Inspire Political Discourse

VIDEO: Republican Congressman, Duncan Hunter Supports the Deportation of Babies and Children Who Are US Citizens

Representing the 52nd District in California, Duncan Hunter [R] is calling for the deportation of children born to undocumented immigrants. Children and babies who are U.S. citizens, no less.

"Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens," Hunter was asked. "I would have to, yes," Hunter said. "... We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now," he said. "... It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls. ..."

The Fourteenth Amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Contact Hunter to let him know how you feel.

If you'd like to contact me about a legislative issue, you can reach me via e-mail, by phone at (202) 225-5672 or regular mail.  Please mail all correspondence to: Congressman Duncan Hunter; 1429 Longworth House Office Building; Washington D.C.; 20515.

Via Steve Benen.

Russell Pearce, Original Sponsor of Draconian Arizona Immigration Law, Has Ties to White Supremacists

Russell Pearce is the chief sponsor of the Arizona bill, and as many have noted, the bill, in effect, legalizes racial profiling. From the Fayetteville Observer [emphasis mine]:

Arizona Immigration Bill Sponsor Russell Pearce Has White Supremacist Ties, Nativist Views

In 2006, Arizona state legislator Russell Pearce got himself into a bit of trouble.

Pearce is the chief sponsor of Arizona's brutal new immigration law.

In '06, he circulated emails from the National Alliance, a white supremacist group. The email defended a racially conscious white person who "looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America." (Miscegenation refers to interracial relationships.)

The email went on to blame the media for forcing on the public the notion of equality of the races, the truth of the Holocaust and "the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders ... ."

Pearce claimed later to not know what the group was or what was in the email, but the chairman of the state Republican Party called the email a "severe mistake."

Then-U.S. representative J.D. Hayworth, who is no softy himself on illegal immigration, said: "Given the regrettable and disturbing nature of the e-mail Russell Pearce circulated earlier this week, I cannot in good conscience lend my endorsement to his candidacy for State Representative."

If the email "slip" had been Pearce's only tie to racism and nativism, maybe it would be no big deal on the scheme of things. But there's more.

• Pearce, who is now a state senator, has been videotaped and photographed palling around with nativists and white supremacists at anti-immigrant rallies, including with neo-Nazi and white power activist J.T. Ready.  
  [......]

Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling, Ctd

Via Bob Cesca @ Huffpost on the Arizona law and neo-slavery:

And now this is the law of the state of Arizona -- arresting people, citizen or not, simply for appearing Hispanic. The ghosts of Green Cottonham, "anti-vagrancy" laws and Black Codes. America has resurrected its predilection for rounding up brown people based on flimsy excuses and good ol' boy lawmaking.

While there's no evidence that the Arizona law will feed the rise of a new underground forced labor market in the United States, it's clear that the various components of neo-slavery are here now. And the optics and civil liberties violations, say nothing of the long-term consequences, are horrible. We're on the brink of rounding up Hispanic people on ridiculous charges while American corporations are actively engaged in the trafficking of illegal immigrant labor.

How soon, I wonder, until we read about Hispanic people -- citizens or otherwise -- being picked up for not having their birth certificates and other "papers" in their back pockets and consequently shipped off on some sort of prison "work release" program to a cabbage farm or meat packing plant?

Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling

The Arizona Republican anti-immigration bill. Where to start. A bill that legalizes the worst kind of racial profiling, making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona.
In my opinion, it harkens back to the creation of neo-slavery in the South after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Bill Moyers Journal

Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Bill Likely to Pass

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, has until tomorrow to sign, veto, or allow the nation's toughest bill on illegal immigration to pass without her signature. It is expected that she will sign it, making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona.

Civil rights activists have said the bill would lead to racial profiling and deter Hispanics from reporting crimes. Hundreds of Hispanics protested the legislation at the State Capitol complex on Thursday.

UPDATE: President Obama's comments on the Arizona bill this morning:

Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes for example the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.

But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts to open up across the country.

IPD Political News Summary: Monday, April 20, 2009

I got a late start on this last night, so will be finishing it piecemeal, throughout today. Check back later for more.

Political News Summary: Friday, April 17 – Sunday, April 19, 2009

| Last Thursday, President Obama directed the DOJ to release the Bush Torture Memos as part of an ongoing court case. The fallout has been wide, and varied.
In an editorial on Sunday, The New York Times called for the impeachment of federal judge Jay Bybee, the author of the memos, and John Yoo's boss.

“These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him.”

President Obama has also drawn fire from the left, when he made it clear that he would not hold accountable those who actually committed the acts of torture. From Think Progress:

Yesterday, as he released four Bush-era legal memos authorizing the torture of terrorist suspects, President Obama made it clear he would not support any prosecutions of low-level interrogators who actually carried out Bush’s policies. “[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”

The ACLU's lead counsel, Jameel Jaffer, told Glenn Greenwald that Obama was very careful in his wording, and that nothing the President or Eric Holder had said precludes prosecution of the people responsible for these policies.

By the way, I read some of the torture memos myself, and they are as ugly and grotesque as you might imagine.

RELATED: :: The case for impeaching Jay Bybee.
:: Fox News Defends Bush Administration’s Use Of Torture
:: Hayden: The Torture Memos Show The ‘Outer Limits’ That ‘Any American’ Would Go To In Interrogations
:: Scott Atran: The Moral Measure of a Civilization Is in Its Treatment of Enemies
__________________________

IPD Political News Summary: Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Political News Summary: Monday, April 6 – Tuesday, April 7, 2009

| President Obama spent two days in Turkey, before ending his trip with an unannounced visit to the troops in Iraq, bringing the war back to the forefront of the news again.
In Turkey, Obama reached out to Muslims, telling them;

. “One of the great strengths of the United States is ... we have a;very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

You can view the video here. Obama also held a town hall with Turkish students, and spoke to Turkish lawmakers where he told them that America is not at war with Islam.

“The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam,” Obama declared, adding that America's relationship with the Muslim world “cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

In Iraq, the president invoked warmer feelings from the Iraqis than former President Bush had. He also spoke to U.S. troops in Bagdad, telling them

“Under enormous strain and under enormous sacrifice, through controversy and difficulty and politics, you have kept your eyes focused on just doing your job and because of that, every mission that has been assigned from getting rid of Saddam to reducing violence, to stabilising the country, to facilitating elections, you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country.”

__________________________

IPD Political News Summary: Monday, April 6, 2009

Friday, April 3 – Sunday, April 5, 2009

| For 18 years, in a practice begun by George H.W. Bush, the government has banned the media from providing coverage of returning war dead.
At President Obama’s request, the Pentagon has now lifted the ban, although permission from the service member’s family is required. “The arrival of the remains of Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers, a 30-year-old supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, at Dover Air Force Base at 11 p.m. today [ipd note: Sunday, Apr. 5] marked the first time that the transfer of any of the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan was open to the media. The transfer of the flag-draped casket was carried out with great dignity, for the seven family members present.” source
AP/Reuters photo
__________________________ 

President Obama Signs the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - Full Text and Video

AP report:

The bill is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the bill, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

The plaintiff in the case, Lilly Ledbetter, argued that she did not become aware of the pay discrepancy until near the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala.

The Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the legislation in the last session of Congress, but Obama strongly supports it and the Democratic-controlled Congress moved it to the top of the agenda for the new session that opened this month.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SPEECH:

PRES. OBAMA:
All right. Everybody please have a seat. Well, this is a wonderful day. (Applause.) First of all, it is fitting that the very first bill that I sign -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act -- (applause) -- that it is upholding one of this nation's founding principles: that we are all created equal, and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.

IPD Legislation Tracking: H.R. 12: Paycheck Fairness Act

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.

Why this bill is important: Another civil rights issue, this bill deals with equal pay for equal or essentially the same work. This speaks to the heart of women's biggest complaint re equal rights. It is the area where we still are very much discriminated against, and this bill is the first step towards dealing with that inequity.

• Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-CT] cosponsors (198)
  
• How they voted.
  Or who exactly was and was not on the side of  equal pay for equal work.

House - Roll No. 8 -     View Votes		YEAS	NAYS	Didn't Vote
Democrats		246	160	7
Republicans		10	3	7

pending vote

Senate - Roll No. _		YEAS	NAYS	Didn't Vote
Democrats		pending	pending	pending
Republicans		pending	pending	pending

• Text:

 Summary | Full Text

• Status: (Updates will be posted here)

	Introduced	01/06/09
	Passed House 256-163	01/09/09
	Senate vote	pending
	Signed in to law by the President	pending

IPD Legislation Tracking: H.R. 11/S. 181: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.

Why this bill is important: A civil rights issue, the bill would overturn a 2007 Supreme Court ruling which threw a wrench in to a lawsuit filed by Lilly M. Ledbetter, a supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama. This bill will allow plaintiffs more time to file discrimination/bias lawsuits, and thus give employers fewer escape routes to avoid job bias.
President Bush threatened to veto this bill, however, he will not have the opportunity, and the soon to be  President Obama, is eager to sign it.

• Sponsor: Rep. George Miller [D-CA] cosponsors (195)
  
• How they voted.
  Or who exactly was on the side of labor.

House - Roll No. 9 - View Votes		YEAS	NAYS	Didn't Vote
Democrats		244	3	7
Republicans		3	168	8

Senate voted

Senate - Roll No. 14		YEAS	NAYS	Didn't Vote
Democrats		54	0	1
Republicans		5	36	0
Independents		2	-

• Text:

 Summary | Full Text

• Status: (Updates will be posted here)

	Introduced	01/06/09
	Passed House 247-171	01/09/09
	S. 181 - Passed Senate 61-36	01/22/09
	Signed in to law by the President	01/29/09

Leaders of the Anti-Civil Rights "Yes on Prop 8" Group "Command" the California Court to Nullify 18,000 Marriages

In a lawsuit filed by the leaders of the anti-civil rights group responsible for Prop 8, and representing the evangelicals, the Mormons, and all those well-meaning demented religious fanatics who think that they must have the ability to regulate the lives of us all, have "commanded", yes, the language used was "COMMANDED" the California courts to "bow" to the will of the people, and nullify 18,000 marriages.

From Dr. Jeffrey Feldman at the Huffington Post:

“The idea that civil rights can be stripped by a simple majority plebescite is not just unethical, but actually violates the principles on which our system of government is based.  First off, it is unconstitutional to pass laws that deprive citizens of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (e.g., equal protection), a basic point the Prop 8 folks do not seem to get.  Second, the purpose of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution as form of systemic balance to the other two branches of government--not to bow down to them.

The language of the 'Yes To 8' brief suggests that group see itself in a moral struggle not just to strip gay people of rights, but to mobilize public against the California judiciary.

Time will tell which effort will hold the day.  However, I suspect there are few judges in California (or anywhere else) who respond well when lawyers 'command' them to 'bow' down.  Come to think of it, nobody responds well.  And when you think about it, that really is the point of this whole Prop 8 nonsense, is it not?   Try to strip American citizens of their equal rights, and when that does not work:  raise a bloody stink about the supposed despotic decline of the United States judicial system.”

Meanwhile, California attorney general, and former governor, Jerry Brown, has filed a lawsuit claiming that Prop 8 is in violation of the civil rights of "a classification of people". Hey, we told you that in November! Below, quoting myself from my original article.

“This being the case, Prop 8 is not a matter of legitimate policy. It is a law which revokes the federally guaranteed civil rights of a classification of people, and is thus unconstitutional, and would not hold up to a review by the Supreme Court.”

And Brown, as quoted in the LA Times:

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

And indeed, both Brown and I are right. My question is, when he wins his lawsuit, how enraged will these prop 8 purveyors be? Ah, ever helpful, I have some suggestions for the inimitable purveyors of hate. Got any of your own? Tell me in a comment.

Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration is unacceptable.

As a progressive who strongly supports civil rights for all citizens, including those in the gay community, I was disheartened and angered when I read that President-elect Obama had chosen Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.

While I believe that I understand his intent, I disagree with it. And just because he is a democrat does not mean that I will not speak out when I believe that he is wrong.

Obama's "talking points" (fabricated by myself, and only an opinion) and my responses:

• PEBO is modeling "tolerance".

Oh, please. Why should one be tolerant of someone who is intolerant? I have zero interest in being tolerant of a viewpoint which refuses to recognize a woman's right to choose, which does not afford the same civil rights to gays as to any other citizen, and which feeds on divisiveness.

• PEBO is practicing inclusion.

Inclusiveness is all well and good, however, inclusiveness of a man who is himself not inclusive, who does not support the civil rights of the gay community, indeed, who has been active in the "ex-gay" movement, a movement which simply ignores all scientific evidence that sexuality is not a choice, is unconscionable in my eyes.

Just my two cents which I posted in the discussion on change.gov. Be sure to make your voice heard also. The site is having problems with heavy traffic, so check back if you get an error page.

EDIT: They began a new discussion after 5,000+ rick warren comments swamped the service discussion. :)

Political News - Weekend Update - Saturday-Sunday, December 13-14, 2008

:: Bush attacked with flying shoes by Iraqi reporter.

I've seen this story on numerous blogs for several hours now, and I didn't add it to the update because I couldn't make up my mind how I felt about it. It was just too weird. I was torn between thinking that this kind of thing should not be laughed at, and wanting to laugh because it just seemed so fitting for the end of W's failed presidency. The quote is from Matt Stewart on the Huffington Post. Re the weirdness, he said it better than I could.

It's a strange capstone to a presidency, one of those semi-absurd semi-scary incidents like the pretzel-choking, the back-shooting, the bike-crashing. Yet somehow those ten seconds seem to say everything about the man, about guts and intelligence, humor and luck, the dangerous world Bush has helped make worse. For what the world hopes to be the last time, we've watched the man do just enough to keep himself afloat.

Image from Huffpo.

Watch the video here.

:: The Shoe As A Campaign Metaphor - NPR

__________________________

:: The Hill Gossip Mill: Word is that Karl Rove will be leading the fight to oppose the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General.

The dissension loving Rove doing what Rove always does.

Ceci Connolly, national staff writer for the Washington Post, said as much on Sunday, when she passed on a bit of hill gossip in the waning moments of "The Chris Matthews Show."

"Word on the street is that Karl Rove is going to be helping lead the fight against Eric Holder when his nomination for Attorney General heads up to the Senate," she said.  HUFFPO

__________________________

YAH for Hollywood! Proposition 8 The Musical

Hilarious, and enlightening, a must watch! Scroll down for the Daily Pol News feature.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Prop 8 - the Musical

Gay Rights Activists to Protest the Passage of Amendment 2 in Florida on December 12

While most of us are familiar with Proposition 8, the amendment to the California constitution which served to prohibit the marriage of same-sex couples in that state, we never really heard much about another similar ballot initiative, Amendment 2 in Florida, which sought to accomplish the same objective by amending the Florida constitution, and which also passed.

The passage of Amendment 2 in Florida did not generate the furor that Prop 8 did in the aftermath of it's passage, though it should have, as it also accomplished the same feat of the constitutional denial of a civil right to a particular segment of society.

In any case, a gay rights group in Florida, known as Impact-Florida, has planned a protest designed to draw attention to this denial of civil rights. They are going to protest outside of the wedding of Governor Charlie Crist on December 12, in St. Petersburg, Florida.

 “The group Impact-Florida has called on its members to gather in pink T-shirts outside First United Methodist Church of St. Petersburg on Dec.12 to "congratulate" Crist and Rome while their wedding takes place inside. The demonstration will continue outside the wedding reception at the Renaissance Vinoy Resort in downtown St. Petersburg.

"After the positive congratulatory observance, there will be a candlelight vigil close to the [Vinoy] in downtown St. Pete to mourn the loss of gays right to get married," the group's Web site states, referring to a gay marriage ban that passed by ballot initiative in November..”  The Suncoast News

If you are in the area, plan on attending to help this group make a statement. Amendment 2, like proposition 8, is in my opinion, illegal because it is unconstitutional. Go Impact-Florida!

RELATED POSTS

>Daily Political News Round-Up - Friday, November 21, 2008
>Solidarity With Prop 8 Protesters
>Op-Ed: Prop 8 Unconstitutional
>State Challenges to Roe Vs Wade Disguised - Proposition 4 - Measure 11 - Amendment 48 - Inspire Emotion

Op-Ed: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

"Prop 8 is simply democracy at work." That comment was posted on a forum, and as is obvious to most, it is far too simplistic.

We live in a constitutional democracy, with a constitution that guarantees certain fundamental civil rights/freedoms. In California, there is a constitutional right to marry. On the Federal level, the US constitution assures us the right to equal protection under the law. Additionally, every single state in the union has a constitution which also guarantees this right to equal protection under the law.

Thus, marriage equality is a civil right, and may only be abridged by changes to the Federal constitution. States may not revoke a freedom as it is provided under the tenets of the US Constitution. Only the Supreme Court may do that, and only if they change the US Constitution.

This being the case, Prop 8 is not a matter of legitimate policy. It is a law which revokes the federally guaranteed civil rights of a classification of people, and is thus unconstitutional, and would not hold up to a review by the Supreme Court.

Now, the Supreme Court can revise that part of the constitution [14th Amendment] in order to make Prop 8 and similar laws legitimate. We could then discriminate against other classes of people as well. For instance, we could ban any specific group from marrying --- religious freaks, for example. Unfair? Sure. But so is preventing same-sex marriage, and as they say, "you reap what you sow".

Consider long and hard the next time you vote in favor of a law which seeks to abridge and deny a fundamental civil right.

Your own liberty is also at stake.

Props to cabieri (a Republican who voted for Obama) who inspired me to clarify my thoughts on this matter.

RELATED - RECENT POST

>Washington Post Columnist and Dem, Thanks Fox News
>Reversing Bush 43's Midnight Regulations
>Behold the Election of Obama - Europe Peers into the Mirror
>Keith Olberman: Gay Marriage is About Love
>Obama Administration Announces Ethics Rules for Transition Team
>Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity Dive In
>The Vet Who Didn't Vet 
>Obama and Bush 43 in the White House Together

>Obama Confronts Guantanamo

Obama Confronts Guantanamo

As Obama plans for the close of Guantanamo, which is expected to occur early during his presidency, he is faced with tangled legal and moral decisions, some of which will bring down the wrath of the Republicans, and the ire of the Democrats.

Before you jump on the "Bash Obama" bandwagon re Guantanamo, take the time to research¹ and intelligently consider the issues. The choices he must make are not easily accomplished nor considered for this former professor of constitutional law, but I believe that he will make the best decisions re Guantanamo, while necessarily protecting our national security. There are no perfect choices in this matter.

The possibilities, in brief

Palin Says Being Gay is a Choice

The Washington Post Opinion Writers:

"But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my 'gay friend,' she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people."

-- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric

Gov. Palin, a choice is between Coke or Pepsi, Cher or Celine, Yuengling or Budweiser, Jimmy Choos or Manolos. Not whether to be gay or straight.

No one would choose to put their careers on the line. "Of our over 5,000 Legal Help Desk calls in 2007, 78 percent (2,778) were sexual orientation discrimination," says Lisa Hardaway, media relations director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "Of the sexual orientation discrimination issues, 26 percent (730) were workplace-related." According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, about 12,500 people who were serving their nation with honor have been drummed out of the military since 1994 because they were gay under the nonsensical "don't ask don't tell" policy. At least 59 of them were Arabic linguists who are sorely needed in the war on terror.

No one would choose to be part of a marginalized group whose members have to sue their way to basic rights so that their relationships and their families are respected. Rights, such as hospital visitation and inheritance, that heterosexual couples take for granted. Continue reading here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

• View all posts on Inspire Political Discourse tagged "Sarah Palin"

Palin's Record on Civil Rights and Diversity

Palin Has No Record on Diversity or Civil Rights - New America Media

There’s no record that Alaska Governor and Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin uttered anything more than the obligatory complimentary congratulations to the woman that beat her out for the Miss Alaska title in 1984. The winner was Maryline Blackburn, an African-American. A ritual congratulatory wish from Palin would have been about the only public acknowledgement to date from her in an instance, in this case a beauty contest, where Palin was confronted with the issue of diversity in the person of a competitor.
Since then, Palin’s record on race and diversity has been the blankest of blank sheets. The probes into Palin’s record on diversity and civil rights have almost exclusively focused on her views on gay rights, gay marriage and equal pay. These are crucial civil rights issues. But so are racial diversity and civil rights. The Web site OntheIssues.org gives a comprehensive look at the positions of elected officials on the major issues based on their statements, speeches, campaign materials and policy position papers. Palin has taken no position on immigration, affirmative action, job and housing discrimination, school re-segregation, police-minority community relations, and racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Continue reading here.

Technorati Tags: sarah palin, palin's record on civil rights, civil rights, diversity, 2008 election, 2008 presidential campaigns, politics