HISPANICS: KEY TO GOP'S FUTURE

New York Post ^ | January 15, 2004 | Dick Morris

[Paul C. Jesup]

I am afraid that the negativity started way before the Clintons. It is the negativity of the far right that allows them to be such easy targets for the extreme left.

No, that is where you are wrong, it is spinelessness on the right that is the problem.

But if we show strenght by shuting down the (pro-socialist) press in this country, we can start fixing it.

But the problem is that it would take a armed revolution or a military couq to do that.

[Owen]

Folks,

It is always hard for extremism in politics to face mathematics. Always. This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR. It was true for the left in 2000. They voted Nader. They could not tolerate the centrism attempts of Gore. They cost Gore the election and now, this week, what reward do they have? Dean claims to be a fiscal conservative. Is that what the leftist extremists wanted when defeated Gore? A candidate who postures as a fiscal conservative?

No. Their vote on Nader was useless. Their vote to hurt Gore did not help them. It did not move the party's front runner. Indeed, as I type this it is possible Edwards or Kerry or Gephardt will win Iowa. They are all perceived as to the right of Dean. So again, did the extremists get a reward for backstabbing Gore?

Now we see in this article the unrelenting, unstoppable reality of the mathematics of Hispanics. Illegals don't vote. Repeat. Illegals don't vote. They would be crazy to try. Tossing out illegals has no impact on these numbers. Tossing out illegals won't change this trend. Bush has been dealt this hand. He has to play it. Let's have another look at those inexorable numbers of blacks, single women and hispanics:

"Together, this group cast 25 percent of votes in 1990, 32 percent in 2000 and will account for 40 percent in 2008. "

The GOP has been losing this group by 2:1 margins. That's about 65/35. And they are becoming a larger and larger total of the voting population and we will lose every single election in the US if nothing is done to address that ratio.

You "Enforce the Laws" types with no plan to do so . . . what do you accomplish to address that ratio? What keeps the USSC from getting stacked with pro Choice? Divided government? Aren't you the same ones that say the GOP Senate is spineless? If they are spineless now, why would they suddenly grow a spine next year and obstruct pro choice nominees? Your positions are not consistent.

Bush is the best option there is. There is no choice.

[Paul C. Jesup]

It is always hard for extremism in politics to face mathematics. Always. This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR.

You want mathematics, most middle class families are living hand-to-mouth cereal dinners because they are paying high taxs that are given to the poor so that they can eat t-bone steaks and potatos for dinner.

We literally can NOT afford to add 8 to 12 million more people officially onto welfare because the hike in taxes would be the final push to send most of middle americans into bankrupcy.

Now we see in this article the unrelenting, unstoppable reality of the mathematics of Hispanics. Illegals don't vote. Repeat. Illegals don't vote.

You obviously don't know a danm thing about motor-voter laws. In some states, a licence to drive is a licence to vote.

P.S. The only reason I can think of for a conservative to vote for Howard Dean is in pure spite to screw-up Hillery Clinton's plan for the White House.

[Eva]

I agree with the no second chance on any conviction of a crime. I also know that change and conservativism is an oxymoron, but at least can we expect a more reasoned, less emotional response? It seems as though we are always accusing the liberals of feeling instead of thinking, but I think that this time it is reversed. The left is totally unfeeling and the far right is unthinking.

[KC_Conspirator]

...Bush has taken a bold and dramatic step to avert the extinction of his own party.

Extinction? Would someone please point out exactly where the GOP is losing overwhelmingly? Have'nt they done well for over 20 years and been the majority party in congress for a decade? Morris is exaggerating again.

[cricket]

"It seems as though we are always accusing the liberals of feeling instead of thinking, but I think that this time it is reversed. The left is totally unfeeling and the far right is unthinking."

Agree. . .have viewed the outcry of many of the Repubs as no more than a 'knee-jerk' response; think your hammer landed right-on !

[cricket]

"This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR. It was true for the left in 2000. They voted Nader. They could not tolerate the centrism attempts of Gore. They cost Gore the election and now, this week, what reward do they have? Dean claims to be a fiscal conservative. Is that what the leftist extremists wanted when defeated Gore? A candidate who postures as a fiscal conservative? "

Hello?

[cricket]

"This is not new for our right wing extremists here on FR. It was true for the left in 2000. They voted Nader. They could not tolerate the centrism attempts of Gore. They cost Gore the election and now, this week, what reward do they have? Dean claims to be a fiscal conservative. Is that what the leftist extremists wanted when defeated Gore? A candidate who postures as a fiscal conservative? "

Okay, I missed your first point here. . .thought you were saying that the 'right-wing' was responsible for voting for Nader. . .so . . .'hello' back at myself!

[DustyMoment]

BTW, if you consider my over 40 years of living and traveling in the southwest to be hyperbole, that's your choice. I've lived in and/or traveled extensively throughout Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Colorado and even Mexico.

I talk to people, I read and I do my own investigations whem people tell me things I'm not sure I believe.

If you still need a break, you are welcome to it.

[exmarine]

You admit that Bush didn't invite Ozzie but it doesn't matter that you and the website you cited said he did?

I don't know if he did or not, but since everything else the website cites is true, I'll take their word for it, unless you or another person can prove he or his rep didn't invite Ozzie.

[Columbine]

Here you are.

Ozzy Osbourne is set to meet with President George W. Bush informally at the Washington Correspondents Dinner on May 4. The dinner is traditionally attended by the president, members of his cabinet, members of Congress, and members of the Washington D.C. press corps.

A spokesperson for Ozzy told LAUNCH that the rocker hasn't been officially invited to the White House by the president, although he will most likely meet Bush and visit the White House while he's in Washington D.C. for the dinner. He was invited to the event by a member of the press.

Ozzy Osbourne To Visit White House? (LAUNCH, 04/05/2002

[exmarine]

Okay, but even if you are right, it is a minor point since Bush made a point to recognize him in the audience, didn't he? So, your point is what in logic is called a red herring (i.e. focusing on one minor point to divert attention from the major issue).

The issue is: Does Bush act in a way that is consistent with Christian moral values? I believe that based on the facts of his own words and actions, that the answer is clearly NO. Can you defend his spending, his open borders, his praising a gay church, his appointment of an open homosexual, his abandonment of Taiwan, his refusal to openly support a constitutional amendment for marriage (instead he wants to waste $1.5 billion on a silly pro-marriage campaign)? Can you make a case that Bush is a social conservative?

[exmarine]

I might add that you have not proven that the website LIED. Lying requires intent. If they reported it believing it was true, then it is merely a mistake, not a lie.

Enough red herrings. Make a case from a conservative standpont for his open borders and social policies...if you can!

[Columbine]

You're too funny for words.

You said the president invited him. You challenged me to prove that a newsperson invited him and I gave you the proof.

Now you want something else? Look it up yourself! And try a reputable source next time!

I've never made a case for open borders or illegal immigration and I don't spread false information around the Internet to try to bolster my arguments either.

[exmarine]

You said the president invited him. You challenged me to prove that a newsperson invited him and I gave you the proof.

The website says the President invited him- you called them liars - but you don't have enough info to call them liars. Lying requires intent. Please stop the RED HERRINGS. IS BUSH A TRUE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE OR NOT? yes or no? Address the issue or get lost.

Now you want something else? Look it up yourself! And try a reputable source next time!

If you bothered to read the website (which you obviously didn't! - so much for objectivity!), you would see that the sources are linked! Washington Times, Reuters, etc. ARe they lying?

Address the real issue or get lost.

[Columbine]

You sound a lot like Howard Dean!

Better chill before you stroke out! I'm not going anywhere.

See you next time you get it wrong.