Read the comments on this very thread by Reaganaut, and tell me if you would want to be part of the Republican party if you were Hispanic? Sure, he will say his comments are 'correct'(they are generalizations that lump the Hispanic-American Business Owners that you mention with just-fresh-from-the-border economic migrants who are not well educated, and presents them all as this 'brown skin'amalgamation that is pulling the country to 3rd world status), but my question still remains ...if you read those comments, and you are Hispanic, would you believe that the GOP welcomes people like you?
I've argued this many a time, that some of the core Liberal groups are only Liberal due to reasons that don't have a strong foundation. For instance, the average Hispanic and average African-American are both very socially conservative. For instance, one of the critical factors in the failure of gay marriage just last week was due to African-Americans voting enmasse against it. Hispanics are generally strong Catholics (or at least identify with the faith far more than the average White Catholic) and are strong proponents of family. I've mentioned in the past that we should reach out to these groups, but I've almost always been met with derision. I am told that there is no way African-Americans can change parties (even though they CHANGED parties enmasse just around 3-4 decades ago ....goodness, MLK was a Republican, and being a Democrat was considered absolutely insane back then). Hispanics and African Americans have been shown, in one case through a very hilarious (in a sad way) manner before these elections, that if you show them point-by-point (and take out the D and R) the positions of Dems and Republicans, that they support Republican positions. It is only when you stick mcCain's face or Obama's mug in it that it shifts.
However, people here say it is impossible to change, when all it is is simply very difficult. In my book, very difficult is simply a challenge. It can be done. Furthermore, not doing anything guarantees failure. Third of all, even if we managed to get 25% of African-Americans, and 40% of Hispanics, the Democrat party would be dead FOREVER!
But hey ...it's ímpossible,'so instead of trying to do something let us call them names and malign them even more. That should work.
The GOP is facing a major challenge. We need to get back to Conservative principles (which, on top of social conservatism, ALSO INCLUDES fiscal conservatism, better borders, property rights etc etc etc). However, this doesn't mean that the party has to be lilly-white. There are many potential conservative pools that have not been tapped by the GOP, and insulting them will get no one anywhere.
Just a couple of days ago I responded to a thread (that was later deleted) where a FReeper (yep, a FReeper) was saying how repulsive it is that a descendant of Ham (according to his interpretation of the Bible, all blacks are descended from Ham) is ruling over the descendents of Jeph (white people). His problem with Obama wasn't because he is a closet marxist, or that his amorphous positions have been at best vapid and at worst insane, or that a virtual unknown just got elected to the most powerful position in the land. No ...his problem was that Obama was black. Now, how do you think someone like Michael Steele (one of the rising African American Conservatives) would interpret that statement? Obviously, Steele wouldn't care ...he is too strong for such nonsense. However, what would Steele's cousin think? Or the African-American sitting a pew away from him at his church? Or the general voting population that, were it not for Obama running, had already started feeling jaded that the Dems only use them every four years?
We need to be far more conservative ...kick out all the Rinos. At the same time, we need to understand that whether people like it or not the demographics are changing. America is becoming, to quote Reaganaut, 'browner'with the passing years. The only reason why America's birth rate has not dipped in the same way that it has in Europe and Japan is due to immigration to the US (and not just illegal ...mostly due to legal migration). Love it or hate it, you shall see more ...ahem ....'brown' people in the future.
Now, you can either try and see whether some of them can join the party, or you can call them the great unwashed and let the other side pick them up.
Case in point: In this thread too someone mentioned a 'pathway'from África through Venezuela'into the US. If that is about Africans coming into the US, then one thing they should note is that an African cannot just sneak across the border. The vast majority of Africans either come as students or as professionals, and that demographic (African immigrants) does very well in the US. They either take my route (working hard, white collar, professional job), or take the óld-school Asian route'(working hard, sharing quarters, saving money, buying out a nursing home from savings). Same thing with Hispanics ...there are many that cross over, but there are many who are totally legal and tacit conservatives.
Generalizing entire groups and insulting them only builds up resentment, and is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Calling people scum, and then ranting how that 'scum' is voting enmasse for the other side, should have a pretty crystal clear conclusion to anyone with half a brain.
Actually I see a time where the electorate may be voting for Democrat presidents, but when it comes to issues up for a vote (e.g. like proposition 8) they vote as if they were Republicans (by then an extinct party like the Whigs).
I agree that insulting racial groups is wrong and loses votes. My neighbor is Hispanic and voted for McCain. He would not have voted for Hillary either.
However, not enforcing immigration laws and giving amnesty to those who violated those laws are unfair to those people in the world who apply to enter legally. Amnesty also encourages further illegal immigration, and eventually increases the number of voters who can be pandered to by Democrats or worse.
Let’s say that Obama pushes amnesty through congress, in spite of the fact that most voters oppose it. I would say that in 2012, with a good candidate Republicans could win, or even take back congress in 2010. Fair minded US citizens, especially those in families of legal immigrants around the world should view amnesty as outrageously wrong, and voters would likely be pretty impatient with the Dems unless the economy makes a huge recovery.
But in the long run, with at least 20 million new voters plus chain immigration, the future would look bleak.