Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HISPANICS: KEY TO GOP'S FUTURE
New York Post ^ | January 15, 2004 | Dick Morris

Posted on 01/15/2004 7:07:05 AM PST by cricket

January 15, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush's im- migration/amnesty proposal will probably be remembered in history as the idea that saved a political party. By taking the lead in extending the benefits of legal protections to more than 10 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States, Bush has taken a bold and dramatic step to avert the extinction of his own party.

Until Bush acted, the grinding inevitability of demographic change was likely to doom the GOP to an early death. As America became 1 percent more Hispanic each year, the Republicans could not concede this growing group to the Democrats by 2-1 ratios without risking total annihilation down the road.

The Republicans have got to break the solid demographic phalanx that sustains the Democratic Party: Blacks, Hispanics and single white women. Together, this group cast 25 percent of votes in 1990, 32 percent in 2000 and will account for 40 percent in 2008.

But by embracing the cause of Hispanic immigrants and extending to them elemental civil rights and minimum-wage protections, Bush has struck a blow on their behalf that will resonate in their voting habits for generations to come.

His legislative proposals are akin to the sponsorship of a sweeping civil-rights bill in 1963-65 by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and will have a similar effect in binding Hispanics to the Republicans as the civil-rights legislation did in linking blacks to the Democrats.

For decades, Republicans systematically alienated Hispanics by insisting on English-only initiatives, opposing benefits for illegal immigrants and demanding an end even to free public schools for the children of those who came here illegally. These measures drove Hispanics into the waiting arms of Democrats. Bush has now acted to reverse the legacy of these initiatives and to welcome Hispanics into the GOP.

As Catholic voters, who take their religion seriously, Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency. Recent data that closely links the frequency of church attendance to party-voting habits supports the theory that this very religious voting group is likely to adhere to the Republican Party once its platform stops repelling them at every turn.

Republican efforts to win black voters have proven largely fruitless. Even the appointment of blacks to the two top jobs in the Bush foreign policy apparatus has failed to generate any significant African-American support for Bush in the polls. But candidates who appeal to the Hispanic vote - Gov. Pataki in New York, Gov. Rick Perry in Texas and the Bushes in Florida and Texas - have shown a real ability to get large shares of Hispanic voters.

As Hispanics follow the traditional paths of upward mobility that immigrant groups have trod before them, they are likely to lean more and more toward the Republicans - just as Irish and Italians do these days, abandoning the Democratic orientation of their ancestors.

Hispanics hold the key to the political outcomes in many major states. California, Texas and Florida are heavily influenced by their participation as are New York, New Jersey and Illinois. These are the key battleground states that hold the balance of power between the parties.

Apart from the politics of the issue, the merits also dictate the Bush initiative. America has 4 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its wealth. It is incumbent on us to open our doors to those who seek upward mobility.

The only thing standing between subsistence and starvation in Mexico, and much of Central America, is the money sent home to needy families by hard working men and women in the United States who tend our gardens, wash our dishes and clean our floors. It is not American workers who they are putting out of jobs, it is American robots. The alternative to their low wage work is not American labor but machines.

The United States needs the skills, energy, savvy and willingness to work hard of our illegal immigrants. They are illegal only because our laws have been nativist and short-sighted. Now Bush is setting them right.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; gop; hispanics; immigrantlist; latinovote; trends
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last
To: Eva
I am afraid that the negativity started way before the Clintons. It is the negativity of the far right that allows them to be such easy targets for the extreme left.

No, that is where you are wrong, it is spinelessness on the right that is the problem.

But if we show strenght by shuting down the (pro-socialist) press in this country, we can start fixing it.

But the problem is that it would take a armed revolution or a military couq to do that.

101 posted on 01/18/2004 4:01:33 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: All
Folks,

It is always hard for extremism in politics to face mathematics. Always. This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR. It was true for the left in 2000. They voted Nader. They could not tolerate the centrism attempts of Gore. They cost Gore the election and now, this week, what reward do they have? Dean claims to be a fiscal conservative. Is that what the leftist extremists wanted when defeated Gore? A candidate who postures as a fiscal conservative?

No. Their vote on Nader was useless. Their vote to hurt Gore did not help them. It did not move the party's front runner. Indeed, as I type this it is possible Edwards or Kerry or Gephardt will win Iowa. They are all perceived as to the right of Dean. So again, did the extremists get a reward for backstabbing Gore?

Now we see in this article the unrelenting, unstoppable reality of the mathematics of Hispanics. Illegals don't vote. Repeat. Illegals don't vote. They would be crazy to try. Tossing out illegals has no impact on these numbers. Tossing out illegals won't change this trend. Bush has been dealt this hand. He has to play it. Let's have another look at those inexorable numbers of blacks, single women and hispanics:

"Together, this group cast 25 percent of votes in 1990, 32 percent in 2000 and will account for 40 percent in 2008. "

The GOP has been losing this group by 2:1 margins. That's about 65/35. And they are becoming a larger and larger total of the voting population and we will lose every single election in the US if nothing is done to address that ratio.

You "Enforce the Laws" types with no plan to do so . . . what do you accomplish to address that ratio? What keeps the USSC from getting stacked with pro Choice? Divided government? Aren't you the same ones that say the GOP Senate is spineless? If they are spineless now, why would they suddenly grow a spine next year and obstruct pro choice nominees? Your positions are not consistent.

Bush is the best option there is. There is no choice.
102 posted on 01/18/2004 4:17:37 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Owen
It is always hard for extremism in politics to face mathematics. Always. This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR.

You want mathematics, most middle class families are living hand-to-mouth cereal dinners because they are paying high taxs that are given to the poor so that they can eat t-bone steaks and potatos for dinner.

We literally can NOT afford to add 8 to 12 million more people officially onto welfare because the hike in taxes would be the final push to send most of middle americans into bankrupcy.

Now we see in this article the unrelenting, unstoppable reality of the mathematics of Hispanics. Illegals don't vote. Repeat. Illegals don't vote.

You obviously don't know a danm thing about motor-voter laws. In some states, a licence to drive is a licence to vote.

P.S. The only reason I can think of for a conservative to vote for Howard Dean is in pure spite to screw-up Hillery Clinton's plan for the White House.

103 posted on 01/18/2004 5:14:04 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cricket
I agree with the no second chance on any conviction of a crime. I also know that change and conservativism is an oxymoron, but at least can we expect a more reasoned, less emotional response? It seems as though we are always accusing the liberals of feeling instead of thinking, but I think that this time it is reversed. The left is totally unfeeling and the far right is unthinking.
104 posted on 01/18/2004 5:37:15 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: cricket
...Bush has taken a bold and dramatic step to avert the extinction of his own party.

Extinction? Would someone please point out exactly where the GOP is losing overwhelmingly? Have'nt they done well for over 20 years and been the majority party in congress for a decade? Morris is exaggerating again.

105 posted on 01/18/2004 5:42:16 PM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
"It seems as though we are always accusing the liberals of feeling instead of thinking, but I think that this time it is reversed. The left is totally unfeeling and the far right is unthinking."

Agree. . .have viewed the outcry of many of the Repubs as no more than a 'knee-jerk' response; think your hammer landed right-on !

106 posted on 01/18/2004 5:45:28 PM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Owen
"This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR. It was true for the left in 2000. They voted Nader. They could not tolerate the centrism attempts of Gore. They cost Gore the election and now, this week, what reward do they have? Dean claims to be a fiscal conservative. Is that what the leftist extremists wanted when defeated Gore? A candidate who postures as a fiscal conservative? "

Hello?

107 posted on 01/18/2004 5:52:21 PM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Owen
"This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR. It was true for the left in 2000. They voted Nader. They could not tolerate the centrism attempts of Gore. They cost Gore the election and now, this week, what reward do they have? Dean claims to be a fiscal conservative. Is that what the leftist extremists wanted when defeated Gore? A candidate who postures as a fiscal conservative? "

Okay, I missed your first point here. . .thought you were saying that the 'right-wing' was responsible for voting for Nader. . .so . . .'hello' back at myself!

108 posted on 01/18/2004 5:55:34 PM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: manfromlamancha
BTW, if you consider my over 40 years of living and traveling in the southwest to be hyperbole, that's your choice. I've lived in and/or traveled extensively throughout Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Colorado and even Mexico.

I talk to people, I read and I do my own investigations whem people tell me things I'm not sure I believe.

If you still need a break, you are welcome to it.
109 posted on 01/18/2004 8:54:33 PM PST by DustyMoment (Repeal CFR NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Columbine
You admit that Bush didn't invite Ozzie but it doesn't matter that you and the website you cited said he did?

I don't know if he did or not, but since everything else the website cites is true, I'll take their word for it, unless you or another person can prove he or his rep didn't invite Ozzie.

110 posted on 01/19/2004 10:08:19 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Here you are.

Ozzy Osbourne is set to meet with President George W. Bush informally at the Washington Correspondents Dinner on May 4. The dinner is traditionally attended by the president, members of his cabinet, members of Congress, and members of the Washington D.C. press corps.

A spokesperson for Ozzy told LAUNCH that the rocker hasn't been officially invited to the White House by the president, although he will most likely meet Bush and visit the White House while he's in Washington D.C. for the dinner. He was invited to the event by a member of the press.

Ozzy Osbourne To Visit White House? (LAUNCH, 04/05/2002

111 posted on 01/19/2004 10:54:13 AM PST by Columbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Columbine
Okay, but even if you are right, it is a minor point since Bush made a point to recognize him in the audience, didn't he? So, your point is what in logic is called a red herring (i.e. focusing on one minor point to divert attention from the major issue).

The issue is: Does Bush act in a way that is consistent with Christian moral values? I believe that based on the facts of his own words and actions, that the answer is clearly NO. Can you defend his spending, his open borders, his praising a gay church, his appointment of an open homosexual, his abandonment of Taiwan, his refusal to openly support a constitutional amendment for marriage (instead he wants to waste $1.5 billion on a silly pro-marriage campaign)? Can you make a case that Bush is a social conservative?

112 posted on 01/19/2004 11:01:59 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Columbine
I might add that you have not proven that the website LIED. Lying requires intent. If they reported it believing it was true, then it is merely a mistake, not a lie.

Enough red herrings. Make a case from a conservative standpont for his open borders and social policies...if you can!

113 posted on 01/19/2004 11:04:20 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
You're too funny for words.

You said the president invited him. You challenged me to prove that a newsperson invited him and I gave you the proof.

Now you want something else? Look it up yourself! And try a reputable source next time!

I've never made a case for open borders or illegal immigration and I don't spread false information around the Internet to try to bolster my arguments either.
114 posted on 01/19/2004 1:51:16 PM PST by Columbine (Tired of Bush character assassins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Columbine
You said the president invited him. You challenged me to prove that a newsperson invited him and I gave you the proof.

The website says the President invited him- you called them liars - but you don't have enough info to call them liars. Lying requires intent. Please stop the RED HERRINGS. IS BUSH A TRUE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE OR NOT? yes or no? Address the issue or get lost.

Now you want something else? Look it up yourself! And try a reputable source next time!

If you bothered to read the website (which you obviously didn't! - so much for objectivity!), you would see that the sources are linked! Washington Times, Reuters, etc. ARe they lying?

Address the real issue or get lost.

115 posted on 01/19/2004 1:53:36 PM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
You sound a lot like Howard Dean!

Better chill before you stroke out! I'm not going anywhere.

See you next time you get it wrong.
116 posted on 01/20/2004 11:08:02 AM PST by Columbine (Owens '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson