Posted on 01/11/2006 4:03:05 AM PST by ninenot
I'm not impressed with an argument that begins with "intellectual capacity" as a foundation.
The only saving grace of the Bush benign neglect of his duty to the laws of the country (vis-a-vis immigration) is that the SOcial Security trust fund is being artificially pumped up...
A dying Eskimo Grandmother set aflow on a ice pack has better odds of being chosen the next Pope than does Hilary of being elected. Those who haven't voted in the last several elections will register just to vote against her.
IMO, the GOP Majority is solid and will be long-lasting because of the suicidal ideology of the Democrats. They can't escape from the iron grip the left has on them; not now, not for the foreseeable future.
My "hope" is with the House and the young conservatives.
One last thing about PJB, he i sobviously very bright but he is old-school when it comes to certain things - such as Israel and Isolationism. He keeps trying to resurrect "America First."
Pat, take up golf; go on a cruise; take a canal ride through Bourdeaux; just can the constant "we iz losing."
Leave that to Dean and the Democrats and Air America and Al Qaeda
"I'd rather have them as my next door neighbor than some of the lilly white, materialist, self centered godless, dollar chasing over extended parents as neighbors in our development."
So would everyone...whats your point? That is not who we are talking about. You sound like one of those lilly white materialistic self centered diversity mantra hitlerites elitists. That is not the argument here - the argument here is about the 80% who dont fit that profile. You cant argue the facts so your left with calling names. You still want to debate on per capita crime statistics and welfare recipients? I am not afraid of the truth apparantly you are.
The author seems not to have a clue about the last century of US politics. Almost all the hispanics I know (a few hundreds) are small-government, low-tax types. Most are small business owners. I always ask why the vote Democrat (against their interests and even against the interests espoused by the business associations they belong to.) The reply is invariable that the GOP is anti-hispanic.
"Have you been brainwashed by PC propoganda? You sound like you suffer from a severe case of White Guilt.
Pointing out that various social pathologies hit the black community at significantly higher rates than other groups does not mean that one thinks of blacks as subhuman. [Who other than those with a far-left, guilt-ridden mindset thinks that way?] It is simply a fact. The reasons are many, but I hardly see how placing the blame on the failed big govt/grievance policies of the Democrats and reckless black leaders is an indictment of black people as a race.
And yes, more white people are on the public dole. This should come as no surprise seeing as how whites make up about 70% of the population (but don't worry, if current trends persist, then whites will cease to be a majority sometime about 2050, much to the delight of Bill Clinton!!!), whereas blacks constitute about 12%. but the more relevant stat is relative percentage. In other words, black Americans are more likely to receive some sort of public assistance. Are we supposed to just ignore this? Is it beyond the pale for modern-day political debate and discussion? What other non-pc things must be disallowed from public discourse?
And the poster you responded to was right about the ethnic interest groups like LaRaza; if a group were founded on similar grounds to advocate on behalf of whites, then it would be roundly derided as racist. And all of these groups like La Raza tirelessly advocate for leftwing policies, such as bigger govt and amnesty for illegals. They certainly don't represent the more conservative cultural values of the latinos they claim to represent.
And if anything is unworthy of a response, its your use of the leftist 'Hitler' tactic."
Awesome post
Its hard to know where to begin in response to post #37.
First of all, Bush did not win 50% of the latino vote in 2004. Are you sure this group claimed as such. I thought they were parroting the 44% number that was reported based on faulty exit polling data. As it turns out, even the 44% number was an overstatement. Subsequent analysis has more plausibly put Bush's showing with Hispanics in 2004 in the high 30s, to maybe as high as forty percent.
Mexican-American voters did not go Republican. I believe the only Hispanic group to do so was, again, Cubans. At best, Bush may have tied Kerry with Hispanics in his home state of Texas (he lost to Gore), and he lost heavily to Kerry among California Hispanics. And it is these two states with the biggest concentration of Mexican Americans.
Your point, and the one made by the President of this latino coaltion, about there being danger in Republicans appearing hostile to Hispanics is a good one, but there are a few problems with it. First of all, Hispanics have always favored Democrats (at least in the last 50 yrs), so its not as if the meanies like Tancredo have pushed away a former constituency. For all the demonization of Pete Wilson, the most he did was exacerbate an existing situation, as Republcans were already losing latinos in California. And it should be noted that the dismal showing of Republicans in that state is due to more than just their poor showing with latinos, as they also do quite bad with the state's more liberal white population.
Secondly, and most perhaps most importantly, is that any policy position short of amnesty for illegal aliens, plus a large increase in legal immigration, plus a massive 'guest' worker program will be portrayed by the Left (which includes the influential Hispanic leaders of groups like LaRaza and Lulac, as well as Democrats, and the mainstream media) as being hostile and unwelcoming towards immigrants in general, and to Hispanics specificially. Are we to be held hostage by this? Is the debate to be held hostage to this demagoguery? If so, then it means that mainstream views of Americans -- such as a decrease in legal immigration or at least no increase, plus no path to citizenship for legalized illegals -- cannot be a part of the discussion.
Is this poisonous effect on open and free debate one of the great strengths of diversity that we always hear about?
And you can be sure that even if the GOP were to adopt all of the liberal immigration policies favored by the Dems and the above-mentioned groups, then the Democrats would simply up the bid. You can't out-pander masters like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. And while their pandering may not play all that well with the common latino man (and woman), you can be damn sure that it will be lapped up by the leftwing leaders of the Hispanic community, and then they will of course use their influence with their less-liberal fellow latinos.
As to the assertion that the trend of Hispanic immigrants is in the GOP's favor; at worst that is false, and at best it is simply too early to make such claims. Yes, in 2000 Bush improved upon Dole (certainly no great feat) to get about 34% of the latino vote, and then improved upon that in 2004 to 38-40%. But Reagan also achieved the high 30s in 1984, which was a significant improvement over 1980, yet it did not carry over or continue with Bush the Elder, even though the Reagan amnesty was signed after 1984 and the Elder campaigned as the continuation of Reagan. And even with all of Bush's efforts, he still soundly lost the latino vote twice. So let's not proclaim a genuine and lasting trend just yet.
As to the whole Know-Nothing part; Say what you will about the motives of the immigration-restrictionists of the late 19th and early 20th century, but they eventually won, and were proven right. Congress cut off mass immigration in the early 1920s, and then followed over 40 years of low-moderate legal immigration, and serious measures against illegal immigration. This was only undone by Ted Kennedy's fraudulent reform act of 1965 that went on to result in pretty much everything its sponsors promised that it wouldn't. Do you doubt that this 40 yr respite from mass immigration helped in the assimilation process? Its too bad you feel the need to close that paragraph by repeating tired and bogus leftwing charges against modern opponents of mass immigration as 'anti-immigrant' and latino-bashing. Tell me, can one support reductions in immigration, and oppose thinly-veiled amnesty plans and not be anti-immgrant? Can one oppose the policy aims of groups like LaRaza and not be guilty of bashing latinos? If so, then please set forth the pc rules of language so that those who disagree may do so w/o being called a racist/xenophobe/nativist/bigot/anti-whatever. And tell me, is there any legitimate grounds to oppose mass immigration in your mind, or are all who do motivated by racial/ethnic animus?
Your use of yacht-club and polo-club Republicans is not an accurate description of those within the party who oppose the Bush/pander approach. It is the more elite, sheltered wing of the party that supports unending mass immigration and 'temporary' worker programs. Its much more likely that a Republican looking to hire a gardener or nanny is the one who will take your side, whereas the more rank and file (or base) will take a more strict (or 'anti-immigrant' if you prefer) position on immigration.
Democrats do much more than keep quiet during all of this. As already stated, they take what are in fact expressions of mainstream views (yes, believe it or not, most of Tancredo's views enjoy plurality or majority support) and use reckless, irresponsible rhetoric to demagogue those who say it to frighten Hispanics. Of course this all raises a tough question; what to do? Should we acquiesce to this bastardization of public discourse? With media bias, its perfectly understandable why some might answer yes to this, as even today the Left's dominance of the mainstream media and other opinion-shaping entities like Hollywood and academe can be daunting and disheartening. I mean, who wants to constantly fight bogus charges of racism and bigotry and xenophobia? It is much easier to just go along to get along, and hope that taking PC positions on things like immigration will result in some good press. And indeed it will, so long as there is an evil Tancredo villain out there to make a comparison too, but its unlikely it will earn you too many brownie points when taking on someone like Hillary (something McCain will learn should he get the nomination). OR, should we fight the very premise of the debate to begin with? Should we challenge the PC rules by which the debate has been debased. Its certainly the harder choice, but some fights are worthy waging. We may have to always fight uphill, but if we give in and play by their rules on this then it just emboldens them to demand the same for all other matters; as indeed they have with charges of racism and homophobia often a part of the default starting position on debates dealing with racial preferences (which reminds me -- what about the collision of such preferences with the mass immigration of those eligible for them???) and gay marriage.
You are right that Hispanics are indeed an exploding segment of the population. And while its certainly true that even if there were no immigration (something few actually advocate dispite misrepresentations of people like Buchanan and Tancredo) that the latino population would still grow rapidly for yrs to come, it is not true that laws cannot have an effect. Mere laws, if enforced, could have a huge effect on demographics. Its quite common to pretend as though the unprecedented demographic transformation taking place is some irresistible force of nature that we as a sovereign nation are powerless to resist, (so we might as well embrace it the argument goes), but that's not true. If legal immigration levels were cut, and more serious, comprehensive measures were taken against illegal immigration (simply ending birth-right citizenship could seriously alter any direct political impact of illegals, so long as illegals don't illegally vote in large numbers), then all of the demographic projections about whites losing majority status (and doesn't it strike you as telling that such projections are greeted with glee by the Left...why is that I wonder???) would be altered. Maybe they would only be delayed, but maybe it would permanently alter them. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe it would be a bad thing. Who knows?
Equating, or laying the flame for Buchanan's failures and shortcomings as an office-seeker with his positions on immigration is another mistake. Again, just look at the polls. To be sure, they vary, and much depends on the wording, but there is simply no denying that the general tenets -- reduce legal immigration, fences/military on the border, no amnesty, no path to citizenship w/o first returning home and getting in the normal legal line, no drivers licenses for illegals, etc -- enjoy broad, widespread support from Americans. To argue that Buchanan lost because he held such popular positions is absurd. People cast votes for a thousand different reasons, and I'll be the first to admit that immigration rarely ranks in importance next to things like national security, the economy, education, and healthcare (even though all are affected by immigration) when people decide how to cast their votes. Just consider how the people of California, just in the last 12 years, have voted to bar public services for illegal immigrants, ban gay marriage, ban racial preferences, and ban ban bilingual education; yet at the same time have turned around and elected politicians who support each and every one of those things. Just consider how the people of Michigan and Oregon voted to ban gay marriage in 2004, but at the same time cast their electoral votes for pro-gay John Kerry. You can't necessarily make the direct link.
Why is border enforcement not practical? We could build more fences. We could hire more border patrol agents. We could put military units on the border.
The whole thing about the GOP using border concerns as a cynical, divisive, shameful election year refuge sounds like something Howard Dean would say........In fact Howard Dean did say precisely that late last year. So now you are in a position of agreeing with Howard Dean of all people, that there is no legitimate reason for calling for stricter controls on the border and immigration, and that calls to do must either be cynical political tactics, and/or possible signs of anti-latino bigotry.
Its somewhat comical the way in which conservative proponents of mass immigration have gone along with the Left in supporting the importation of millions who natuarlly favor the Democrats, and then they turn around and blame other conservatives (specifically those who actually hold conservative positions on immigration) for the fact that these immigrants (and their children) turn out voting with the Democrats. It never occurs to them that perhaps if the influx of pro-Democrat immigrants were reduced, then the GOP wouldn't be facing such a daunting demographic challenge. And that they are naturally pro-Democrat has been proven in pretty much every election in the modern era. Yes, Hispanics are against gay marriage and abortion on demand, but they still vote for politicians who spit on those values. Its clear that hopes for a massive realignment based on social/cultural issues is a long-shot at best. And this isn't a knock on latinos, as its pretty much true of all groups -- witness how the gay marriage bans out-polled Bush with pretty much every demographic -- but it is a bit strange that (as with blacks) there has been almost no pressure from rank and file latinos to have their cultural views better represented by their leaders, be they elected office holders or community leaders. Why, for example, are there not more culturally conservative/fiscally liberal latino leaders? Some things count more than others when casting votes, and the GOP has its head in the sand if it thinks that Hispanic's admirable revulsion of things like gay marriage will make them vote GOP, especially when the GOP is increasingly shrinking away from championing such values, partly, I guess, because its not 'compassionate' conservatism to do so.
Still, if the GOP takes a thumping this November, its unlikely that landslide latino support for Dems will be the decisive factor. The GOP has much more to fear from the possiblity that part of its base may stay at home, and from the possible defection of those seemingly always squishy moderate/suburban whites. Similarly, the dynamics of the electoral college suggest that it would take much more than overwhelming Hispanic support to elect Hillary. The only state that will be in play in which the latino population may prove decisive will be Florida. Now maybe that alone could do it, but lets face it, California, New York, and Illinois are already in the Blue column in 2008, while Texas will still be Red (and if its not, then the GOP will have much bigger problems than a loss of latino support). If the GOP candidate hopes to pick off narrowly-blue states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then he'll have to do better with whites. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist on this one thing, but I still think that the electorate will still naturally favor a conservative over a liberal as of 2008. So I think that for Hillary to win, she will need to successfully hide her true colors (and the media will be on board for that), and macro-conditions will have to be bad; i.e. Iraq must be a mess, gas prices must remain very high, the economy must be in trouble, etc, so that enough people will hold their noses and vote for her; and/or conservative dicontent with the GOP would have to be so that not even the horrible specter of President Hillary could spur them on to the voting booth.
So how do we combat this false anti-Hispanic image? Does it necessitate embracing guest worker/amensty plans? Does it require we embrace even higher levels of immigration?
Do you think that acquiescence on these things will matter with the current leadership of the latino community, who are w/o question much more liberal than the average Hispanic American?
If we abandon conservative positions on immigration to better our image with Hispanics, then the principle agent of demagoguery and demonization will just move on to something else. Then, GOP reluctance to spend as much on, say, education will be portrayed as anti-Hispanic.
It seems much more logical that the GOP would have a better chance to reach Hispanics if their numbers weren't increasing so rapidly.
Yes, conservatives favor legal immigration, but there is much debate and disagreement as to how much we should permit. Actually, its probably a safe bet that most conservatives favor lower levels of legal immigration than we now have, and a minority favor current levels or even increases in them.
So, I don't mean to sound like I'm nitpicking, but often in these debates conservatives will try to focus on illegal immigration by pointing out their support for legal immigration, and it comes off to me as a sort of reflexive, or preemptive defense against the inevitable charges of racism/xenophobia. But to do so can sort of cloud the fact that support for mass levels of legal immigration is hardly widespread among conservatives.
"But do you dispute the claim that Hispanics have consistently favored the Democrats by wide margins?"
Blacks as a rule don't either. So. You get votes by pissing people off?
You might try treating them like people.
What?
What does that even mean?
I take it that you feel we as a nation, or at least those of the Buchanan/Tancredo mindset, are guilty of not treating them as people. In what way is this so, and how do we go about rectifying it?
Buchanan was a Nixon bootlicker. He's hoping some of Ronnie's gloss will rub off on his old nondescript boss.
The people in this debate who truly obsess on race/ethnicity are the professional grievance groups; those who see racism behind every door and under every rock, and who reflexively impugn anyone who dares disagree as having xenophobic/bigoted motives, as if they could not possibly have any other motive. Of course, for these leftists groups, it is for some reason okay that they do this.
When examining the political effects of mass immigration, how can one not break it down into groups? For whatever reason, most Hispanics favor the Democrats. I don't think anyone is arguing that there is something inherent in the skin-color of latinos (most of whom would be called 'brown' by their own leaders)that makes them support the leftist party, but you can be sure that the Democrats and the grievance groups will make explicit racial pleas for support to the Hispanic community. They will say that Republicans are hostile to latinos. They will say that Republicans are the party for white people. Howard Dean has done just that!
We, as conservatives and Republicans need to be aware of that. We need to be aware of the difficult challenge in breaking the Democratic hold on immigrant groups, and not fool ourselves into thinking that Me-Tooism on immigration and appeals to their cultural conservatism will do it.
I didn't think he won the Hispanic vote, but if Hispanics had that much power a a single voting group and with all the illegals down here, surely Perry would have lost. Whites are close to a minority majority in Texas.
Amen, brother. "All" is not lost or won, "all" is a constant battle. Politics is, among other things, a war of ideas and wars are lost, first of all, in the minds of the losers. PJB is a loser
There's a big difference between 50% of the Latino vote and 39%.
Naturally, the Hispanic caucus in the Pubbie party wants the number to be 50%.
And, when you come right down to it, either the President will enforce the laws, or he will not. At this point, it's clear that the President is NOT enforcing the law, and is desperately trying to find a way around it instead.
Outside of BlackElk, an honorable and intelligent man, I've found that only the Muffy and Ken Republicans support the President's position. Not a co-incidence--cheap labor, cheap gardeners, cheap maids.
Yah.
PJB licks Nixon's boots and worships Hitler in his basement.
You have a contribution that resembles thought someplace?
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.