Posted on 12/08/2004 7:11:37 AM PST by RepCath
On November 3, the National Election Pool (NEP) reported that George W. Bush received 44 percent of Hispanic votes cast on November 2: a 9-percentage-point gain from his 35-percent performance in 2000. Since then, these figures have been widely challenged, and internally revised.
Ruy Teixeira of the Century Foundation estimates that 39 percent of Hispanics voted Republican. NBC, a part of the NEP pool, now calculates Bush’s Latino vote at 40 percent.
Immigration critic Steve Sailer of VDARE acknowledges a 3-4 percent Bush increase, but doubts its significance. Bush’s Latino gains, he writes, “confirm the general pattern that the Hispanic vote for Republicans rises and falls in the same cycles as the white vote — just consistently more Democratic.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Not all the voters have arrived in CONUS yet...wait a few more years...
I am disgusted at the way GWB panders to Hispanics by trying to force America to do all things in two languages (Quebec, anyone?), and allowing massive illegal immigration.
But I do have to conclude that gaining 5 points among Hispanics is more significant than merely the side effect of gaining 3 points nationwide. Winning over Hispanics demonstrates that there is a conservative voice being established among Hispanics; It's easy for red-state Anglos to learn the truth about Kerry, but it's heartening to find out that the message also penetrated the Hispanic community. And proportionally, the 5 points is very significant.
My interest is: "where are these votes?" Are the Republicans just pulling in a greater share of the generations-old Tex-Mexicans, or is he making inroads in more competitive states, like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Florida.
By the way, I believe (and polls show) that many Hispanics are revoted by Bush's attempted amnesties and destruction of the English language. But I think that fights over homosexuality, abortion, and leaders like Manuel Ortega and Alberto Gonzalez help, as does the effect of our Hispanic fighting boys' reports from the front.
So, 61% of these catholics voted for the abortion party?
Its essential that Republicans win over the Hispanic vote.
Even if all immigration were stopped tomorrow, they are still the fastest growing ethnic group here.
Having said that, time after time, polls of the average American Hispanic citizens indicate that they are NOT concerned about amnesty for illegal invaders or bi-lingual programs. Amnesty for illegals benefits those industries who employ them and Vicente Fox. Bi-Lingual programs benefit a handfull of Hispanics and a large number of non-Hispanic liberals who run these programs.
The average American Hispanic, perhaps even more than the average Anglo-American voter, still lives in a nuclear family, has strong moral values, disapproves of abortion and gay marriage and has a strong work ethic. The Repubs should be targetting these people and they should stop catering to the construction trades, the maga-stores, the catering and landscaping businesses and other businesses which profit from the use of underpaid illegal invaders and who are the real beneficiaries of Bush's open door policies.
I think this says more about Hispanics than it say about GWB.
A friend of mine tells me Hispanics tend to be conservative. He says that once immigrant Hispanics feel comfortable in this country and learn more about politics, they move to the Republican party.
They're just like anyone else: The shallow Democratic "message" (scare tactics) works on them until they learn the truth.
I know someone who moved out of a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood. He said most of the Hispanic people living there said they would vote for Kerry--and if I look at the precinct-level voting data on the Virginia SBE site, those words were backed up with action.
There will be a Hispanic Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson rise up in the political ranks some day. Wonder if the Hispanics will be like the blacks and turn their lives and fortunes over to a racial bigot?
ZULU, you hit the nail right on the head.
Securing our borders will NOT alienate the Hispanic vote but only the leftwing cadre that is lost anyway.
Most Hispanics I have known regard themselves as white, Christian and looking for freedom. That is why they are not being successfully recruited by the left thus far.
Let's see -- most Hispanics are Catholic and retain Catholic notions about the importance of family. They are getting fooled by the Dims but increasingly realise it. Even blacks are realising it
I think it's also important to point out how it's in America's better interest to work with Vincente Fox as opposed to the remerging old Mexican goverment that preceeded him.
Why?
Fox:
Supports invading the United States by paying people to relocate to the US;
Opposed teaching the invaders English, so they do not assimilate;
Opposes the Iraq war, and just about every foreign policy initiative we ever had;
Refuses to assist in any and all American drug or national-security program;
Meanwhile Fox and the PRI:
Both supported NAFTA, GATT, WTO, ICC, and Kyoto;
Both engaged in Anti-American rehtoric (Fox is much worse);
Both alligned themselves with our enemies.
Sorry, but while Fox is less corrupt than the PRI (or at least is far more subtle) and has permitted the Catholic Church greater freedom, as far as American interests are concerned (and I mean the interests of our people, not of the industries which exploit illegal labor), Fox is as bad or worst than the PRI in every example I can conceive of.
Now, its plausible to me that I have missed something, so feel free to propose ways in which Fox is good to us.
Don't excerpt NRO.
The NRO article makes it clear: "when Republicans have aggressively courted Hispanic votes, they have won them. And when we haven’t, GOP Latino vote-share numbers have barely budged."
"Hispanic vote “tracks” what’s happening on the ground in particular places,
Is this any different from "Union Member" voters or other traditionally Democrat voters? When there are people "on the outside looking in" and we reach out and make them feel welcome and comfortable to call themselves conservative then they vote our way and we win. In Blue Illinois in '98 Sen Fitzgerald reached out to Union Members and won because the Riggers and Plumbers and Operating Engineers and Carpenters, etc went his way. It was the same with Bush in battleground states.
I am disgusted by your need to lie.
People who don't know Hispanics think they are all alike, all Catholic, all (landscapers or whatever stereotype). Mexicans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans are all quite different. During my lifetime Puerto Rico has had more Republican than Dem governors ... but they were liberal Republicans ... sort of like Illinois?
Pat Robertson in '88 had the highest rate of support from Hispanics of any GOP presidential candidate. Many Hispanics are evangelical/pentecostal. A higher percentage of Hispanic evangelicals vote than do the Catholics.
In my Schaumburg Catholic church, the Hispanic congregation is much more conservative than the Anglos, especially the Anglo priests, nuns, deacons and leadership. In the pentecostal church near my house in Normal, the 20% who are Hispanic are more conservative than the 40% Blacks or 40% Whites in the church. The Puerto Rican teens in that church have been the leaders of the teen abstinence movement in Bloomington-Normal (their own next Erika Herold)
Read executive order 13166. Then tell me I'm lying. You're just completely ignorant, and yet you go around accusing people who know better, "liars."
The jist of EO13166:
All government-funded organizations (think local school districts), including those which receive even the smallest part of their budget from the government (think most charities) or are renumerated by government programs (think doctors subscribing to medicare program) must make sure than all potential customers have equal access to their services regardless of their language abilities, or else they may be found guilty of discrimination on the basis of national origin and will lose all funding.
Civil Rights Act Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origins. The Clinton administration issued ExecOrder 13166 based on a novel interpretation from a court in Alabama which found that language is a legal proxy for national origins, citing the Lau decision which forced San Francisco to offer special programs for Chinese-speaking students. The lower-court ruling was thrown out by the USSC, which explicitly found that Lau was limited to education, where the government was obligated to provide for students because it had claimed prerogative in education. The Bush administration reaffirmed the executive order, and the only reasons it hasn't shut down tens of thousands of charities and non-profits are these:
1. The government reserves the right to waive the law if THE GOVERNMENT finds the service-provider beneficial (Hence, they told the California Medical Association they wouldn't NECESSARILY sue medicare providers out of existence). According to a "four-fold test," the GOVERNMENT might find that the organization, though failing to provide equal access is doing enough to comply that penalzing the organization would be counter-productive. There are, however, only nominal safe-harbor provisions by which the organization can be secure that it will not prosecuted.
2. The implementing guidelines are still being hammered out.
So far, this definition has only been applied to section VII. Just watch out when a liberal comes to office and it gets applied to Section VI, which regulates discrimination by private businesses.
I frankly am disgusted that someone as ignorant as yourself would call others "liars" just because you are too clueless to educate yourself on the facts.
No shock that you would ignorantly fling around the word "ignorant" at those who don't deserve it.
Your points are very well taken.
For the last few years there has been a great deal of speculation that certain national Republican leaders have wanted to somehow jettison the pesky 'values' voters in favor of somehow garnering minority, and especially the Hispanic, votes.
Whether that is true I won't address. But it is a silly notion in any case, for two reasons: A) Moral conservatives are the core of the Republican party, without which the GOP cannot survive. And B) The very constituencies that are coveted, ie Hispanics, blacks, etc., can only be reached in one way, and one way only: By a strong appeal to the timeless and utterly colorblind moral principles of our nation's founding.
As an aside: Hispanics are a little understood key to Chicago's political future, and a real vulnerability for the Dem/Daley machine.
And we are seeing a growing opportunity now within the black churches, due in part to the great work Dr. Keyes is doing here now that no one is necessarily seeing.
Anyway, thank you for your very important and cogent post.
Show me ONE instance of Bush "trying to force America to do" anything in two languages.
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.