Posted on 08/19/2005 6:54:41 AM PDT by manny613
For more than a generation, Republican leaders have talked of cutting the overwhelming Democratic support among black voters. Now, under new chairman Ken Mehlman, they're trying again.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
the republican party will never imbrace affirmative action.
felony disenfranchisement.... felons lost their right to vote, end of story.
urban issues... well as I look around the country I see Republican financial policy starting to have a positive effect on our inner cities. Many inner cities are starting to turn around.
Wanna take bets on how long before the "usual suspects" start their b*tch-fest?
I'm the first guy who gets upset when Republicans try to "expand the base" by straying from conservative principles. What I've never understood is why some FReepers complain when Republicans seek to expand the base by *emphasizing* conservative principles that are shared by many (perhaps most) black voters who only pull the lever for the Democrats because that's what their grandparents and parents did. One has to be pretty stubborn to oppose a plan to attract black voters by preaching the GOP's conservative stands on abortion, religious freedom, school choice, Social Security and other issues for which the Republican position resonates with the black community.
If the GOP can get just 30% of the black vote (while keeping its current coalition in place), the Democrat Party would not win another statewide election anywhere in the South and would face a nearly insurmountable obstacle in much of the Midwestern and Middle Atlantic states. The GOP would probably expand its membership in the House to close to 300 members, with even some black-majority and black-influence districts in the South going Republican. Republican Senators would have filibuster-proof majorities a sa matter of course. And no Democrat presidential candidate would be able to garner 270 electoral votes. All it takes is 30%. We would be foolish not to try to achieve that.
But Mehlman said GOP outreach to blacks and Latinos also attracts white conservatives. "Some of the strongest applause I get is from people who are very conservative and who recognize this offers real opportunity to people who have been left out the first time around," he said.
Exactly! I am cheering this from the rooftop. If I listen to some around here I deserved to be condemned to hell because I supported Democrats at one time. The truth is that at least half of the Democrat base is NOT moveon.org. If they are late to accept what has happened to their party, it doesn't make them evil or lost for all time. I see no reason they should be condemned to be used by race politics with the view their lives can never be bettered by their own hands only be a hand out from the Government.
It doesn't make sense from a compassionate standpoint, it doesn't even make sense from the view of a political conservative activist to allow Liberalism to thrive in certain pockets.
If the outreach to blacks is truly based on inviting them to embrace our conservative principles I have no problem with it.
But most of the outreach I am seeing from the GOP to Hispanics is based on pandering with issues like amnesty and open borders which clearly are contrary to conservative principles.
After 5 years of watching the hispandering, I am left with little confidence in our GOP leadership's willingness to reach out in a principled manner. Maybe they will prove me wrong.
I think they want you to think it's hispandering. But, if it is, it's not working for me or any of the hispanics I know. We're all ticked off as hell about illegal immigration.
I think what's really at work here is the Administration wanting to keep a steady supply of cheap (cheep? LOL) poultry plant workers, etc., and/or fear of the would-be illegals revolting in Mexico and putting a Che Guevara/Hugo Chavez type in office.
Being half Hispanic myself and being very ticked off about our illegal immigration situation, I have considered that possibility and I believe it has merit. I have seen conflicting evidence which leaves me somewhat confused as to their true motivations.
On the side that makes me believe the amnesty stuff was truly pandering aimed at attracting Hispanic votes I remember that during the recent campaign there was considerable talk about the not-an-amnesty amnesty/guest-worker program in the Spanish language section of the White House website that was not reflected in the English language version.
On the side that make me believe that you are correct and it is all about cheap labor I recently received a fairly legitimate Hispanic GOP outreach letter from Linda Chavez which barely hinted at anything approaching amnesty or guest-workers and mainly focused on conservative social and economic values. (I started to respond with my usual diatribe about securing the borders and deporting the illegals but then I realized us Hispanics don't even merit a postage prepaid envelope so I threw it away.)
But I believe the President is sincere in his desire to help goodhearted Hispanics who are just trying to support their families. And I think he and Karl Rove also thinks it is good politics. I think they are badly misguided but sincere.
WHO is advising them?
Karl Rove is a political genius. I don't guess he needs any advice.
I agree that Karl is a political genius, but that's why I don't buy this seemingly misguided Hispandering policy. That's why I think it may be one of the reasons I posted earlier.
Hard logic to refute! And as I stated before I'm fairly inclinded to agree with you anyway.
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.