GOP finds party a tough sell to minorities

"Defend it? Why didn't you just say, "OK, I was wrong on that one?"

I said that Bush repealed the OSHA home office ergonomic regulations with an Executive Order. I was wrong. He repealed those regulations by signing a Republican bill into law that overrode Clinton's Executive Order.

But my error was not fundamental. The onerous regulations were repealed by GWB, and that repeal was a victory for Conservatives.

My error did not aid your bizarre claim that GWB is a liberal. In fact, the error was insignificant. You simply have very little with which to attack my points.

You belittled GWB's national missile defense, even though he got it funded when most of the media was saying that it wouldn't and couldn't and shouldn't be funded. The missile tests are progressing very well, and we are on schedule to DEPLOY our first ABM interceptors in 2004. This is also a very Conservative move.

Then you go on to criticize both GWB's excessive spending as well as the national missile defense program for not having MORE money, time, and effort spent on it - which runs contrary to spending less money.

Perhaps you are confused, but whatever it is, you don't appear to be stable enough to be anywhere near the President's jet again.

Killing the Kyoto Treaty is Conservative, not liberal. Killing the ICC is Conservative, not liberal. Stopping the ABA from vetting federal judicial nominees for Congress is Conservative, not liberal. Pulling the U.S. out of the CCCP-U.S. ABM Treaty is Conservative, not liberal.Getting two tax cuts passed, one for individuals and the other for businesses is Conservative, not liberal. Likewise with enforcing the Beck decision and killing Clinton's CO2 regulations.

Furthermore, you can't NAME a current politician who is both more Conservative than GWB and stands even a REMOTE chance of being elected President.

So not only is your criticism of GWB wrong, but it is also unrealistic.

In fact, your criticism closely parallels the standard criticism of GWB that we get on FR from numerous DU shills who come onto this board and pretend to be more Conservative than Reagan in an effort to sow dissent in our ranks and convince us that our President isn't "conservative enough" for "real" Conservatives.

For what it's worth, Republicans are currently banking on 8 years of GWB, combined with GWB's close personal friendship with President Fox of Mexico and President Bush's keen grasp of Hispanic issues and language to gradually bring Hispanics over to our side.

If that's the case, we're losing our country. It's appalling that someone would only consider voting for Bush if he poses with Vicente Fox and speaks Spanish. Such people have no allegiance to our country whatsoever. Patriots are outraged that our nation's policies are increasingly being dictated by ethnic groups in the interest of other nations.

8 years of Condi Rice, Page, and Powell, with Rice moving up the ranks into a high-visibility VP role, is probably the best that the Republicans can do for changing the current Black bloc vote, plus the fact that Blacks will favor school vouchers whenever they are available locally, a key platform difference between Dems and Reps.

Ninety-two percent of blacks voted for Al Gore because George W. Bush opposed racial quotas. Not in a million years will these people relinquish their special rights. Leveling the playing field by emphasizing early chidlhood development just isn't sexy enough for these losers. These people want to be put on the fast track to success.

McCaullife and Carville aren't exactly high-profile minorities, either, so the idea that the people "running" the two Parties are Black and White is a bit deceptive.

McAullife and Carville aren't black, but they play the race card with merry abandon; and every election, blacks fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

So I don't see a bleak picture. Republicans ARE making an effort to reach out to minority voters, and over time this effort will pay off.

For years, Republicans let immigrants pour into this country so that they'd drive down wages and increase profits for the fat cats who fill the GOP collection baskets. Now, Republicans are about to get hoisted on their own petard by angry immigrants reaching into the Democrats' grab bag of treats. Frankly, I don't give a damn. With Republicans like Bush, who needs Democrats?

For years, Republicans let immigrants pour into this country so that they'd drive down wages and increase profits for the fat cats who fill the GOP

Nothing like a healthy dose of Class Envy to get the juices flowing huh. You afraid that your lawn care business is threatened? Or maybe you are a former "bus boy" replaced by a gasp furriner? I don't see patriotism in this garbage I see a bunch of people that are just plain scared of competition. That is the why every major industry has, for the most part, fled the union strongholds for "right to work" states.

Methinketh thou protesteth too much. you've been outed. You don't like Jeb either do you? You're going to vote for Janet Reno.

Killing the Kyoto Treaty is Conservative, not liberal. Killing the ICC is Conservative, not liberal. Stopping the ABA from vetting federal judicial nominees for Congress is Conservative, not liberal. Pulling the U.S. out of the CCCP-U.S. ABM Treaty is Conservative, not liberal.Getting two tax cuts passed, one for individuals and the other for businesses is Conservative, not liberal. Likewise with enforcing the Beck decision and killing Clinton's CO2 regulations.

Don't forget changing a decades-long policy against 2A rights.

Be nice to Sentry. I think he's a high school kid and we certainly shouldn't try to discourage him from conservatism.

"We have a Republican now in the White House but he happens to be a liberal--an extreme liberal on social and fiscal issues."

That's incorrect. An extreme liberal on social issues would have never killed foreign "family planning" funds, but GWB did.

An extreme liberal might have killed the Crusader artillery system, but not to save money, just to hurt our defense. Bush killed the Crusader because it was wasteful spending. He knows that the money can be better spent on other areas of our national defense.

An extreme liberal would not be funding our National Missile Defense, much less pulling the U.S. out of the Soviet-era ABM treaty in order to step up our ABM testing as Bush is doing.

An extreme Leftist on social issues would not have withdrawn the U.S. from the International Criminal Court, but President Bush has not only withdrawn the U.S. from that court, but he has also announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the 1969 Treaty on International Law in order to actively act AGAINST those who try to prop that court up.

An extreme liberal on social issues wouldn't have killed Clinton's CO2 regulations or repealed OSHA's ergonomic rules for home businesses, but Bush did.

An extreme liberal on social issues would NOT have permitted the SCOTUS Beck decision to be enforced, but Bush did.

An extreme liberal on social issues would NOT have killed the American Bar Association's (an ultra liberal group) role in vetting federal judges for Congress, but Bush did.

I don't see any liberals campaigning to cut taxes, either, but Bush did.

So you don't like government spending on social programs. Fine, but at least be honest about it. Spinning great tales of White House liberal wrongdoing in order to give your criticism of federal spending more attention robs you of any legitimate credibility.

President Bush is enormously Conservative on social, military, and financial issues. Conservatives value faith-based service, a Bush initiative, for instance.

Yes, Bush has had to compromise with a Democratic-controlled Senate on federal budgets, but he has done this in a way to benefit Conservatives in numerous areas. We have the right to close down failing schools now. We have our National Missile Defense system funded. Our military has recieved a pay raise and Bush has asked for another.

I noticed that you wouldn't name a MORE Conservative politician than Bush, either.

Telling...

"Bush/Republican apologists, like Southack, are far more interested in a party label than rejecting this turn to the left by Bush. The apologists make lame excuses for this wild liberal spending instead of defending freedom and fighting for an end to tax slavery."

Let me demonstrate why and how that's not true. If "party label" was of paramount importance, then I'd be backing Republican John McCain's Campaign Finance Reform. I'm not. McCain, part of the Keating Five group of corrupt S&L Senators, needs to go even though that might mean losing a Republican in the Senate. I didn't much care for Senator Jeffords when he was claiming to be a Republican either. I'd back Democratic Party Senator Zell Miller or Democratic Party Senator John Breaux over either McCain or Jeffords in a head to head race.

Furthermore, I was at one time an ENORMOUS donor to Democratic Congressman Charles Stenholm over his Republican opposition (although it no longer makes sense to give any serious money or support to him).

So claiming that I care more about "party label" than Conservative values is EASILY debunked, just as I've done above.

Next, Bush hasn't "turned to the Left." Killing the Kyoto Treaty on Global warming, as President Bush did, was Conservative, not liberal, and certainly NOT a turn to the Left. Likewise, Killing the International Criminal Court this week was Conservative, not liberal and certainly NOT a turn to the Left.

Pulling the U.S. out of the CCCP-U.S. ABM Treaty was NOT liberal or Leftist, either. Nor was getting additional funding and ordering additional ABM tests for our national missile defense system.

You do your one credible argument about increased social spending no service by claiming the above nonsense. Yes, GWB has signed two bloated Congressional-approved budgets. Is that ideal? No. Did Bush at least get the right to close failing schools and fund additional military improvements? Yes.

Defending freedom? President Bush is doing a great job smashing terrorists physically and financially.

Tax slavery? Oh please. The Supreme Court has already ruled that income upstreaming is legal. This means that if your company in a high tax state pays your other company in a low or no tax state all of your would-be profits in "consulting fees," that you dodge all state taxes. Some corporations take that principle to the extreme and pay those consulting fees to no-tax foreign tax-haven-nation companies to dodge all federal taxes, as well.

Want tax credits for your dividend income? Form a C corporation for $700 online (the company corporation does a fine job). C corporations are tax exempt from 80% of dividend income and only pay 15% tax on the first $50,000 of the remaining 20% of said income (i.e. a 3% income tax). No one says that you have to have all of your stocks in a PERSONAL stock account. Go to Datek and get a corporate trading account and poof, you lower your dividend tax rate to 3% while the rest of the world is paying closer to 50%. Oh, and margin interest is tax deductable on top of that, too.

Want to lower your taxes even further? Set up an office in a Disadvantaged Economic Zone or an Economic Empowerment Zone and get up to 33% or so off your taxes on wages.

Pull oil, natural gas, rock, or minerals out of your land and get a Depletion Tax credit that further reduces your income taxes. Heck, just purchase Dominion Warrior River stock (symbol: DOM) and that REIT passes its Depletion Credit on to you even though you don't own any land (hypothetically).

Don't want to pay property taxes? Then lease your land from a city, county, or state agency. Long term leases can be obtained (i.e. 99 years), and no property taxes are imposed on those agencies (and they're the owners). Add a chapel to your existing home and have your property and parking areas exempted from property taxes (get your preacher's license online for all that I care).

Don't want to pay gasoline taxes? Neither farmers nor aviators pay such taxes, and their fuel will burn just fine in your car.

Don't want to pay Social Security taxes? Incorporate and pay yourself in dividends rather than in salary. It's the same money, but dividends aren't hit with payroll taxes (i.e. Social Security and Medicare).

Tax slavery? The real slavery is mental. Far too many people are simply too lazy to research or buy the knowledge to lower your effective tax rate to under 15%.

You would have come across as much more believable had you made that last post instead of all your others where you claimed that Bush's actions (of which, include the very Conservative killing of the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, murder of the flawed CCCP-U.S. ABM Treaty, and body blow to the liberal International Criminal Court, among others) were somehow "liberal" and a turn to the Left.

Yes, social spending has increased. Go forth and make that point all day long.

Just don't expect to get away with claiming that President Bush is an "extreme liberal" as you've tried to maintain above in this thread. That sort of hogwash just won't fly.

Thanks for the ping.

A conservative Republican was elected county executive in my county recently and got 25% of the Black vote, despite being demonized. Some well-known Blacks publicly supported him, despite the flak they caught from lefties and other Blacks. The circumstances that resulted in his election were unique, but that mattered little where the Black vote was concerned.

How did this person get elected? He did a few things that the GOP would be wise to pay attention to:

- He went to every campaign event in the Black community and some were held in areas many are afraid to be in. He even brought his wife and young sons to a Black church service in the heart of the ghetto.

- He was an unabashed supporter of school choice (vouchers) and that issue is popular with Blacks.

- He paid Black political operatives and advertised in Black media.

- He faced tough issues head-on and appeared on Black talk shows.

"However, with Bush's wild extreme liberal spending spree adding to the already 6 trillion dollar debt, should we get hit with a nuclear attack now, we do not have the elasticity in the debt to recover. We will collapse."

Nonsense.

The natural resources, manufacturing, services, talents, research, and skilled people in America will NOT collapse, whether there is a nuclear attack on America, a stock market collapse, or any other major calamity.

Kill ten major U.S. cities and the U.S. will still have the largest economy on this planet. Next, kill our stock market and the U.S. still has the most powerful military on this planet.

The plain truth is that only a full-scale nuclear attack by the entire Russian arsenal could endanger our nation or economy on any fundamental level, and the Russians see Islamic rebels in Chechnya as well as Communist Chinese as FAR bigger threats for their nuclear arsenal than the U.S., the largest market for their biggest export market: oil.

So I strongly disagree with you that we are one major attack away from collapsing. We can enforce the value of the Dollar at gunpoint if necessary. We have the guns and we have the Dollars. Simply put, the U.S. is not going to collapse.

Ping to that analysis.

His political skills are right up there with Uncle Ronnie, a quality that his father didn't have.

You think so? I disagree. I don't believe we'll see anyone as great as Reagan for a long, long time (unfortunately).

The problem with this attempt at "outreach" is one of substance, not style. The lefties know that nonwhite immigrants are easy political pickings for them. The immigrants can be recruited by white-hating, racist political movements (ie: La Raza) and enticed by various handout programs supported by the Democrats.

The GOP has, over the past 20 years, planted the seeds of its own destruction by failing to control third world immigration. In another 5 or 10 years, it will become statistically impossible for a republican to be elected to the presidency.

This has, incidentally, happened once before. The vast wave of Ellis Island era immigration set the stage for FDR and 30 years of White House dominance by the Left. It took half a century for the Ellis Island immigrants to move into the mainstream and become republicans (and they didn't have the racial barriers of most of the current immigrants...which means the assimilation of the new immigrants may take much longer, if ever, to accomplish).