Guys, I would be willing to bet this is the wording Obama and his campaign had problems with... (5) If elected, will you seek to nominate, within your first term of office, qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III Circuit Judges, whenever there are vacancies in those positions, until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied? [To put things in perspective, none of the 179 Article III Circuit judges is an Asian American.] (Yes/No) "whenever there are vacancies in those positions" That is asking Obama to nominate Asian-Americans to every opening that comes up for Article III Circuit judges until this is "significantly remedied." Obama didn't agree to that (I'm guessing) and I'm surprised any of the other candidates would. If the wording there had been slightly tweaked, I suspect that Obama would have agreed to the request. "nominate, within your first term of office, qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III Circuit Judges, whenever there are vacancies in those positions, until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied" I don't see how anyone running for President would agree to the word, "whenever," unless they are telling you what they think you want to hear. They are going to nominate those from other races for the positions, as well. Should there be a large increase in Asian-American Federal judges? Of course. Obama is being honest enough not to agree with a promise he wouldn't keep... to nominate all Asian-Americans to those Article III Circuit Judge positions as they become open. Sounds reasonable to me. Asian-Americans are one of many interest groups demanding more representation on the Federal bench, and elsewhere. They deserve a fair shake, but so do the rest of underrepresented Americans. Obama is attempting to be honest with Asian-Americans. You might consider the idea that those who agreed to this letter aren't being completely honest. I would say Obama's reply speaks highly of him. Should he just tell you what you want to hear? Impeach Bush.
I'm not saying the other candidates were the ones who used the pledge as a tool. I'm saying it was 80-20. Why would they reword the pledge for other candidates but didn't reword it for Obama? Why would they claim to be neutral but actually post an article titled... "Call to Action - Defeat Obama". They have certainly been dishonest in their correspondence with Obama, even if it wasn't a set up. So despite about posing who signed and who hasn't, it's about what they reworded in the proposal to get the other candidates to sign, and why they wouldn't reword the proposal despite Obama's campaign apparently discussing that option with the group.
I agree with this post. If any of the candidates that signed this 'letter' or whatever ever got elected, the chances of anything happening are a big fat 0. The asian demographic just doesn't wield that kind of influence. Signing is just a way for the candidates to get votes without pissing people off.
It does look like they are being unfair to Obama and if they are "nuetral," why are they so anti Obama before their "deadline" passed? Looks like some further digging about this group is in order. I'm also curious, wnes, why you say "we" when talking about what this group wants yet you state from the beginning that you are in no way affiliated with 80-20? I guess you are speaking as the collective voice of all asian americans. This was kind of strange, I mean all pgabs did was post the OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN but because he had found it on the dailykos site, it's "spin" from dailykos Anyways, the very first thing that showed up when I started googling, was this blog post. I thought it was pretty well written but since it's not pro 80/20's attacks on Obama, it must be spin, like dailykos spin. At first glance, it just seems like this is a very new and amature group who are pissed that Obama didn't sign off on their list and are now reacting like petulant children by running such a blatant hatchet job on Obama. Anyways, I'll keep reading about it tomorrow when I'm more awake.
Deckard, According to your logic, maybe an anti-war voter shall vote for McCain for his conviction for talking straight. Or an pro-Iraq war voter shall vote for Ron Paul for talking straight. Maybe a pro-life voter shall vote for Mrs. Clinton or a pro-choice voter shall vote for Mr. Huckabee for their personal conviction and not willing to pandering to a particular group! I hope I get my point across. Senator Obama is telling 80/20 how he is on their side but when it comes down to action (pick up a pen and write his name down), he won't do it. Senator Obama is telling me what I want to hear. But he just won't sign his name. The point is 6 candidates signed it. They don't seem to have problem with it. Fine, so all six of them are slime of the earth and only has deceit in his/her heart. (Gosh, do you even realize what you are implying? Why does politics have to be me against them?). But when Dodd, Biden, Gravel, Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson signed it, I am sure they fully understand that will be called a lier if they can't fulfill their signed promise. It is one thing a candidate give me flowery words (like Obama), it is quite another to have a candidate signed it on a piece of paper, almost like a contract. You seem to have real problem with the word "whenever". But 80/20 didn't put that in. The original wording is as follows: "(5) If elected, will you nominate within your first term of office qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III Circuit Judges?" The amended one, the one signed by Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson, has wording as follows: "(5) If elected, will you seek to nominate, within your first term of office, qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III Circuit Judges, whenever there are vacancies in those positions, until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied? [To put things in perspective, none of the 179 Article III Circuit judges is an Asian American.]" See the link: http://www.80-20initiative.net/news/preselect2008_questionnaire.asp Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson signed the stronger worded one, one even stronger than 80-20 had wanted. Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson probably know whether the words they added are "politically risky" or not. Don't you think they are probably a little more political savvy than you are? ps. I have to give you prop for not resorting to mud-sling. For a candidate who profess to change the political discourse in this country, he certainly got a lot of supporters who sling mud at the drop of the hat.
You sure seem to be taking personally a speculative opinion of mine. You're reply ignores the point I was trying to make. And you might consider that I've been pretty critical of Obama. Why would I go out of my way to defend him? Golly, perhaps I'm attempting to understand his reasoning. I think that's more than you're attempting to do. Impeach Bush.
Absolutely. According to exit polls in NH, McCain got a higher vote percentage from people who strongly disagreed and disagreed with the war in Iraq than vice-versa. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHREP
There might be a mixed up. I thought I reply to every one of your point. I was giving you prop for NOT slinging mud at 80-20 and trying to conduct a rational discussion.
I do respect his integrity. I also respect his personal history. But eventually, personality aside, issue does matter.
The exit poll contains multiple questions covering wide range of issues. There are strong possibilities that voters who oppose the War agree with McCain on one or more other issues that most strike a cord with them. Besides, these voters are registered Republicans. Given that other than Ron Paul, who doesn't stand any realistic chance of winning, none of their candidates are anti-war, the voters have to choose the one that has the best chance to defeat Democrat. The inverse correlation you claimed is inconclusive at best, misleading at worst.
Deckard, I am going to bed. I enjoyed our discussion. If you like, we can continue our discussion tomorrow. Have a nice evening.
I guess I could have worded more carefully by not the giving the false impression that I was speaking for other Asian Americans or any PAC, but rather just myself. However, it's too attempting not to speak that way as I strongly feel 80-20 is currently the best political organization representing the Asian American interest. There is nothing strange or confusing about my post you quoted. If you paid slightest attention, I made no attempt to reply directly to pgab's post nor did I made any reference to it. Can 80/20 do better with their writing? Sure. But they get their messages across nonetheless. What's most important is the substance and the content, which resonate with Asian Americans like me. Of course, the pompous blogger you quoted doesn't seem to be one without an agenda of her own. Oh by the way, since I also spot some errors in your writing, should I be just as dismissive toward your post?
Deckard, how can there possibly be more underrepresented groups when you have 0 (zero) Asian American among the 179 Article III Circuit judges? And why would you only focus on "whenever" but leave out another keyword, "qualified"? Please speculate what would be Obama's reason -- other than pandering to the constituents of his liking -- for not nominating qualified Asian American judges given their ZERO representation on Article III Circuit. Also, the condition "until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied" puts Obama on the spotlight whether he is truly committed to judicial equality and diversity. I mean, what is he afraid of, riots? Of course, if Obama has problem(s) with any one of the 6 questions he is free to use "line item veto." By refusing to sign the letter and by not offering reasonably measurable alternatives to any of the specific demands, he opens himself up to rejection by Asian American voters.
I agree with Deckard on this one. The use of the word whenever is very troubling. wnes: He's focusing on the word whenever because that's the troubling word. Why would anyone have a problem with nominating qualified candidates? The problem is that this special interest group seems to want them to be nominated whenever there is an opening not that they want qualified candidates.
Whenever doesn't mean not qualified. As wnes had pointed out, there is zero Asian American among the judges, it would not be too hard to find someone that's qualified.
Well when you post something about Dailykos right after it's mentioned in the post above you without a link or a quote pointing out what you are referencing, it's not unusual to assume that is what you are referencing. I mean you just made your remark about the "spin" then didn't point out said spin or explain why it is spin. Why is she pompous, because she doesn't agree with you and 80/20? As far as their writing vs mine, I'm not a PAC lobbying candidates for President of the United states, so it shouldn't be a problem if my writing has the grammar of just some guy on a message board. Also, if they are a nonpartisan group, why are they not attacking all the Republican candidates who have not even responded to the questionaire?
First off you don't know much about my history, not that I would expect you too, but I have been fighting for Asian and Asian-American issues for a long time. I've helped organize forums and protests on such issues as Wen Ho Lee, racists comments by shock jocks directed at Asian immigrants and racial tensions following the Aries EP-3 Spy Plane incident. I've served on the boards of a few Asian American organizations and have met with and consulted with politicians from Mayors to US Senators on Asian issues. I have no problem fighting for my rights. I would if I felt that there was a critical issue that Obama or any other candidate needed to vitally addresss. At the moment though I don't believe asking for racial set asides for Federal judges is that sort of issue. I think addressing racism as a whole is an important issue and so far Obama is doing that. Of course we should fight for civil rights but there is a fine line between fighting for civil rights as a whole and just fighting for benefitting us. As part of that we should be fighting for the advancement of all groups rather than just for us. What 80-20 is doing isn't advancing civil rights as a whole but seeking to carve out a racial set aside for us. So we ask for a quota to address other quotas? Even though 80-20 isn't naming a number that is what they are asking for. They are asking that new judgeships be reserved for Asian judges until some percentage is met to address perceived racism. That is a nothing more than the type of affirmative action that as you note has screwed over Asians. Its asking that race be the primary factor in determining position. Now as you note that we have been hurt by quotas and racial set asides so your perception is to address it we must demand our own. The problem with that is that simplifies the nature of racism in the US. Its true that there has been racism against Asians in the US, we suffered institutionalized racism under exclusion acts and other laws for decades but we have also benefitted greatly from the civil rights struggle. In fact given the relative success of Asians in general we have possibly benefitted more than any other minority group. The civil rights struggle though was one that was largely fought by other minorities. At the sametime most of the Asians who have benefitted from civil rights aren't the ones who suffered under things like the Exclusion Acts but immigrants who have come after. So as a group we Asians have both benefitted greatly from the Civil Rights struggle with very few of our families or communities living under institutional racism or even having been part of the struggle. For us now to start demanding our own racial set asides to many appears petty and divisive especially in an era when society is moving away from such things to address racism. Even worse than appearing divisive it also encourages an attitude of victimhood on the part of us that means that we don't believe that we can achieve on merit alone. While I don't deny that racism towards Asians does exist given the success of many many Asians its a very hard argument to say that the doors to success are closed to us and we need a legal remedy to it. I'm familiar with 80-20 but don't always agree with them particularly because I think there stances are often divisive such as this. While racism has existed I don't believe it is in our interest to demand set asides but instead work to do away with racism in general.
rocketsjudoka, There are difference in approaches between us. But glad to hear your background and keep up the good work.
