The only "praying" inspired by McShame.
Posted on 03/03/2008 1:21:43 PM PST by Milltownmalbay
For the most part, the Republican presidential candidates tried to play the "immigration" card — one that may backfire come November.
Only John McCain was willing to take a gentler approach to immigration and thank God he’s the last man standing. CNN and the liberal media were all too willing to let the Republicans continue their suicidal plunge on immigration.
Meanwhile, the New York Post recently featured a column by Geraldo Rivera decrying the impact of the immigration debate on the Republican Party: freefall in the polls among Latino voters. President Bush carried 45 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.
The number plunged during the 2006 midterm elections and prominent opponents to immigration suffered devastating defeats, including Rep. J. D. Hayworth from Arizona. Meanwhile, support for the Republican Party has plunged to about 21 percent among Latinos.
The problem is even worse when we consider that the Latinos are the fastest growing demographic in the country and will grow in electoral influence throughout this century. Concurrently, continuing anti-immigrant rhetoric will continue to cost Republicans among this important group of voters.
Does this mean that the Republican Party should allow open borders and turn a blind eye to illegal immigration? Obviously not, but that does not mean that immigration should figure so prominently in the Republican platform.
Perhaps President Bush’s approach to the abortion issue could serve as a blueprint. President Bush does not speak about abortion. When asked about the issue, he is less than articulate. Yet he has done more to advance the pro-life cause than any other president, including the most eloquent defender of human life Ronald Reagan.
Pro-life voters can thank President Bush for the partial-birth abortion ban, the Unborn Victims Protection Act, as well as judges Roberts and Alito. In 2004, they did: 23 percent of the people who voted for Bush were single-issue pro-life voters. Meanwhile, there was little or no rhetoric to energize pro-abortion voters.
The same approach should be used for immigration.
A Republican presidential campaign should say very little about immigration. A Republican president could order the Justice Department to enforce the law while publicly advocating more legal immigration. Republicans should quietly enforce the law and loudly argue for greater quotas and a streamlined, less bureaucratic system to enable legal immigration. Likewise, Republicans could put in place a more aggressive program to help Americanize and mainstream immigrants.
Republicans will never have an opportunity to lead on this issue or any other if they do not tone down the rhetoric, however. Eroding Republican support among Latino voters threatens to freeze Republicans into minority status for another 50 years. Perhaps nothing underscores this point more than CNN’s eagerness to ask Republican candidates about immigration during the debates.
Rev. Michael P. Reilly is assistant principal at St. Joseph by the Sea High School in Staten Island, New York.
there are so many McCainiacs in this forum and all they do is beat you the hell up for what? Wanting a candidate from your party to actually represent YOU?
Hey, let McCain, who IS still a senator, rescind that campaign finance incumbent protection act, take that bit out about the thirty days silence on free speech so blatently against the constituion. THEN maybe I’ll think about voting for him. Why shouldn’t HE have to take an action to enlist our good faith? Why do WE have to get beat on for refusing to support this traitor?
I’m with Bill Cunningham ....four years of pain for a long term gain. Remember after the disaster named Carter we had Reagan swept in a landslide and conservative idealology was a force for many years.
Elect McCain and you’ll effectively turn the country over to the liberals.
Unless, of course, MCCAIN actually does something. I mean, why is this such a difficult task?
“support for the Republican Party has plunged to about 21 percent among Latinos.”
It’s probably dropped to about 5% among conservatives.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Especially among the illegal voters.
“He can win the nomination without conservatives...”
Maybe you should think about enlarging your voter base.
My first thought was “ OH YEAH !, rub some more lipstick on THAT PIG....
Open borders will replace them altogether. It will be PRI vs. the Democrats. The Republicans might be able to survive only in parts of Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas and there only because it is too cold for the PRI to want.
.
NEVER FORGET
.
CLARITY =
Why did North Vietnam win the war?
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60737
.
The Lies of TET
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60610
.
NEVER FORGET
.
People should read the whole article. He doesnt advocate open borders. What he is arguing is that you can be for enforcement in ways that dont drive immigrant groups to the Democrats:
“A Republican president could order the Justice Department to enforce the law while publicly advocating more legal immigration. Republicans should quietly enforce the law and loudly argue for greater quotas and a streamlined, less bureaucratic system to enable legal immigration. Likewise, Republicans could put in place a more aggressive program to help Americanize and mainstream immigrants.”
In other words, instead of noisy anti-immigration rhetoric and little action, have a lot more anti-immigration action and a lot less rhetoric.
Frankly, that’s a change that would work for the better.
His point is:
“Republicans will never have an opportunity to lead on this issue or any other if they do not tone down the rhetoric, however. Eroding Republican support among Latino voters threatens to freeze Republicans into minority status for another 50 years.”
We should consider how to stand on law-and-order ground and hold to anti-illegal immigration positions in ways that do not lead to that situation.
"Suicidal plunge" my ass.
>>Meanwhile, the New York Post recently featured a column by Geraldo Rivera decrying the impact of the immigration debate on the Republican Party: freefall in the polls among Latino voters. President Bush carried 45 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.<<
Yep, the Geraldo wing of the Republican Party loves McCain.
>>The number plunged during the 2006 midterm elections and prominent opponents to immigration suffered devastating defeats, including Rep. J. D. Hayworth from Arizona.<<
BS. Hayworth lost because of corruption scandals.
>>Does this mean that the Republican Party should allow open borders and turn a blind eye to illegal immigration? Obviously not, but that does not mean that immigration should figure so prominently in the Republican platform.<<
In other words, shut up and do nothing until it’s too late. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what the party does. I am going to the precinct caucus tomorrow to fight against letting McCain have his way.
>>Perhaps President Bush’s approach to the abortion issue could serve as a blueprint. President Bush does not speak about abortion. When asked about the issue, he is less than articulate. Yet he has done more to advance the pro-life cause than any other president, including the most eloquent defender of human life Ronald Reagan.<<
Bush is pro-life. If you want to use such a “blueprint” we need a candidate who does not favor an immigration policy that favors Mexico over US citizens and legal immigrants who have earned the right to come here.
>>“A Republican president could order the Justice Department to enforce the law while publicly advocating more legal immigration.<<
Yes, a president could, but are you talking about McCain?
In other words, instead of noisy anti-immigration rhetoric and little action, have a lot more anti-immigration action and a lot less rhetoric.<<
Again, do you really believe that McCain is for “anti-immigration action?”
People don’t need your advice. Sheeple maybe but not people. Thanks!
thanks for what?
For your high mindedness. For nothing.
you are unnecessarily very rude. Are you drunk?
Now that's rude as well as arrogant.
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.