People Before Profit blog

GOP swamps Michigan in racism, dirty tricks

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:11:00 +0000

Commentary

Voters in Michigan can deliver a knockout punch to the Bush agenda. But to do so, they will have to find their way through a Republican minefield that works to scapegoat the victims of an economic crisis that has Michigan autoworkers and the communities they live in reeling.

Official unemployment is over 7 percent and rising, and the rate of home foreclosures is the highest in the nation. In times of economic strife the humane response would be to think of ways to bring people together to develop a collective response to the problems so many are facing. Not so with the Republican Party, which sees the crisis as an opportunity to divide and conquer.

Racism is a major factor in the Republican strategy. On the ballot is a proposal to add an amendment to the state’s constitution barring the use of race and gender to ensure that minorities and women have access to jobs, outreach programs, education and contracts in the state.

The anti-affirmative action ballot proposal was designed to mobilize the far right to the polls. It was also designed to split the electorate — to pit white voters against African American and Latino voters. And the backers of this amendment purposely confused the issue by calling it “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.” To save affirmative action, voters must vote “no” on this misnamed ballot proposal.

The response to this initiative from labor, the religious community, women’s, student and other organizations has been good. Of the five ballot proposals, this is the only one the AFL-CIO has taken a position on, and it has strongly come out for its defeat.

Teamsters President James Hoffa is a co-chair of the organization working to save affirmative action and, in an opinion article earlier this month, he wrote: “We know diversity is a key to America’s greatness. A work force of well-qualified men and women of all colors and ages is what our nation needs to win in a global economy. When all American workers have an opportunity, we all win.” He also exposed the union-busting, corporate forces behind this measure.

Republicans are also playing on people’s insecurity by stoking anti-immigrant notions. Accusations that Democratic candidates are giving away resources to immigrants are seen in television ads and Republican literature attacking Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, state Senate candidate Andy Levin and others. Too often the Democratic response has been weak in exposing the racism inherent in these attacks and how the problems of Michigan’s working families have absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

Immigrants are not taking jobs away from Michigan residents. As the state AFL-CIO says, all workers, regardless of their immigration status, need real and enforceable remedies for labor and employment law violations, and that any immigration reform must provide a path to permanent residency.

Dick DeVos, the far-right Amway corporate-connected candidate for governor, is using his personal fortune to try and buy his way into the governor’s seat. He blames Gov. Jennifer Granholm for Michigan’s failing auto industry — a charge that would not have much staying power if it weren’t repeated over and over again in TV ads. Already, with the two most expensive weeks of campaigning still to come, DeVos has spent over $16 million of his personal fortune on television spots attacking the governor.

The entire state apparatus, from both houses of the Legislature to the secretary of state, attorney general and state Supreme Court are solidly under Republican control. This has worked to tie Granholm hands and forced her to veto more legislation than any governor in the state’s history.

Under DeVos, even more jobs would be lost and the cost of basic services in the state would rise. DeVos is a big proponent of job-eroding “free trade” legislation and eliminating taxes on the wealthy and large corporations. He is also a supporter of intelligent design, private school vouchers and measures to make it even more difficult for labor to organize. Keeping him out of Lansing is a priority for all democratic forces in the state.

Missourians shifting away from GOP

Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:38:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

ST. LOUIS — With less than three weeks to go until the Nov. 7 midterm elections, many Republicans are defensively licking their wounds and trying to distance themselves from the Mark Foley scandal. Democrats, on the other hand, feel the shift in the winds and are cautiously taking the offensive.

All across the country, Democrats are working with unions, community groups, peace activists and students, coordinating energetic and optimistic labor walks, canvasses and candidate call-ins. They are ready to take back control of the U.S. House and Senate.

In Missouri, things are looking good for working-class voters. Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill has a lead over right-wing Republican incumbent Jim Talent in the U.S. Senate race. According to a recent poll among likely voters, McCaskill is favored by 48 percent. Talent, supported by 45 percent, has lost ground due to the Foley scandal and his continued support for the Bush administration’s failed Iraq policy.

Even though McCaskill is ahead in the polls, the race is considered still too close for comfort, especially in rural Missouri. In prior electoral campaigns, Democratic candidates focused primarily on urban voters in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas. Their strategy was as follows: win big with urban working-class voters, people of color and unions; leave the rural areas to chance.

McCaskill is challenging conventional wisdom though, spending more time in rural areas than ever before. While working the traditional Democratic base, her connection with rural voters is forcing Talent to spend time and money on what was once thought of as solid Republican turf.

Is McCaskill’s strategy working? According to Missouri state Rep. John Bowman (D-70), who is coordinating the McCaskill campaign for the St. Louis city and county area, the answer is yes. He told the World, “We are running one helluva ground campaign. So far it has been planned out and executed very well, even in rural areas.” He added, “That Talent, the incumbent, isn’t ahead in the polls is uniquely strange. Missouri voters are ready for a change.”

Reaching out to rural voters hasn’t changed McCaskill’s stance on key issues, though. She is a strong supporter of raising the minimum wage (Proposition B), authorizing stem cell research (Amendment 2) and changing the administration’s course in Iraq. Prop. B is supported by more than 70 percent of Missourians, while Amendment 2 is supported by over 60 percent. These two ballot initiatives are expected to help McCaskill gain at least 3 percentage points on Talent.

Talent opposes almost everything important to working families. For example, he voted against increasing the minimum wage 11 times, while his pay has increased six times since he’s been in office.

The McCaskill campaign is also getting support from state-level races. For example, state Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-59) told the World, “Higher turnout in the Jane Bageto (D-94) and the Bob Burns (D-85) races, which are strong Republican areas, will help the McCaskill vote in those areas as well.”

And Missouri Progressive Vote has targeted state representative races in the Jefferson County area, about 45 minutes outside of St. Louis, with the hopes of solidifying Missouri House candidates Mike Frame (D-105) and Sam Komo (D-90), both card-carrying union members, and increasing the McCaskill turnout in those areas.

According to Pro-Vote organizer Glenn Burleigh, “These are tough races in areas where choice, LGBT rights and guns can make or break a campaign. We are working to turn the tide against the right wing, but a lot more work needs to be done.”

Increased voter registration is also a big part of the statewide turnout strategy. ACORN and Pro-Vote have collectively registered nearly 40,000 new voters in St. Louis and expect a higher than usual turnout in November.

About St. Louis, Bowman said, “We are knocking on almost 5,000 doors a day, passing out ‘Claire facts’ and talking to voters about the minimum wage and stem cell initiatives. We’re pushing for a big turnout.”

With just a few weeks left before the elections, Missouri’s progressive forces are united in their efforts to beat back the right wing, make gains for working-class families and send a clear message to President Bush.

tonypec@cpusa.org

Sandinistas running strong in Nicaragua

Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:23:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

As Nicaragua prepares for elections Nov. 5, and with Daniel Ortega of the Nicaragua Triumphs/Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) leading in the polls, a delegation of academics and activists is visiting the country to investigate charges of U.S. interference in the electoral process.

A delegation in June condemned U.S. interference in Nicaragua’s affairs. It noted that Paul Trivelli, the U.S. ambassador, called former President Ortega a “tiger who hasn’t changed his stripes,” and said the U.S. would “re-evaluate” its relationship with Nicaragua should the Sandinistas regain power.

Trivelli said the U.S. “will establish cordial relationships with any administration that is elected democratically ... that has a reasonable economic policy and is ready to cooperate with us.”

According to the Nicaragua Network, a social justice group, the Bush administration has made it clear that this cooperation entails supporting CAFTA and other “free trade” policies; participating in all U.S. requests concerning the so-called war on terrorism; ensuring that the Nicaraguan national police receives training that blurs the time-honored distinction between civilian policing and military action; and not maintaining friendly diplomatic relations with either Venezuela or Cuba.

The United States has a history of bloody interventions in Nicaragua that spans some 150 years, and includes 11 military incursions (including a 25-year occupation by the Marines) and nearly 45 years of support for the bloody Somoza dynasty, which killed some 40,000 people. (“He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously remarked of the dynasty’s founder, Anastasio Somoza.)

U.S. interference peaked during the 1980s with the Reagan administration’s financing, arming and training of the Contras — a group of terrorists committed to reversing the Sandinista revolution of 1979 and setting off a civil war that would result in the deaths of 30,000-plus people and millions of dollars in damage to the economy.

Nicaragua, badly wounded and divided by the end of the 1980s, was then subjected to a U.S. strategy of giving “support for right-wing parties and coalitions in the 1990, 1996 and 2001 elections in order to defeat the FSLN, whilst doing all they could to discredit the left,” according to the UK-based Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign.

María López Vigil of the journal Envío remarked that outsiders “know [about the history of U.S. interference], but we feel it.”

Many people have internalized U.S. domination, she said. “Because so many efforts in Nicaragua have failed, many said, ‘Let’s not fight with them (the U.S.).’”

Washington’s current maneuvers aim at building right-center unity to block Ortega’s election. The goal is to unite those in the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) and the Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) in a coalition behind the candidacy of Eduardo Montealegre of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN).

Ortega is making his fifth run for office. He is mobilizing peasant farmers, women, former guerillas, students, environmentalists and intellectuals, along with some former Contra and Miskito Indian adversaries, into the Nicaragua Triumphs coalition. The coalition is calling for agrarian reform, fair trade before free trade, nationalization of key industries, health care, expanded educational and cultural opportunities, environmental stewardship, indigenous rights, gender equality and increased trade with Cuba and Venezuela.

During the Sandinista revolution, Nicaraguans organized to create a new society. “By 1983, a literacy campaign had dropped illiteracy rates from over 50 percent to 13 percent, 184,000 small farmers were given land, and vaccination campaigns and new health clinics had dropped infant mortality and raised life expectancy, leading the World Health Organization to call Nicaragua a ‘Model Nation in Health Attention,’” writes Joe DeRaymond, a longtime Latin American solidarity activist.

The red and black FSLN flag may once again flutter over this resource-rich nation, whose people remain among the poorest of Central America. The Sandinistas continue to reflect the class interests of an increasingly mobilized working poor and those who are anti-CAFTA, anti-International Monetary Fund, pro-environment and pro-democracy. Nicaragua may well be on the road to rejecting neoliberalism and embracing the continent-wide movement for self-determination and socialism, with Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba in the vanguard.

Rosario Murillo, FSLN campaign chief and spouse of Daniel Ortega, writes: “We will win, there can be no doubt. Let us raise our hearts, our ideals and our wills. … We will triumph ... the Nicaraguan people will triumph on Nov. 5! ... Viva the Sandinista National Liberation Front!”

Lieberman: Enabler of GOP racism

Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:54:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Tensions are running high in Connecticut, with all three Republican House seats in hot contention, along with a high-stakes Senate race.

Ned Lamont, who won the Democratic primary race for U.S. Senate, is being challenged by 18-year incumbent Joe Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary and is now running on the Connecticut for Lieberman line with Republican support.

Post-primary, the media has unabashedly championed Lieberman, with no attempt at giving equal coverage. So when the Connecticut Federation of Black Democratic Clubs (CFBDC) held a press conference to endorse Ned Lamont, it was no surprise that their stated reasons for doing so were largely ignored. Instead, headlines sensationalized a comment, later retracted, questioning Lieberman’s claims of participation in the civil rights movement.

Surrounded by present and former elected officials representing decades of leadership and struggle, Henry E. Parker, president of the CFBDC and former Connecticut treasurer, issued an open letter to Lieberman, documenting how his “conduct as a U.S. senator has caused pain and frustration to African Americans grappling with quality of life issues.”

Actions cited included Lieberman’s critical vote that killed legislation to fully fund Title I education programs; skipping a close vote that would have increased funding for minority health programs; supporting school vouchers, which drain funds from public schools; and undermining affirmative action as “inconsistent with American values.”

Instead of asking Lieberman to address these issues, the media launched a shameless attack against Parker for wondering out loud, in view of Lieberman’s positions, if he really did go to the South to work for civil rights in the 1960s.

Lamont’s campaign quickly acknowledged Lieberman’s participation in civil rights activities 40 years ago. But Lieberman’s subsequent actions in the Senate have angered many.

In the early years of the Clinton administration, Lieberman acted as a Democratic enabler of the Republican attack on civil rights, just as he has acted as an enabler of the racist, anti-worker policies of the George W. Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress for the last five years.

It is therefore not surprising that when asked last week by the Hartford Courant if he would prefer a Democratic majority in the House, Lieberman replied, “I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer.”

In 1993, as vice chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Lieberman joined in criticism of Clinton on the issue of affirmative action. He expressed concerns about the nomination of Lani Guinier to the U.S. Supreme Court, giving credence to a vicious campaign of misinformation and distortion against her support for equal representation for minorities.

Five months after taking office, Clinton withdrew the nomination, the first in a series of retreats and compromises that laid the basis for the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections.

In contrast, Lieberman has supported controversial appointments of George W. Bush. He was one of only six Democrats approving Alberto Gonzalez as attorney general. Gonzalez had approved the use of torture against “terror” suspects. Lieberman also voted against a filibuster in the case of Samuel Alito, allowing him to be approved for the Supreme Court.

In 1995, as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, Lieberman called for repeal of Lyndon Johnson’s executive order requiring affirmative action goals and timetables. He introduced legislation “to phase out all federal programs that favor minorities in contracting and employment,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

Subsequently, under the cover of “ending quotas,” legislative, judicial and executive actions have gutted civil rights enforcement.

Lieberman currently represents Connecticut, the richest state in the nation, which also contains four of the country’s poorest cities, with majority African American and Latino populations.

In the first of three debates, Republican candidate Alan Schlessinger espoused his party’s racist views with an all-out attack on Lamont for welcoming the endorsement of the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Schlessinger also poisoned the political atmosphere by attacking any kind of path to legalization or citizenship for immigrants.

These divisive attacks are calculated to undermine support for Lamont. In fact, they serve to underscore the reason that all democratic minded people are called upon to redouble efforts to get out the vote for a progressive voice in the U.S. Senate on Nov. 7.

“Connecticut will only be as great as its cities,” said Ned Lamont in accepting the endorsement of the Federation of Black Democratic Clubs. He called for “a fight for affirmative action, for equal education and job opportunities.”

Lamont has campaigned tirelessly with the progressive Democratic House candidates in Connecticut toward the goal of defeating the Republican majority who, together with Bush, have deepened racism and hurt all working people in our country.

Calif. govs vetoes show the real Arnold

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:15:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

California’s Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying hard to convince voters he has learned from the across-the-board defeat of his proposals in last year’s special election. In contrast to last year’s attempts to bypass the Legislature, this year the governor has sought to project an image of cooperation to benefit all Californians. But a look at some of the measures he vetoed and signed helps to reveal the real Arnold.

Of the 1,172 bills the Democratic Party-led Legislature sent him, the governor okayed 910 and vetoed 262 — a slightly lower percentage of vetoes than in previous years.

One notable veto was that of SB 840, the single-payer health care bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl that would have provided all residents with comprehensive health care benefits. Schwarzenegger claimed it called for a “government-run health care system,” would cost the state “billions” and lead to significant new taxes on individuals and businesses.

Kuehl challenged the governor’s reasoning as “inaccurate,” pointing out that health care delivery would remain the same, whether public or private. She also pointed out that instead of the current lack of cost controls and huge insurance company profits, SB 840 would have created a “transparent system that actually would succeed in making health care coverage affordable in California.”

Legislative leaders and backers of the bill vowed to continue the fight. The OneCareNow campaign said it would keep building grassroots support until elected officials, including the governor, accept single-payer in California.

Among other vetoes:

• SB 815, which would have restored major cuts Schwarzenegger made to workers’ compensation benefits for permanently disabled workers.

• AB 1840, which would have revealed which corporations are using taxpayer-funded health care programs for their employees rather than providing affordable health benefits. The bill would have affected Wal-Mart, one of the governor’s top donors.

• SB 1523, which would have required superstore retailers like Wal-Mart and Kmart to complete an independent report showing the impact on local economies in areas where they plan to build.

• SB 160, the “California Dream Act,” which would have let undocumented college students apply for financial aid, and SB 1162, which would have enabled undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

• AB 2302, which would have increased the availability of interpreters for people with limited English proficiency in court proceedings.

• AB 675, which would have cracked down on corporate tax cheats.

• Two bills to reduce the number of false convictions in the state by requiring guidelines for eyewitness evidence and recording the interrogations of violent crime suspects.

One of the governor’s most notable signings was that of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. Praised by many environmentalists, it nonetheless includes an escape clause allowing a future governor to delay implementation for up to a year and perhaps longer under certain conditions.

The governor also signed legislation to raise the state’s minimum wage by $1 an hour, to $7.75, but rejected calls to index the new wage to inflation. In a statement, California Labor Federation head Art Pulaski pointed out that “it took three years and a re-election campaign” to convince the governor to raise the minimum. He vowed to continue the fight for indexing.

In close vote, Lula goes to runoff

Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:55:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

SÃO PAOLO, Brazil — President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the 60-year-old former factory worker and labor union leader, on Oct. 1 narrowly fell short of the majority vote needed to avoid a runoff election here. The political coalition of the Worker’s Party and the Communist Party of Brazil that backed “Lula” had 48.6 percent of the vote, just shy of the 50-percent-plus-one needed for an outright win. With 98 percent of the votes tabulated, candidate Geraldo Alckmin’s 41.6 percent put him in the runoff slated for Oct. 29.

Alckmin, a doctor and former governor of São Paulo state, ran on a coalition ticket of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Front Party, representing the right-wing on Brazil’s political spectrum.

The other presidential candidates together had almost 10 percent of the vote.

This has been a very hard election battle by all accounts. The media system worked day and night for candidate Alckmin, favored by big business and right-wing interests. The latter used television and radio propaganda to attack Lula. Little space and time were devoted to discussing program, questions and problems. The right-wing platform included personal attacks on Lula and his family.

Alckmin also has close connections to Opus Dei, an ultra-conservative Catholic organization, made infamous in Dan Brown’s “DaVinci Code.”

Elected in 2002, Lula’s administration put in practice a platform of economic and social justice, against the privatization and neoliberal economic policy of the former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

The conservative sectors of Brazil do not tolerate democracy, and have worked hard to attack Lula, even threatening the government with coup-like tactics. If they don’t prevail in the second round, they have threatened to impeach Lula in the Congress.

Alleged corruption scandals involving some Worker’s Party leaders have also been used to put Lula in a defensive position.

Just two weeks before the election, two men, allegedly closely linked to the Worker’s Party, were arrested here. They were found to be in possession of almost $800,000 in cash — both American dollars and Brazilian reals. The police alleged the sum was to have paid for a dossier containing corruption allegations against rival politicians.

Lula replaced his re-election campaign chief, Ricardo Berzoini, just 11 days before the election. Berzoini is under investigation by the electoral courts. Newspapers published, just one day before the vote, photographs of neatly wrapped dollars and reals, fomenting an anti-Lula atmosphere.

Lula’s vote was strong in the poorer, northeastern states. Alckmin received many votes in the southern states, which have a larger middle class population. In the second round of voting, Lula will try to broaden his alliance with the center parties like the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party.

Communists had victories at the Oct. 1 polls. Thirteen Communists were elected deputies and, for the first time since 1946, a Communist was elected senator, from the northeastern state of Ceara. (Brazil’s national legislature is composed of a 513-member Chamber of Deputies and an 81-member Senate.) With another senator having joined the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB) since his election on different ticket in 2002, Brazil will now have two Communist senators.

Now the PCdoB will fight to re-elect Lula in the second round of voting in a great alliance of progressive and democratic parties.

Pedro Oliveira is the communications secretary of the Communist Party of Brazil.

Anti-immigrant lawmakers vulnerable in November

Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:16:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

The worst anti-immigrant bigots in the House of Representatives are grouped together in the House Immigration Reform Caucus (HIRC), the brainchild of Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.).

Of the 104 members of the HIRC — all Republicans — so many now find themselves or their would-be GOP successors (in the case of seats being vacated) threatened with defeat at the polls that their party’s leadership is beginning to sweat. The politically vulnerable caucus members could by themselves constitute the 15 flipped seats required for the Republicans to lose their majority in the House.

Beyond HIRC members who are vulnerable, there are other anti-immigrant GOP candidates who may lose. For example, in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, the seat being vacated by Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, which is being sought by the GOP’s Randy Graf, an anti-immigrant extremist and a member of the Minuteman vigilante organization, may go instead to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, who favors a more comprehensive approach to immigration. Giffords is currently ahead in the polls.

The authoritative Cook Political Report says that, as of Sept. 20, the following seats currently held by Republican members of the Tancredo caucus are in play:

• Of the “toss-up” seats, meaning the race could go either way, none are currently held by Democrats, but 18 are held by Republicans. Of these, five are currently held by HIRC members: Bob Beauprez’s open (vacated) seat in Colorado’s 7th CD. The Democrat, Ed Perlmutter, has a good chance against Republican Rick O’Donnell. Henry Hyde’s open seat in the 6th CD in Illinois. The Republican, Peter Roskam, is viciously anti-immigrant, while the Democrat, Tammie Duckworth, is open to legalization for the undocumented. Geoff Davis in Kentucky’s 4th CD. Ken Lucas is the Democratic candidate. Charles Taylor in North Carolina’s 11th CD. Heath Shuler is the Democrat. Thelma Drake in Virginia’s 2nd CD. Phill Kellam is the Democrat.

• In the category of “leaning Republican,” which means that the Republican candidate is a little ahead but the Democrats have a very good chance of taking the seat, there are 16 seats, including four currently held by HIRC members. Incumbents include the following: anti-immigration extremist J.D. Hayworth in Arizona’s 5th CD. The Democratic candidate is Harry Mitchell. Charlie Bass in New Hampshire’s 2nd CD. The Democrat is Paul Hodes. John Sweeney in New York’s 20th CD. The Democrat is Kirsten Gillibrand. Randy Kuhl in New York’s 29th CD. The Democrat is Eric Massa.

• In the “likely Republican” column, which means that the Republicans will probably retain the seat but it is not “solid” or a sure thing, there are 18 seats, of which nine are currently held by HIRC members: John Doolittle in California’s 4th CD. The Democratic candidate is Charles Brown. Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado’s 4th CD. Angie Paccione is the Democrat. The open seat being vacated by Mike Bilirakis in Florida’s 9th CD: the Republican candidate is Gus Bilirakis; the Democrat, Phyllis Busansky. The open seat being vacated by Butch Otter in Idaho’s 1st CD: the Republican is Bill Sali; the Democrat Larry Grant. Gil Gutknecht in Minnesota’s 1st CD. The Democrat is Tim Walz. Jeb Bradley in New Hampshire’s 1st CD. The Democrat is Carol Shea-Porter. Jean Schmidt in Ohio’s 2nd CD. The Democrat is Victoria Wuslin. Barbara Cubin in Wyoming’s single at-large House seat. The Democrat is Gary Trauner.

We cannot assume that the immigration issue per se will sink all these right-wing incumbents and candidates; indeed, they are trying to whip up fear of immigrants as a way of saving their political necks. Although in most cases the Democratic challenger is better than the Republican candidate, not all are equally good on immigration. However, it would be particularly useful to the immigrant rights movement for naturalized citizens and friends of immigrants to make sure they register and vote in these districts.

If eight, 10 or 15 of these seats are lost by the Republicans in November and if this causes them to lose their control of the House, it will send the message that bashing immigrants is not necessarily the way to seize and hold a seat in Congress. This means that it will be less likely that immigrants will continue to be scapegoated and subjected to legislative attacks in the immediate future.

So the slogan of the spring mass immigrant rights marches, “Today we march, tomorrow we vote,” is of the utmost importance. We need to do all we can to influence the outcome of the above races if we want to advance with an immigrant rights agenda in 2007.