Posted on 02/08/2014 10:19:25 AM PST by jimbo123
Promoting Republican outreach to Hispanics, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said this week that the GOP must expand its appeal if it expects to remain politically relevant.
"The party has to be bigger across the country, not only appealing to people of various ethnic background but various economic backgrounds," Paul said Friday during a sweep through Texas, CNN reported.
The remarks came following a meeting with George P. Bush, the 37-year-old son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who's vying to become the next Texas Land Commissioner. Paul, a conservative firebrand who's long-been critical of establishment Republicans like the Bush family, declined to endorse the younger Bush, CNN reported. But he praised Bush's Spanish-language prowess as one key to attracting a broader swath of voters to the GOP's tent.
“The fact that he is a fluent Spanish speaker and spoken to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, it’s good for our party,” Paul said. “I think having people who are trying to make the party bigger is good."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
To do so is to surrender to the leftwing premise that Americans are disparate groups happening to occupy the same geographical region.
Anyone can understand and appreciate being able to keep more of their hard earned income. But it seems like the GOP has totally given up tax cuts as an incentive.
“These kinds of comments betray a total misunderstanding of conservatism. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you look like - there is no need to pander to anyone working to make a better life for themselves and their family with such superficial appeals to race, etc.”
Ding! We have the only correct answer to the question of ‘attracting people to the ‘party’.
“Republicans will lose again in 2016 if they keep excluding every group who does not fit their strict criteria.”
What is your plan to expand the party, embrace a liberal platform?
Conservatism excludes no one, everyone is welcome to join in.
Hanna understood that the cities were the key to electoral dominance because people were leaving the farms. The key to the cities was that whole body of immigrants, who had to be lured into the GOP, else the current wisdom would be correct. But he saw a weak spot for the Democrats.
Traditionally, the Democratic Party had been the party of immigrants. But the Populist Party was nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, agrarian and anti-urban. The marriage with the Democrats might be convenient, but it would create an opening for the Republicans among immigrants whose presence would no longer be welcome in Democratic Party circles.
Hanna sent political organizers, who could speak the languages, into urban immigrant neighborhoods to create German-American, Polish-American, Lithuanian-American and Italian-American Republican clubs. People would be recruited for these clubs even before they became citizens, as the clubs helped indoctrinate immigrants into the American way – and the Republican Party. Once the immigrants were naturalized and could vote, they became part of urban Republican machines, part of the American political process, and they voted Republican. My father’s side of the family was enrolled in an Italian-American Republican Club in Philadelphia when they arrived from Sicily in 1908, and my father’s side is still staunchly Republican.
Hanna’s ploy worked, as the Democratic-Populist alliance failed badly in 1896. Hanna’s new coalition based on immigrants held together until 1932, except for a few dicey spots where there were 3-way races,
What Paul and Bush are trying to do may be the only way to survive the latest wave of immigration. These immigrants come from traditional societies, and the Democrats’ latest enthusiasm for social change may provide an opening.
I actually see what you're saying. But if saving the GOP means jettisoning conservative principle, rather than teaching and preaching conservative principle, then we still lose the republic.
What I fear I see is the GOP embracing the Dem agenda and calling it conservative.
Rand is right, you know.
A bigger CONSERVATIVE party is a better party.
I guess folks here sometimes think (x) cannot possibly be a conservative.
x=blacks, Hispanics, single women, teachers, northeasterners, etc.
Fact is, if we are telling the truth, and doing it in a WINSOME manner, we WILL bring people to our side. Not necessarily in great numbers—but enough to make a difference.
We cannot, must not give up on these populations that aren’t currently “trending” conservative.
Sometimes I think we conservatives forget Churchill’s adage to NEVER GIVE UP. :)
I am sure Ryan thinks it should be much wider in the RINO way, just like him and his compadres.
These guys act as if every conservative votes in every election.
There’s a large pool of non-voters that would respond to a Republican candidate that espouses a conservative philosophy...if they’d try it.
Instead they keep trying to out-pander the liberals.
That is an amazing history....I’ve studied American history, but have never heard that before.
Thank you.
Great idea. Fat chance. The GOP would rather lose than try to attract the votes of Reagan-Democrats. The GOP just waves the bloody shirt of abortion and wants that to be enough the garner votes.
Here comes the Libertarian. That would be a “no”.
Because its Rand, I’m going to reserve judgement.
He is more libertarian than conservative, which can be good or bad. He does have the ability to talk to a younger audience, and he is fearless on his issues.
I assume he is building bridges to the Bush clan as much as anything. Maybe he and Jeb have an understanding. I’m sure the Bushs see increasing the hispanic Repub vote by even a couple of percentage points as possible and necessary. Hence their pandering on immigration. Rand is libertarian and leans toward open borders. So they may be a good fit for one another. I have a feeling a Paul/Bush presidency will favor abortion, homosexual marriage, and amnesty for illegals. Maybe not explicitly, but in effect. In fact I’m sure of it.
So if they win I’m not sure what America wins.
Rand is a good bold communicator so I like having him on our side the 80% of the time that he is. But his principles are a couple of degrees off of mine, he’s not the perfect candidate. And Jeb rubs me the wrong way on several issues. As I say, if they win I’m not sure we win.
I support expanding the GOP’s appeal beyond those people who are either members of or work for the Bush family.
Paul said. “I think having people who are trying to make the party bigger is good.”
***
Isn’t that sweet? You might make your traitorous party bigger, Rand, but you will eventually make Mexico much bigger, too, as your embrace of illegals makes it easier for them to invade and annex large parts of the US. But that’s fine with you, I suppose.
To paraphrase Clinton, it depends on what conservative 'is'. I think conservative is conserving the American middle class and American production. Exporting American jobs and causing a recession is not a conservative idea. I would put it in the Republican class.
The best way to gain votes is for people to be economically secure. Anything less and they vote Democrat.
If you voted for the milque-toast candidates that the GOPe put up for election, you rewarded them for taking advantage of your vote and they will continue that behavior.
If the GOP would stop siding with its corporate paymasters and become the party that protects American workers, it would reverse the current downward spiral. Knock off the specific outreach to minorities and immigrants and concentrate on issues that appeal to all voters.
(((
Shhh! Don’t tell them. Let them continue their march to oblivion, while actual conservatives join the Tea Party.
It’s Ted Cruz as President or we are done as a nation.
Bottom line.
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.