Michael Burns: GOP Needs to Open to Immigrants, Moderates

Newsmax ^ | Monday, 08 April 2013 09:26 PM | Cyrus Afzali and John Bachman

[Olog-hai]

One of Hollywood’s leading executives who supports the Republican party said the GOP is being “hijacked” by anti-immigration groups and other special interests.

Michael Burns, the vice chairman of Lions Gate Entertainment, the filmmaker and entertainment powerhouse, tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview the GOP needs to open up to Hispanics and other immigrant groups or it will wither.

“The Republicans are losing a marvelous opportunity to embrace the Hispanic community through immigration reform and it’s now or never,” he said. “The moderates that I know—and I consider myself a moderate—feel very strongly about this.” …

[dfwgator]

Mexicans hate Cubans, and the GOP thinks that Mexicans will vote for Rubio.

[cookcounty]

I am so sick of people lumping legal immigrants and illegal immigrants together.

People like Burns have nothing but contempt for immigrants who follow the law (which in many cases, has been VERY COSTLY for them).

[muawiyah]

McCain really blew it ~ he's now allied with the Sunni nutballs in Syria who just OK'd raping Christian women.

Wonder what his pudgy daughter thinks of that?

[Graybeard58]

We were “moderated” to death in the last two presidential cycles. Two out and out liberal candidates that the left tagged as “right wing extremests”.

That anybody would call the likes of Romney or McCain, right wing is laughable.

[Conservative Beacon]

I’m so sick of the term “moderate” in politics. It’s inaccurate disingenuous!

The term moderate came about to make these people sound superior. They are “above partisan politics.” They are unbound by any ideology or belief system. They form self-proclaimed “reasoned,” “tempered” and “topical” positions on issues which makes them better than you or I who basis our decisions and policy stances on a certain belief system.

The reality is that these people are not “moderates.” To be accurate, they are hybrids. They might be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. There is nothing moderate about that.

They are hybrids.

</rant>

[liberalh8ter]

Mexicans hate Cubans, and the GOP thinks that Mexicans will vote for Rubio.

This same thing has been told to me (in a less politically correct manner) by friends from Mexico, Brazil, Columbia and Costa Rica. Don't even get them started on the Cuban dialect.

[TomGuy]

The GOP becoming more Dem-lite is not the way to win elections.

The GOP needs to become the alternative to the Dems, not the mirror image of them.

[dfwgator]

Many refer to them as “Jewbans.”

[SatinDoll]

Republicans have been sucked into Madison Avenue-style thinking - that the right kind of glitzy candidate + slick marketing = a political landslide.

Uh, maybe for Democrats, but that’s too shallow for Republicans to hang onto conservative voters.

I believe conservatives are more down-to-earth and practical than that nonsense above.

The way to get new Republican voters is the old way. We find what common conservative denominator - values - underlies voter’s concerns.

For example, right now a great many minority-dominated communities are being torn apart by violence. Old fashioned crime-fighting must be combined with genuine justice to demonstrate how it should be done in America. By making it safe for families living in their communities, I believe you can attract voters, IMHO.

No one right now is even making the attempt.

[driftless2]

So the Pubbies turn tail and give in legalizing 12 million with the stroke of a pen. How many of those 12 million do you think will end up voting for Republicans? Maybe about 1 or 2 million. Legalizing 12 million at once will mean the Democrats winning every prez election for the next fifty years.

[MinuteGal]

The Republican Party door has always been open to all, you self-important, egostistical, liberal, over-paid, under-hung jackass.

If the minorities don't want to walk in because there's no free goodies behind GOP Doors Number One, Two and Three, it's their loss in the long run.

When the freebie well runs dry, they'll find all the Dem doors will be closed to them and they have no place to go.

Tough rocks.

Leni

[cripplecreek]

Virtually every single candidate who ran in 2012 is out there promoting conservative ideals every day.....except for Romney.

I follow Bachmann and Santorum on twitter so I see conservative speeches and events they attend every day (just read about a Santorum speech being canceled over his pro traditional marriage stance) I hear something out of Cain at least twice a week. I don’t love Perry or Gingrich but at least I see them talking the talk all the time.

[freekitty]

Why?

[Mastador1]

There is already a party for moderates in America, it is called the Democrat Party! If the Republican Party continues its slide I will just have to look for an actual Conservative Party, whatever its name may be. As far as immigrants their choice will to be either takers or Americans.

[catnipman]

“Moderate” is the term used by the Marxist Media to describe a flaming liberal, therefore, these so-called “moderates” can join the party that best represents them, namely the U.S. National Fascist Socialist Democrat party.

As for “immigrants”, we all know that 99% of those described as immigrants are ILLEGAL immigrants. These folks shouldn’t be in any party, but instead should be sent home, thereby creating millions of new job opening for U.S. citizens.

[RedMDer]

How does a moderate feel very strongly about anything?

[dfwgator]

As Rush said, The world’s shortest book is “Great Moderates in History.”

[hal ogen]

This guy is really a DIMocRAT who is probably a gay or tyranny illegal. Kick him to the curb.

[RedMDer]

With Freedom Under Assault, We're Told We Must Moderate?
Moderation is not a substantive belief. This is my problem with moderates. There isn't a core there! Moderation is a tactic. It's not a set of principles. It is a tactic that says, "Regardless of the situation, regardless of events, my first impulse is to find a different way around." I know moderation, per se, is illogical because there are clearly times when it is self-destructive or counterproductive. For instance, moderation after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor would have been irrational. Moderation against slavery would have been immoral. How do you debate the issue of moderation if it has no core? You wind up debating tactics, but tactics without principle are pointless -- and this has always been my problem with moderates. ...

Particularly in the face of the most radical and destructive administration in modern American history, where the president has said he wants to fundamentally transform the nation, what does moderation look like? Where am I supposed to moderate? What am I supposed to moderate? Are all these Republican candidates tonight at the debate be asking themselves, "Who's willing to go further in compromising with the Democrats?" To show what? To accomplish what? Isn't the purpose of this debate tonight for one of these people to stand head and shoulders above everybody else in demonstrating he or she is the one who can beat Obama?
Republican moderates are guaranteed losers in eight out of ten elections you're gonna have. Now, I think that people who write pieces about "moderation" need to do a little bit more than just sit back and be critical. We need to know what it is these moderates think is worth fighting for. Is it just winning elections with whoever can win so that the result may not even be productive? These moderates need to tell us what are the principles that they believe that an individual or a nation should stand firm on, because, so far, moderates don't do that. That's why they are moderates! They don't want to be tied down. They want to be able to preach moderation because it gets them praise.

[liberalh8ter]

I haven't heard that. It's more along the lines of what rappers call each other. Their contempt for them is deep and is derived from the feeling they're not as ‘pure’.