Skip to comments.Interview with John McCain and Meg Whitman [says GOP needs more Latinos, talks about gay marriage]
Posted on 05/30/2009 7:26:13 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
WHITMAN: I think there is, you know, plenty of places that the state has gone wrong. I have a lot of respect for Governor Schwarzenegger. He's done a number of good things -- workman's compensation help, the redirecting initiative that was passed in November.
But the fiscal crisis has occurred on his watch and I think, you know, political leaders have to be accountable. So I think he will share some responsibility for this, along with the legislature.
. . . . .
MCCAIN: You're right, the Hispanic -- Latino vote is very important. We've been losing it. We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to public office. We have to make it clear that in our desire to secure the border, it is not an anti-Latino attitude that we have. And we have to welcome them into our party. And there is a recognition now -- a growing recognition, particularly in my part of the country, that without that vote, we will not regain majority status.
. . . . .
WHITMAN: So you're right, I did vote yes on Proposition 8. I am pro-civil union, but against gay marriage. And so I supported Proposition 8...
. . . . .
KING: Senator McCain, do you think this should be dealt with on a state by state basis like this, or do you think, ultimately, if five states have supported same-sex marriage now, others are pushing for it, does it need a federal answer?
MCCAIN: No. I believe it should be decided within the states. And we should respect that. And the Defense of Marriage Act that the Congress passed some years ago articulated that exact position.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
GO ALONG TO GET ALONG!
este esta una pregunta buena
Yeah Meg, big muscles.
Alright, who let McCain out this time? LOL.
Sounds like Caroline Kennedy to me.
The democrats didn’t worry about the ‘Latino’ vote when they gutted the Estrada nomination in the Senate.
The GOP doesn’t have to attract Hispanics. It has to explain to Hispanics (the legal ones - the illegal ones need to be sent packing, not given amnesty) that they are on the path to perpetual poverty and second class treatment if they toss their lot in with the Democrats, just like blacks who have given up all hope for improvemnt by tossing in with the Democrats who have locked them into a permanent underclass.
Pandering to Hispanics and illegal aliens will lock the Republicans into a permanent minority. If they do that they will become like the Whigs, and the future of conservatism will be in a natural division of the sole surviving Democrats into liberal and conservative wings.
Hegel can explain it.
Conservative Latinos and blacks aren't really Latinos and blacks.
While McLame would have been infinitely better than zero, he’d still suck. And yes, I did vote for the RINO - or more accurately Palin.
Note to John and Meg: it is not the color of the skin, it is what goes on between the ears. We do not want any particular skin color in the Republican party. We want - and only want - people who have a conservative viewpoint. Do you really want someone who has brown skin but wants a nanny state? Methinks not.
So, John and Meg, get in touch with reality. It is racist and sophomoric to think we need people with a certain skin color. Ridiculous.
He is not the head of this party. He LOST the election.
And I don’t think it’s so much a matter of the GOP losing the hispanic vote as it was W overperforming for a number of factors. He was Governor of a huge hispanic population state in TX and his brother was Governor of another huge hispanic population state in FL. That’s a very special circumstance and unlikely to ever happen again for 2 staright election cycles, or even one for that matter.
In 2000, Bush got around 34% of the hispanic vote. In 2008, McCain got 31%. Now when you consider the effect that the immigration issue had and the conservative response to it in the year or two before the election as well the fact that we were in a severe recession and economic downturns impacts hispanics disproportionately, not to mention Bush’s -60 pt swing in popularity from 04, a 3 pt drop isn’t all that bad. Even Reagan in his landslide of 84 only got about a third of the hispanic vote. So McCain performed well in the line with how the GOP normally does with that group.
In fact, even Bush’s 34% in 2000 was skewed because of the Elian Gonzales thing that cost the dems the 2000 election. I wonder if Al ever talks to Bill about that. How Bill cost him the WH because he had a 6 yr old sent back to Havana at gunpoint. They went from Clinton getting 35% of the cuban vote in FL to Gore getting below 20%. I think we all know why. Needless to say, in a race that ultimately came down to 537 votes, a 15% drop among cubans was a fatal blow. If Gore even got 25% he wins. The Elian factor played out by 08.
Dole got 21% of hispanics in 96. McCain did +10 over him.
Bush did get 39% in 2004 but that was an anomaly. Terrorism and the focus on natl security skewed the numbers from what they would have been if it was a normal election more focused on the economy. Also, see the W and Jeb factor abvove that wasn’t present last year. Plus, Bush and Rove spent 4 years specifically targeting hispanics and they were flush with cash to do it. McCain was outspent by 300 million and barely had any money to target the white voters he needed, let alone hispanics, and only became the nominee with a few months to go. He didn’t have a 4 yr long incumbent political operation like Bush had in 04. If Kerry had an extra 300 million, I suspect Bush wouldn’t have goten anywhere near the 39% he did.
The bottom line is the GOP in good years gets around a third or so of the hispanic vote. Reagan did it in 84, Bush in 2000, Bush in 88. In 2008, John McCain ran after 8 years of the most unpopular President in US History, in the very epicenter of the worst recession and economic downturn in a generation or more, in the teeth of a nationwide party slump that saw 60 or so GOP seats lost in the House and 15 in the Senate in a span of two years, after two+ years of conservatives and his party not exactly being welcoming to hispanics over the immigration issue, all the while being out spent by a historically unprecedented margin...and his % among hispanics was well in line with what Reagan got in 84(34%), Bush in 88(30%), Bush in 2000(34%), all of whom ran under vastly better circumstances for the party, exponentially better circumstances.
Given all the above factors, 31% was about as well as can be expected. No one should be ripping it. It’s amazing McCain didn’t get the 21% Dole got or around that.
If the economy doesn’t turn around or Obama messes up with natl security or foreign policy, and the spending disparity is rectified, look for the GOP to get around 33-35% of the hispanic vote in 2012, their normal total. And everyone will remark how they’ve magically recovered.
The 39% Bush got in 2004 was an outlier. Stop trying to hold it up as some goal we should get each time out.
Meg Whitman’s the last thing the Republicans need in CA or anywhere. She’s as squishy as they come. Every RINO I know loves her. We need Poisner to win the primary.
And W Bush and John McCain are far more responsible for the party's losing more of the Hispanic vote than any hundred other Republicans. The stupid, eight year pander to Hispanics strategy of W, and his and McCain's trying to shove amnesty down the throats of the party, is probably the single biggest reason the party went from one of its strongest positions ever in 2004, to one of its weakest ever in 2008 forward.
Reagan got 41% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, before the 1987 amnesty. The party must appeal to Hispanics on basic principles as any other group.
This stupid pander strategy has been a disaster, and if continued, will lose even more Hispanics and turn off even more conservatives. And amnesty will legalize and let in up to 50 million plus new, natural Dem constituents.
He is so pitiful. The GOP needs honest to God conservatives.
More ramblings from the last loooooooooooooooooooser.
>> Well, as a CEO, you have to be compassionate, as well as a governor you have to be compassionate. But we need to run the State of California just a bit more like a business. This is not energetic and efficient government. This is a government that is not spending the taxpayers' money well at all. And what has happened is people become convinced either you have to cut services or raise taxes. And no one, until very recently, thanks to those propositions last week, is talking about how can we run this government more efficiently. And I'll give you a couple of examples. We've got to cut the bureaucracy. There's 345,000 people that work for the state. We should eliminate 10 percent of that. We've got to look at deploying technology to deliver the same services at lower cost. And I know this can be done. <<
Damn. Reads EXACTLY like an Arnold interview from 2003. This gal really has the gubernator's talking points down good. Too bad it's just campaign rhetoric.
>> I have a lot of respect for Governor Schwarzenegger. He's done a number of good things <<
What was all that talking about "rebranding" and a "new" GOP? This is why the Illinois GOP lost in 2002, because their candidate Jim Ryan refused to repudiate crooked ultra RINO Governor George Ryan. Arnold has been a failure, California GOP. Time to face up to it.
>> And my belief is, actually, we can lead our way out of this, but it's going to take a very different approach. <<
Then why do you keep repeating his campaign platform from 2003? ?"Cut, cut, cut, eliminate the bureaucracy -- but we can't cite examples cuz we have all these important government programs for the little children. We can't hurt the children!"
>> Well, John, to start with, Judge Sotomayor should be judged on her qualifications and whether she is suited to be a Supreme Court justice and on nothing else. <<
Too bad the RATs don't play by those rules, John. Remind me again why two dozen of them fought John Robert's nomination tooth-and-nail? I coulda sworn he had excellent qualifications.
>> You're right, the Hispanic -- Latino vote is very important. We've been losing it. We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to public office. We have to make it clear that in our desire to secure the border, it is not an anti-Latino attitude that we have. And we have to welcome them into our party. <<
I would agree with the basic premise McCain is making here... the GOP has done a lousy job bringing Hispanics into the fold and should run more Hispanics. Provided, of course, they're "judged on their qualifications" as McCain noted earlier -- and NOT simply because they're available and have an "R" next to their name (it was that kind of thinking that caused conservatives on this board to rally around empty suit affirmative-action pick Mel Martinez for the Senate). But overall we should have a lot more Hispanic candidates given the number of large Hispanic areas in the country. Too bad the type of Hispanics who would make good leaders are not the kinds that John McCain has been supporting.
>> I haven't said that. But I agree with John. You know, I actually went to college with Judge Sotomayor. And she is very well qualified, from an academic point of view. << <<
Hmmm. I suppose judging her solely from an "academic" point of view, I would agree with this statement... but that's like saying Timothy Leary is "well qualified" from an academic point of view to be Secretary of Health, and Dr. Kevorkian is "well qualified" from an academic point of view to be surgeon general.
>> I did vote yes on Proposition 8. I am pro-civil union, but against gay marriage. <<
Sorta like saying that you're pro-meatless diet, but against vegetarianism. What's the difference except the name it's called? Seems to me that government-sanctioned "civil unions" would be defacto marriages.
>> I agree with Governor Schwarzenegger. <<
Ghost of Ronald Reagan: "Now there you go again, Ms. 'New GOP' "
>> No. I believe it should be decided within the states. And we should respect that. And the Defense of Marriage Act that the Congress passed some years ago articulated that exact position. <<
McCain's pretty much taking the Ron Paul/Fred Thompson position here, which I disagree with. The fact these activist judges at the "state" level keep overriding "the will of the people" in their respective states, is why the federal government must take action. Of course I don't expect a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman will get the necessary threshold it needs to pass, but the mere serious threat of such a constitutional amendment making it way thur the process should stop the "gay marriage" bandwagon in its tracks. Social conservatives pretty much did the same thing back in the 1890s when Utah was trying to get the country to accept polygamy, and the continued threat of constitutional amendments to ban it and throw Utah out of the union caused them to back down and accept the traditional definition of marriage. Liberals hate to admit it, but there's a clear example where the people trying to "expand" the rights of "consenting adults" were clearly on the wrong side of history. Unless we want to pretend polygamous marriages are all hip and trendy and mainstream in the 21st century.
>> We have to put our fiscal house in order. And in many ways, the vote of last week is a forcing function for the legislature, the governor and the people of California to put in place a government we can afford. And while it's tempting to think about asking the federal government to bail out California, it's the wrong thing, because we can't kick the can down the road to another year, another generation. We've got to solve our problems now. And, by the way, I think it's a pretty bad precedent, because if California has their hand out, there's, you know, 30 or 40 other states that, while they are not as big as California, they face similar challenges. And I think there's only so much the government can do. And my personal point of view is the federal government is overextended by a remarkable amount. And this is the last thing the federal government needs to be involved in. <<
You know, she's making a lot of sense here. Unfortunately I agree tend to think it's just campaign rhetoric and she'll flip-flop on this at the first opportunity if she's Governor. I actually believed Bush about his campaign pledge to veto McCain-Feingold, too.
>> Look, I think that what Meg Whitman does is what other governor Republicans have done in other states, but especially here -- a successful role model for young people, a person who will give them hope and confidence that they will get the state out of this fiscal mess and restore it to its greatness. <<
Arnold has done that in California? Have I entered some alternate universe where things are all roses and sunshine and Arnie's enjoying a 90% approval rating with a $80 billion surplus?
>> Well, it's a very serious issue. And you're right, immigration is a federal issue. It is not a state issue. <<
We, they got that one right. We can be thankful that most of the "states rights" types who want to punt abortion and gay marriage back to the states don't want to "leave it up to California" to deal with the criminal invasion of millions of people.
>> But as the governor of the largest state of California, what should happen, Governor Schwarzenegger today should make sure that his point of view is well-known in Washington. We absolutely have to secure this border. What is going on in San Diego is just remarkable, the level of violence and what's happening there. So we have to secure the border. We have to put more people there. And I would be thinking very hard about what can we do to shore up the situation in the border right now. <<
How long have Republican candidates been saying this? Probably going back to the 70s. I quote Tommy Thompson's Iowa Caucus speech - "Don't say it, DO IT!!!" Actions speak louder than words.
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.