polls on multiple measurements:

McCain is under 50 percent in the horserace vote against J.D. Hayworth among Republican primary voters in three (3) separate surveys. [...]

McCain is already under 50 percent against Rodney Glassman in a general election match-up. –McCain draws 48% to 35% for Glassman in the DailyKos/Research 2000 poll conducted in April.

The margin is similar in the PPP poll – 49% for McCain to 33% for Glassman.

Might be a good time to dust off your copy of Cliff Schecter's The Real McCain.

 

AZ-Sen: Even If He Survives the Primary, John McCain Is Vulnerable

Some very interesting polling coming out in AZ from Democratic Senate candidate Rodney Glassman, by way of The Political Carnival:

McCain is vulnerable as a majority of voters in Arizona dislike him, disapprove of the job he is doing as U.S. Senator, and are not inclined to vote to re-elect him. This provides an opportunity for Rodney Glassman to defeat the 28-year incumbent. [...]

Even if McCain can pull out a victory, this bodes well for Glassman’s campaign prospects.

Most incumbents who lose in the general election had previously faced a contentious primary election. The fact that McCain is going through a bruising primary that will likely remain close means he will come out of the primary with a fractured base, higher negatives, and a much smaller war chest than when he started. This is a formula for success for Rodney Glassman’s campaign as a challenger to a long-time incumbent.

McCain is under 50 percent in the polls on multiple measurements:

McCain is under 50 percent in the horserace vote against J.D. Hayworth among Republican primary voters in three (3) separate surveys. [...]

McCain is already under 50 percent against Rodney Glassman in a general election match-up. –McCain draws 48% to 35% for Glassman in the DailyKos/Research 2000 poll conducted in April.

The margin is similar in the PPP poll – 49% for McCain to 33% for Glassman.

Might be a good time to dust off your copy of Cliff Schecter's The Real McCain.

 

AZ-Sen: Even If He Survives the Primary, John McCain Is Vulnerable

Some very interesting polling coming out in AZ from Democratic Senate candidate Rodney Glassman, by way of The Political Carnival:

McCain is vulnerable as a majority of voters in Arizona dislike him, disapprove of the job he is doing as U.S. Senator, and are not inclined to vote to re-elect him. This provides an opportunity for Rodney Glassman to defeat the 28-year incumbent. [...]

Even if McCain can pull out a victory, this bodes well for Glassman’s campaign prospects.

Most incumbents who lose in the general election had previously faced a contentious primary election. The fact that McCain is going through a bruising primary that will likely remain close means he will come out of the primary with a fractured base, higher negatives, and a much smaller war chest than when he started. This is a formula for success for Rodney Glassman’s campaign as a challenger to a long-time incumbent.

McCain is under 50 percent in the polls on multiple measurements:

McCain is under 50 percent in the horserace vote against J.D. Hayworth among Republican primary voters in three (3) separate surveys. [...]

McCain is already under 50 percent against Rodney Glassman in a general election match-up. –McCain draws 48% to 35% for Glassman in the DailyKos/Research 2000 poll conducted in April.

The margin is similar in the PPP poll – 49% for McCain to 33% for Glassman.

Might be a good time to dust off your copy of Cliff Schecter's The Real McCain.

 

Undocumented students risk deportation for their dreams

 

From the Restore Fairness blog.

Yesterday, on the 65th anniversary of the landmark civil rights case, Brown vs. Board of Education, five courageous students staged a sit-in at Senator John McCain’s office in Tuscon, Arizona, to demand his support for the passage of the DREAM Act, a legislation that will set up a path to citizenship for undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. when they were very young. At 6pm last evening, four of those young immigration activists, three of whom are undocumented, were arrested on misdemeanor trespass charges when they refused to leave the office after closing. The three undocumented students, Yahira, Lizbeth and Mohammad, have been detained and are “expected to face deportation proceedings.” According to the New York Times, “It was the first time students have directly risked deportation in an effort to prompt Congress to take up a bill that would benefit illegal immigrant youths.”

Spurred on by Arizona’s new anti-immigrant legislation, SB1070, the students staged the peaceful sit-in as a challenge to local and federal law, hoping to garner the attention of grassroots organizations and media outlets and highlight the urgency for Congress action on the DREAM Act. Dressed in caps and gowns, the students began the sit-in at lunchtime on May 17th, with a group of supporters cheering for them outside McCain’s office. Four of them, Lizbeth Mateo of Los Angeles, California, Mohammed Abdollahi of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Yahaira Carillo of Kansas City, Missouri and Raul Alcaraz, from Arizona remained in the office till 6pm, when they were arrested. The fifth young activist, Tania Unzueta of Chicago, Illinois voluntarily stepped outside to be the spokesperson for the group before the others were arrested. When asked why she would risk such an act given her undocumented status, Tania told a journalist-

Precisely because we feel that undocumented people need to be at the forefront of our movement think we are tired of not speaking for ourselves and not being able to tell our story…This is my country. This is where I’ve grown up. This is where I’ve learned everything. How to write, how to love, how to be with my community. I feel like where you’re from isn’t always where you’re born it’s the country you learn to love and this is the country that I love.

The DREAM Activists chose Senator McCain’s office as he had initially supported the bipartisan legislation, and only recently, reflective of his new hard-line stance on immigration, had withdrawn his support from it. Although Senator McCain’s office offered the students a meeting to talk about the DREAM Act, they refused it, saying that this late into the debate, they would not take anything short of a statement of support from him. Speaking to the local news, Lizbeth Mateo said-

We’re not going to move, we’re not going to move until Senator McCain cosponsors the Dream Act, so whatever it takes, we’re going to stay here.

Her fellow activist Mohammad, originally from Iran, expressed confidence in garnering a response from John McCain-

We’re here, knowing that he will support the DREAM Act, knowing that he has supported it in the past, ask him to step up and cosponsor the DREAM Act and so we’re waiting at the office until he cosponsors the DREAM Act and writes us a written statement…

Even after a vigil outside the detention center that is holding the three students, there was no statement from Senator McCain’s office. 24 year old Mohammad, who co-founded Dreamactivist.org and led the sit-in, has lived in the United States since he was 3, and feels like fighting for the passage of the DREAM Act is definitely worth his life. For Mohammad, who is openly gay, the repercussions of being sent back to his country of origin, Iran, are frightening. Profiling Mohammad’s story for the Michigan Messenger, Todd Heywood writes-

His action, however, is far from just an act of civil disobedience. As a young gay man, he faces deportation to a country where he knows neither the language nor the culture — and worse, where homosexuality is punished with torture and executions. His supporters say he is literally putting his life on the line by “coming out” as an undocumented, gay youth.

These students risked everything to stage the sit-in yesterday, but the truth is that for them, and the thousands of undocumented students that they represent, the stakes are high regardless. Every year, 65,000 youth graduate from high schools after spending most of their childhoods in the U.S., but are unable to pursue their dreams for higher education and careers because of their undocumented status. According to the College Board, the passage of the DREAM Act would provide about 350,000 undocumented high school graduates with the “legal means to work and attend college,” allowing them to capitalize on their education and contribute to the economy of the country.

Until the DREAM Act is passed, legislation like that passed in Arizona, which allows local law enforcement to question people about their citizenship status based on “reasonable suspicion,” is highly dangerous for the thousands of undocumented youth who were brought to the country when they were children, and have fully assimilated into American culture. With young people taking the lead on demanding immigration reform, there is a silver lining to the dark cloud that Arizona’s SB1070 has brought with it. The good news is that it is the American youth, across racial, ethnic, geography and class lines, that are showing support and positivity on issues of diversity and immigration.

A New York Times article published today finds that there is a glaring generational gap when it comes to the immigration debate. While older Americans, including the baby boomer generation, take a conservative stance on immigration enforcement and reform, polls show that Americans below the age of 45 are much more agreeable to a “welcome all” approach. The article attributes this to the vastly different environments that these generations grew up in. It says-

Those born after the civil rights era lived in a country of high rates of legal and illegal immigration. In their neighborhoods and schools, the presence of immigrants was as hard to miss as a Starbucks today. In contrast, baby boomers and older Americans — even those who fought for integration — came of age in one of the most homogenous moments in the country’s history….In 1970, only 4.7 percent of the country was foreign born, and most of those immigrants were older Europeans, often unnoticed by the boomer generation born from 1946 to 1964. Boomers and their parents also spent their formative years away from the cities, where newer immigrants tended to gather — unlike today’s young people who have become more involved with immigrants, through college, or by moving to urban areas.

While this polarization complicates the movement on policy when it comes to issues like immigration, it is heartening to know that with the future belonging to these optimistic and open young Americans, the future is sure to be brighter than the present. In the meanwhile, we salute the courage of these brave young activists, and ask you to take a moment to think about two leaders of the DREAM Act movement, Tam Ngoc Tran and Cinthya Felix, who we lost in a tragic accident this past weekend.

Learn. Share. Act. Go to restorefairness.org

 

 

 

Congressional Sparring Ignores Practical Reasons For Miranda

As lawmakers in Congress duke it out over whether the Times Square bombing suspect ought to have been read his Miranda rights, it's worth considering the real-life impact of reading a suspect his rights - and of withholding them. The consequences of not reading rights to terrorist suspects that we later want to prosecute are now on display at the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And it's not looking good for the government.

Omar Khadr, whose pre-trial hearing continues, was not read his rights, pursuant to Bush administration policy. Of course, Khadr was captured in Afghanistan, following a deadly shootout with U.S. forces. The Obama administration isn't reading Miranda rights to battlefield captures either.

Withholding Miranda rights makes sense in the heat of a battle, because we don't usually prosecute warriors; instead, we try to defeat their forces, and send prisoners home when the war is over. But once the government decides it may want to prosecute someone and bring him to justice - whether he's captured in an Afghan desert or at JFK airport in New York - there are very practical reasons for informing him of his rights.

In the case of the Times Square suspect, Faisal Shahzad, U.S. officials initially questioned him without reading him Miranda rights, under what's known as the "public safety exception" to the Miranda rule. Statements made in that initial period when the FBI is collecting information about any imminent threats are still admissible in court later. But once investigators determine that the imminent threat is over, they must deliver those Miranda warnings if they want to use any of the evidence they gather from the suspect later in a prosecution. In Shahzad's case, they did - and hereportedly kept right on talking.

That's typical - as Human Rights First's report "In Pursuit of Justice" notes, empirical studies from both supporters and opponents of the Miranda rule have found that giving the warnings has little real effect on whether a suspect speaks to police without a lawyer.

Still, to some, the idea of telling a suspected criminal that he has the right to remain silent sounds kind of silly. After all, why would you want to encourage him not to talk?

But the Miranda rule developed for a very good reason, and has withstood several legal challenges. The Constitution (and the Uniform Code of Military Justice) provides suspects the right against self-incrimination, and the right to the assistance of an attorney. By informing a suspect of those rights, the FBI basically immunizes itself - anything the suspect says afterwards can then lawfully be used against him.

The Miranda rule means the government doesn't later have to spend months arguing in court over whether a suspect's statements were voluntary or coerced, as it's now forced to do in the Khadr case. Because even military commissions forbid reliance on involuntary confessions, except those made at the point of capture or during active combat - a rule that's similar to the federal court's public safety exception.

The Khadr case is a perfect example of how hard it is for the government to show that a suspect confessed voluntarily if he was never told of his right not to.

Khadr, who was 15 when he was captured, claims he was mistreated in custody and coerced into saying things that weren't true. His hearing is ongoing, and although some evidence has emerged to support his claims, it's impossible to know yet what really happened. (As I've explained before, themilitary commission rules make finding the truth in such cases particularly difficult.) But if Khadr can show that he was coerced into confessing, his statements have to be thrown out even under the military commission's rules. That's because coerced statements are considered inherently unreliable - in any U.S. court of law.

To argue that Shahzad shouldn't have been read his Miranda rights, as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) did yesterday, makes even less sense than in a case like Khadr's, because Shahzad is a U.S. citizen who cannot legally be tried in a military commission. (Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who reportedly said Shahzad should be tried in a military commission, apparently didn't understand that.) So the result of not reading him his rights after the public safety threat has subsided would be to undermine his subsequent prosecution - and to risk having to let him go free.

Surely Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence committed, didn't mean to suggest we should free terrorists when he said yesterday that the U.S. has "got to be far less interested in protecting the privacy rights of these terrorists than in collecting information. . . ." But that could be the logical result of the current campaign to deny terror suspects basic rights.

Even Glenn Beck, the conservative Fox News commentator, defended the Obama administration's handling of the case yesterday, saying that "we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens....We don't shred the Constitution when it's popular."

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's response to that, of course, was that Shahzad, who hasn't yet been convicted of anything, should be stripped of his citizenship. (In fact, if he were convicted of fighting with an enemy military force he would be stripped of his citizenship anyway.)

Setting aside the many compelling arguments for why the United States on principal shouldn't be cowed by terrorists into abandoning our own Constitution, it's worth remembering that the Miranda rule serves a very important practical purpose: it ensures that suspects' confessions are usable in court against them, and that terrorism convictions in any U.S. legal forum will stand.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads