Posted on 06/11/2009 10:38:35 AM PDT by Dayton3
Why does everyone insist on the GOP reaching out to Hispanic and black voters?
Sure, non Hispanic whites will be the minority in the U.S. (though by far the LARGEST minority) in the 2040-2050 time frame.
But there are a lot of presidential elections between now and then.
If the GOP increased its take of white votes from 58% (2004) or 55% (2008) to 70% or better, then it could win virtually any election with little minority support.
And why as so many claim would it be racist?
Is it racist when 94% of black voters vote for the Democratic candidate or 80% of Hispanic voters go Democratic?
Why waste the time and resources on making minor inroads among blacks and Hispanics when the GOP could start a quest to secure more white votes from a position of strength?
Are you saying that race amounts to nothing more than skin color?
And what ideas, exactly, do the rats have that so impress the overwhelming majority of black voters? I'm with the original poster - - do whatever it takes to nail down the white vote and increase that percentage. Pandering to the gimme gimme gimme "victim" crowd is a loser.
There is no overstating the stupidity of the ignorant chattering class, but man, I sure hope you are right.
You just can't resist it can you?
What I said about THIS article is that it is stupid to ignore minority voters when the White vote is declining and Democrats have substantial numbers of hard corp White voters that are not going to change.
Neither are the minority voters that the Dems have locked up. However, this brings up an important point. There are plenty of non-white majority regions in America. Why doesn't some enterprising Republican go into one of those communities and turn it into a GOP stronghold? South Texas, for example. Or Gary. If we're supposed to run a national campaign based on the idea of winning more of the non-white vote, then a test run should be carried out in a non-white region. If someone can come up with a strategy for conservative Republicans to win South Texas, Gary, Newark, or Detroit, then I'li concede that that's the way we should go.
Also, the dominant White voter opinion is to include minority participation and has been so for generations. That is why Thurmond and Wallace failed and that was at times when the vote was much Whiter an no PC to worry about either.
No one said minorities shouldn't participate. Everyone here admires Clarence Thomas and Bobby Jindal and Herman Cain. Again, you're confusing supporting white interests with racism. I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that we need a white party that tells everyone else to go to hell. What was said was that whites have interests and that it isn't racism to defend those interests when they're under racial attack.
We're so browbeaten by the scare word "racism" that we can't even secure the borders. Since most of the people entering illegally are non-white, it's considered "racism" to enforce the law. And it's considered "racism" to raise it as an issue. Meanwhile, groups like La Raza (The Race) openly support criminal invasion of our country, and openly brag about how they're going to eventually outnumber us.
The idea that the GOP adopt an increase the White Vote strategy, "because winning the non-white vote is obviously not possible" would be perceived as racist is true and a far different matter than merely courting White voters as a segment of the general electorate.
So why isn't it racist to adopt an increase the non-white vote strategy? You're correct that it's perceived as racist to court the white vote, but that's because we've allowed that idea to become accepted. It's also perceived as racist to oppose open borders, oppose affirmative action, oppose Barack Obama, oppose La Raza, and so forth.
The GOP should reach out to all voters. It is not just a matter of perception and political angles. If the GOP stops reaching out to any major segment like Blacks or Hispanics you have Jim Crow and Racism right there.
In general, there's nothing wrong with reaching out to all voters, but in reality there's no point spending inordinate amounts of time catering to people who vote against you in every election. In the face of the Democrats practicing overt racial identity politics, you're suggesting the GOP not even practice defense. Instead, they should pretend that racial blocks don't exist, or perhaps even cater to the same racial blocks that vote Democrat (otherwise, how do you suggest that we win that increased share of the non-white vote, because they've been totally non-responsive to our race-blind message)?
As I said earlier, we're in a bad situation. Thanks to the 1965 Immigration Bill, which the GOP supported, and open borders, which Bush & McCain & Company have supported, we're trapped in a suicidal spiral. The electorate is increasingly composed of racially-driven non-white voting blocks who are hostile to conservatism. Meanwhile, the shrinking white electorate is constantly berated for being "racist" if it does anything short of total capitulation.
I've agreed with you that a large segment of the white vote is a lost cause. That was clear when 43% voted for Reverend Wright's parishioner. It may not be possible to increase our share of the white vote because over 40% of whites are pod people, like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, who have been replaced by a multicultural cypher. That's why I'm not optimistic about the future of the country, though I think going for an increased white vote is at least worth a shot.
But you seem to be quite optimistic that we can win more of the non-white vote. Given the fact that McCain was the La Raza Republican, and still got slaughtered in the Latino vote, not to mention that blacks always vote 90% or so (or more) for the Democrats, explain your strategy for winning those votes.
There is no reason not to reach out to voters of all races, ethnicities, and religion. An American political system in which voters were attracted to a party based on their demographic characteristics is an American political system not worth participating in.
In general, true.
An American political system in which voters were attracted to a party based on their demographic characteristics is an American political system not worth participating in.
Well, then you'd better stop participating because not only is our system like that, but it's becoming more like that every day. But only on one side, that being the non-white side.
You've surely heard all the media reports telling us that the GOP is the party of old people and white people and Christians, and that those voters are passe. Political parties of the future need to push the interests of non-whites, homosexuals, feminists, and non-Christians, because that is the face of the future America. If you fail to capitulate and become a pod person then you're a racist, sexist, and homophobe.
Homosexuality is an practice, not a demographic characteristic. And yes, someone who promotes policies to affect Americans because of their race or sex are racists or sexists. These are sins, and I will not commit them.
Again, I said no such thing, but the GOP is dead if they do not find a way to do that.
It would be suicide for the GOP to adopt as a public policy the title of the thread, "Republicans should focus on increasing their share of white votes." and dismiss seeking Black and Hispanic votes because they might, "waste the time and resources on making minor inroads". This would actually be racist.
It's a practice, alright, but if homosexuals weren't a voting demographic the Dems & the media wouldn't pay any attention to them.
And yes, someone who promotes policies to affect Americans because of their race or sex are racists or sexists. These are sins, and I will not commit them.
I'm not so sure about that as it relates to gender. I favor excluding women from combat, does that make me a "sexist"? I think churches that refuse to ordain women should retain their tax exemption. Am I a "sexist"? Just hazarding a guess, but I'll bet you agree with me on those two issues, yet look how easily you've thrown the word "sexist" around, because it's the easiest thing in the world to do it. When all else fails, say your opponent is racist or sexist or homophobic. But you're not a pod person yet. You haven't fallen for the "homophobia" allegation.
As for alleged racism, no one here is suggesting that we go after the white vote by promising them all kinds of advantages and goodies based on their race. All they're saying is that whites are victimized by affirmative action, open borders, wealth redistribution scams, and numerous other policies, including the false allegation that they're a dangerous, violent group which deserves to be repressed. Surely you haven't missed all the hysteria alleging that the recent killings of an abortionist and a security guard are examples of "white violence" that's on the rise because white "power is slipping away".
What's wrong with defending whites from hostile allegations and policies? Is it racist to defend them against racism?
What's wrong with defending whites from hostile allegations and policies? Is it racist to defend them against racism?
It is not racist to defend any innocent person from illegitimate attacks. It is justice.
But eventually we'll run out of places to flee to, and that's when we'll start seeing BNP-type parties arising here. It's unfortunate, but it's the inevitable consequence of a liberal policy that even most conservatives have bought into.
Enoch Powell was punished by the Tories 40 years ago for a speech in which he warned that unchecked immigration from alien societies would change Britain forever. He was called a “racist” and all the “enlightened” people said that changing Britain's demographics would make no difference whatsoever. Britain could be 35% white, 35% Mid-Eastern Muslim, and 30% black, Hindu, and others, and it would still function just as if it had remained 95% white.
Well, Britain is still a long way from having a white minority, but everyone has to walk a minefield of hate speech laws, they have to see hot cross buns removed from schools (they offend Muslims), they have to be careful when putting up Christmas displays, they have to be sure to cast black actors in the latest version of Romeo & Juliet. And even as all this is happening, it's whites that are accused of being “racist”. A new BBC drama show features rampaging Christians beheading Muslims, if you can believe that.
So I'll ask you one more time, what are your recommendations for winning non-white votes? GOP race-blind policies don't work, when the Dems are offering them racial handouts and are pursuing anti-white policies. GOP anti-white policies don't work (McCain supporting amnesty, etc.), because the Dems pledge to be even more anti-white. So how do we win the minority vote in a world where the NAACP and La Raza and Obama’s racist church membership are sacred, while a mild suggestion that the GOP should try to win more white votes (not by racism, but merely by defending whites from racism) unleashes a barrage of allegations of “racism”, even on a conservative site?
OK, that's a good argument.
It is not racist to defend any innocent person from illegitimate attacks. It is justice.
We agree on that. And that's all anyone has suggested that we do when trying to increase the GOP share of the white vote.
The first thing to do is not stupidly crap on their heads. For example when John McCain made an amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy and later said he would not support his own bill he managed to alienate White voters and destroy himself with Hispanics at the same time. He would have been a lot better off not doing anything. Being weak and treacherous is not a way to win friends and influence people.
If the GOP took the starting post of this thread as policy it would be a direct gratuitous insult to minorities. Everybody has to treated as important.
If the policies of Obama are as wrong as I think they are things are going to get a lot worse and minorities will blame him like everybody else. Then some votes will turn and others will stay home. It is not necessary to turn these voters into true believers, but it is necessary to respect them.
With all due respect, if Hispanic voters want and expect amnesty, then by definition it means they are siding with illegal invaders of our nation against their fellow citizens. In other words, it means they are putting their ethnicity ahead of the national interest and the rule of law. Given the choice between siding with fellow citizens who aren't Hispanic, and illegal invaders who are, they side with the invaders.
People who do such a thing are not going to be conservative Republican voters. If they get amnesty, the first thing they'll do is use their added political clout to demand less guarded borders, and then they'll demand another amnesty a few years down the road. Meanwhile, they'll be raiding the social welfare budgets of every state they occupy, while screaming "racism" at everyone who tries to cut them off. They'll do this even as they continue to support La Raza, MECHA, and howl that opponents of the next amnesty are bigots and xenophobes.
If the GOP took the starting post of this thread as policy it would be a direct gratuitous insult to minorities. Everybody has to treated as important.
Interesting double standard you have there. The starting post of this thread stated that we've been unable to get more of the minority vote, so why not try getting more of the white vote. You say that non-whites should be justifiably insulted at this. Yet, your response to that post was to suggest that we can't get any more of the white vote, so we should go after the non-white vote. By your own logic, whites should be insulted and feel disrespected by your position.
In fact, others have gone far beyond your position and suggested that whites should be outright ignored. Ever since Obama won with a huge non-white vote, while losing the white vote, we've been told by the media, the Democrats, and even many Republicans that whites are basically yesterday's news. It's time for whites to accept that they're history and that both parties should instead gear themselves toward the interests of non-whites (plus assorted exotica, such as homosexuals and feminists).
We're even being bombarded with propaganda alleging that whites are turning to violence because their day is over and their power is slipping away, into the hands of minorities.
And this isn't completely new. A few years ago a Latino leader in California boasted when Prop 187 was voided that it was "the last gasp of white California".
It would unimaginable that someone would make such claims and boasts about non-whites. Yet you tell us that to even try to win more white votes, after trying and failing to win more non-white votes for the past 40 years, is a horrendous insult to minorities.
If the policies of Obama are as wrong as I think they are things are going to get a lot worse and minorities will blame him like everybody else. Then some votes will turn and others will stay home. It is not necessary to turn these voters into true believers, but it is necessary to respect them.
How have the Republicans disrespected minorities? They've done nothing but pander to them for over 40 years. In fact, both parties have done nothing but pander to them for the past 40 years. But at least it makes some sense for the Democrats to pander, since they actually win their votes.
It's reached a point where whites are not only ignored, but it's considered "racist" to even recognize them as having any interests. Actually suggesting that they have rights, as a group, not to be victimized by affirmative action or other anti-white policies is considered beyond the pale. Courting them as a group is unthinkable, even though courting non-whites is perfectly accepted, and so are non-white interest groups such as La Raza, CAIR, and the NAACP.
The only politicians I know of who tried to win the white vote in recent decades by defending whites against racial hostility were Jesse Helms, God bless him, and, of all people, Hillary Clinton. Desperate as the Pennsylvania primary approached, she figured she had nothing to lose and pounced on Obama's sneering insult to white, working class folks. And it helped her. Granted, it was cynical in her case because she no doubt is just as hostile to those folks as Obama is. Of course, her comments defending whites were regarded as "racist", which is typical. Whites are just supposed to take the insults, the abuse, the loss of territory. Even on conservative sites there are people who think that way.
Neither side has been doing that for a while.
Sanity post of the day.
That would eliminate all the hand wringing over the “hispanic” vote, the “black” vote and all the rest of it.
I guess it’s just too simple for them to consider.
A simple idea from a simple woman.
: )
with conservative friends like this who needs enemies?
we tried to tell them but they never listen, they are neutered by race pandering and fear
or like some here they themselves are minority and are enjoying their own anti-white bigotry even though they as so called conservatives meanwhile point the “you’re a racist finger” at everyone else
*i do not know this poster’s race but some of the most virulent “””conservative””” race baiters on this forum are indeed a minority of some sort themselves or married to one..etc..i’ve seen that time and agin on this forum on southern threads and the old amnesty wars
If you a referring to me you should ping me.
I did note you as a matter of respect to you if anyone was lurking on this now dead thread that I could not label you since I am not familiar with you even though you have been here a long time and no, I did not know your race or religion etc.
I do know though that many freepers who take the stances you propose are indeed some sort of minority or intertwined as such with thier own identity based agendas using such tolerance banter to their own ends.
I think I have been plenty fair to you Bubba. We are simply on quite opposite sides of the fence on identity politics and how they apply to voting demographics
Have a nice day.
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.