Posted on 03/16/2013 7:25:51 PM PDT by smoothsailing
March 16, 2013
Laine Milam
As she has done many times before, bestselling author Ann Coulter delivered an uncensored critique of the Republican party at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Her criticisms this year were harshest when it came to the party’s current divide on the topic of comprehensive immigration reform.
Following up on her column from last month, Coulter argued that the GOP needs to have a tough but cohesive message on immigration policy, but not the one that many party leaders have touted lately.
“One public policy that will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment permanently, and is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway, is amnesty for illegal aliens,” she said.
She went on to outline the consequences of Republican support for amnesty and how it could lead to the destruction of the conservative movement.
“If amnesty goes through, America becomes California, and no Republican will ever win another national election. The state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican,” said Coulter.
Coulter’s tough stance on immigration reform helped attendees understand why she could not support a popular figure like Chris Christie, who is pro-amnesty, for president in 2016. She instead offered her thoughts on who the GOP should nominate for the top of the ticket in three years.
“You can’t run a congressman. I have learned that,” she said. “You can’t run a governor from a state that is as big as a congressional district. That’s the equivalent of running a congressman. And we can’t run businessmen, pundits, or candidates who have not won elections in at least midsize states.”
So who does that leave for the ultra-conservative pundit? Options that fit Coulter’s bill included Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, Gov. Paul LePage of Maine, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. She was also willing to back the new kid on the block, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
As i think you know very good and well we dont have the power to pull that off and even if we did, it would not change the ultimate fate.
If you think these groups are natural democratic constituency then perhaps that explains the leftist political condition of the country they are fleeing from.
Encouraging them to leave those self-destructive policy preferences behind might yield a change.
You maybe convinced that too is hopeless but we have to try to find a way. Maybe we can try to do both. I know the house republican have already been trying what you suggest with no support from either the democratic senate or Obama for obvious reasons.
Foreign nationals squatting here illegally should also be subjected to asset forfeiture.
The prospect of losing property and money will discourage others from coming, it will encourage those already here to leave, and it can pay for deporting those who won’t return home any other way.
Only deportation has a chance of recovering California.
Deportation and getting rid of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.
“The GOP should be offering it’s own version of comprehensive immigration reform, where illegal aliens are not given a path to citizenship, where chain migration is ended, where the Diversity Visa is abolished, where refugee settlements are much fewer and smaller, and where overall legal immigration is greatly reduced.”
Worth repeating. Except that refugee resettlement should be abolished.
She seemed just a bit nervous in her delivery... I don’t think she’s fooling anyone with her new “I’m a one issue voter” lie. Then she added to her amnesty issue a “height requirement” when the Wisconsin Governor’s name was mentioned.
Marco Rubio is not “on the same side”.
He is a promoter of amnesty-by-another-name.
Paid mouth. Professional entertainer.
Conservatism has leaders who are/will be in the arena, and Coulter isn’t one of them.
I agree that it's very hard to measure Asian voting patterns, especially in one election.
But there is a fairly extensive data set on Asian voting over the last 20 years.
The following numbers come from a Pew Research website analysis I read, in December 2012 as I recall.
I'll search for the link if you need it.
I strongly disagree that “most East Asians vote Republican.”
The most Conservative Asians are Filipino.
They vote in the 45% to 50% range for the GOP.
Vietnamese are second.
They vote in 40% to 45% range for the GOP.
I can't remember how Koreans vote, but it is definitely not a majority for the GOP.
Japanese and Chinese are hopeless.
They consistently deliver less than 30% of their vote to the GOP.
I was including southern and central Asia in my earlier comment.
Muslims vote 80%-90% for Democrats.
Shockingly, Indians are the most anti-GOP Asian group.
They consistently vote in the 90% range for Democrats.
You can thank Tricky Dick and his support of Pakistan for that.
From a “political” perspective, your comment about American sovereignty is correct.
My comment challenges the Hard Left talking point that massive Third World immigration into America and Europe is in some way “historically inevitable” and cannot be stopped or reversed.
We lack only the political will, or, in the case of Conservatives, the political power that is necessary to stop it.
Japan is living proof that economically advanced democracies do not necessarily wish to radically change the ethnic and racial make up of their society.
Two, Indian-Americans mostly live in very blue or Democratic states. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley are very unrepresentative.
Three, Indian Americans tend to support the party in office (though I don't know how they compare to other ethnic groups on that score).
Still, it is a mystery. There are a lot of Indians in Texas. Are they more likely than other Asians there to vote for Obama?
I could bring up the stories about Obama as a devotee of Hanuman, but better we don't get into that.
Virtually all of the material on Asians has been derived from recent exit polls in a few places ~ one of them being San Francisco.
First, the definition is too broad. We know virtually 100% of the folks from the Indian subcontinent are Democrats or worse. All of them from India are from families affiliated with the Congress party anyway. The Chinese are all over the place ~ in Hawaii for many years if it weren't for the Chinese we wouldn't have had a Republican party there. The Japanese there OWN the Democrat party.
The mainland Japanese are well distributed ~ but so many of them life in California they just don't count if they get involved in Republican politics.
Filipinos are whatever the other guys aren't wherever they are. Korean retail services owners vote for Democrats on one issue ~ government paid medical care. Koreans in the professions tend to be Republicans. The problem here is almost all of them in the US are Christians who attend church regularly so you're better off looking at church related materials than ethnocentric materials when it comes to that crowd.
Greater New York has a large East Asian community. First, there are the Chinese whose families have been there for a couple of centuries or more. Then there is the entire criminal class from Shanghai ~ for a variety of reasons as the Chicoms moved in they moved out to New York.
Then there are strays of all kinds who grew up where politics was dangerous so they don't have any!
There is no East Asian racial vote like you find with Jews, blacks and Mexicans. They ALL vote for politicians who promise them some financial benefit in their present condition. That's mostly a function of class and the fact virtually all of them have some recent immigration experience in their families.
I haven't found any common social promise that would entice any of them. Their gay guys are already married to women anyway ~ a function of the East Asian custom of requiring chillun' to marry!
We have a local African immigrant community. They are delirious with joy at being somewhere they don't have to bribe government agents to get a license to open stores. I really have no idea if any of them care about politics, but I do know a number of these guys ~ their kids went to the same high-school as one of my sons.
Hanuman would be tossing little brown balls at Obama.
Ann made such a huge error ~ now she pays and pays and pays. There can be no pardon.
*********************************
Ann is correct. This time, she gets it.
Good for her.
Plus, the Democrats seem to be naive about folks who belong to hereditary entitlement classes ~ and I don't mean the guys on the bottom in India. The top ranking families are a hot bed of professional thieves ~ they'll eventually strip the Democrats of everything they've got ~ and feel self-righteous about it.
I voted for the jerk, but I understand those who didn't, and frankly don't blame them.
The man's a fraud.
The start of the race may have had 16. But it is always the final stretch which determines the winner. If either Newt or Rick dropped out in the final stretch, Romney would be toast.
The large donors are to be excoriated if not flensed! We can't help these guys legislatively if our candidates don't win, and if they, the donors keep sticking their nose into the selection of the candidates, those candidates are going to lose and the donors will be left at the mercy of the Democrats.
Many of the donors have only the vaguest idea of how politics works in this country ~ worse, many of them imagine that money is the only thing that counts ~ but if that money isn't put to work getting our voters to vote they might as well just flush it.,
Still waiting on Mitt to start his campaign ~ you know the one where he tells us GO VOTE FOR ME and and tells them OBAMA IS BAD FOR YOU STAY HOME
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.