Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's Hispanic strategy comes unraveled. (A Look Back on the Failed History of Hispandering)
The National Review ^ | April 8, 2002 | John O’Sullivan

Posted on 06/25/2003 11:15:39 AM PDT by Pubbie

On March 12, two quite separate events combined to undermine the Bush administration's strategy for building a new GOP majority by winning Hispanic votes with such policies as an amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants. The first event was the result of the Democratic primary in Texas, in which conservative millionaire Tony Sanchez handily defeated former attorney general Dan Morales with a campaign that stressed the rise of Hispanic power. The second was the near defeat in the House of Representatives of Section 245(i) — a measure to allow more than 200,000 illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. while regularizing their status, rather than requiring them to return home to apply for U.S. entry from there. The Texas primary strengthened the evidence that the Hispanic vote is drifting firmly into the Democratic camp — irrespective of the GOP's immigration policies. And the House vote signaled that in the aftermath of September 11 most Republicans want to tighten immigration policy rather than liberalize it. Together, they suggest that the Bush administration's Hispanic strategy is falling apart.

In particular, the House decision — in which the Republican leadership averted defeat by a single vote — established that the White House no longer has the Re publican votes to push through its larger plans to amnesty 3 million illegal Mexican "guestworkers" as a favor to Mexico's President Fox. Not only did a clear majority of Republicans, including some close to the leadership, rally to the standard raised by Colorado representative Tom Tancredo in opposition to 245(i); but those who voted against it included all the Republicans (and some Democrats) who are considering a run for higher office this year, with the sole exception of New Hampshire representative John Sununu Jr. The measure achieved its narrow victory only with the support of congressmen like Lamar Smith of Texas and Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who generally favor tighter immigration controls and would almost certainly oppose the broader amnesty proposal.

The measure now faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Robert Byrd of West Virginia has announced that he will prevent its passage under the "unanimous consent" provision that was its best hope of an early win. He expressed theatrical astonishment that the House and the White House should be so keen to pass "what amounts to an amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, many of whom have not undergone any background or security check." The politics of an immigration amnesty just got more perilous.

It may have helped the opponents of 245(i) that the previous week President Fox, in between eloquent appeals for a warm American welcome for Mexican immigrants, had handed back to Castro's secret police the handful of Cubans who had sought asylum in his own embassy. But that merely provided them with a nice secondary justification: Their main incentive was changing public opinion. Those Republicans with the most urgent reason for getting public opinion right — their own electoral interests — voted against the White House. One congressman, when taxed by a loyalist, gave his reason simply as "September 11th." Tancredo's immigration-reform caucus, which a year ago had a membership in the low teens, now boasts more than 60 adherents. And Robert Byrd has just reminded the GOP that even if the national Democratic party favors Hispanic immigration even more fervently than the White House does, local Demo cratic candidates may still flay them for a vote that seems to endorse and encourage illegal immigration.

The lesson for the White House is — or should be — clear: It can only pass the broader immigration amnesty it has been promoting over and against the votes of the majority of Republicans. That course will doubtless be urged upon it by some political analysts and pressure groups, citing the precedent of Clintonian "triangulation." That precedent, however, suffers from an obvious flaw: Clinton's triangulation meant supporting a welfare reform that was overwhelmingly popular with the American public, whereas illegal immigration is highly unpopular. Indeed, pollster John Zogby reports that 83 percent of Americans believe immigration laws are too lax. So the GOP majority would have public opinion on its side in resisting any move to make immigration easier. In which case the White House cannot deliver the goods on which its electoral outreach to Hispanics is based — and it would therefore be well advised to adopt a different strategy.

The good news from the Texas primary is that this may not matter very much, since the old strategy was doomed to fail anyway. It was based on a whole series of assumptions about Hispanic voters, each one of which was either plainly false or highly questionable: for instance, that Hispanic-Americans favor high levels of immigration. In fact, opinion polls clearly show that Hispanics differ only slightly from other Americans on immigration. A clear majority of Hispanics favor either the current or lower levels of immigration. Hispanic voters are swayed much more by the general policy stances of both parties than by immigration.

Another questionable idea is that Hispanic voters are "natural Republicans" because of their conservatism on moral questions such as "gay marriage" or abortion. Sure, in a California referendum on gay marriage, Hispanics voted disproportionately against it. But Hispanics tend to be liberal on economic questions, and when it comes to voting and party identification, in the self-satisfied but accurate words of liberal California analyst Harold Meyerson (now of The American Prospect), "their economic progressivism has consistently trumped their moral conservatism."

Are Hispanics likely to become more Republican the longer they stay in the U.S., and the more they rise up the income scale? No. A study by political scientists James G. Gimpel and Karen Kaufmann showed that Hispanics became more Democratic the longer they stayed in the U.S., and though Republican identification did indeed rise with prosperity, the Democrats retained a 10-point lead even at the highest levels of income.

The Texas primary confirmed these gloomy results for the GOP even before the results were tabulated. Hispanics were 12 percent of the Texas electorate in 1998, and are expected to be 20 percent — the "tipping point" at which their rise will make Texas a Democratic-leaning state — within six years. As GOP pollster Matthew Dowd, a longtime booster of the Hispanic/amnesty strategy, conceded to Dan Balz of the Washington Post: "The question this year is whether the Sanchez campaign advances that [i.e., making Texas a competitive swing state rather than a reliably Republican one], compressing six years into six months." It might do so; Sanchez combined an ethnic appeal to Hispanics — objecting to his opponent's wish to answer questions in English and Spanish rather than solely in Spanish in a televised debate — with an economic appeal to moderate middle-class whites, calling for low taxes.

For that very reason, however, his looks like a transitional candidacy even if he wins in November. For as Hispanic voting strength grows, so it is likely to reflect in Texas the liberal economic voting patterns celebrated by Meyerson in California.

What lies behind this political drift in Texas? Exactly the same force that is pushing once-reliable GOP states like California and Florida into, first, the "undecided" and eventually the "Democratic" column: demographic change driven by immigration. The Hispanic share of the population has risen sharply in these major states in the last 30 years; the Hispanic share of the electorate is now catching up, as immigrants become citizens and register to vote; and their votes heavily favor the Democrats. What has happened in California and now Texas is destined to happen in all the states with large concentrations of His panic immigrants. This is not a political prediction; it is a mathematical relationship.

As the study by Gimpel and Kaufmann demonstrated, moreover, this drift will be very hard to reverse. Republican hopes for major gains in the Hispanic electorate are without foundation. Democrats lead the GOP by large margins in every Hispanic group except Cuban-Americans. There is no sign that any significant group of Latino voters is "in play." Because Hispanic voters lean to the Democrats on economic and social grounds, the GOP would have to change almost all its policies (on taxes, welfare, regulation, labor law) to have any hope of attracting Hispanic crossovers in the long term. Above all, insofar as there is a modest drift rightwards among Hispanics as they rise economically, that is more than canceled out by the fact that continuing immigration channels new, poor Hispanic voters into the Democratic ranks.

Of course, there are Hispanics — between one-quarter and one-third of the total Latino electorate — who loyally pull the Republican lever. But they are the very voters who are least likely to favor sectional appeals to a separate Hispanic identity, such as an amnesty for illegals, and most likely to respond to traditional Republican arguments for patriotic assimilation. In the post-9/11 atmosphere, other Hispanics might be won over to their side by a patriotic appeal of that kind. But unless the Bush administration wakes up to the electoral impact of continuing immigration, the most the GOP can hope for is to slow the pace of its decline.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; bushdoctrine; gop; hispanics; immigrantlist; osullivan; outreach; rove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last
"the House decision — in which the Republican leadership averted defeat by a single vote — established that the White House no longer has the Re publican votes to push through its larger plans to amnesty 3 million illegal Mexican "guestworkers" as a favor to Mexico's President Fox."

Some people didn't believe me when I said the House GOP was ready to rebel against Karlos Rova's amnesty plan in August 2001.

But this article clearly shows the majority of elected Republicans know damn well that Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, will never vote GOP.

Fortunately it's not too late for the GOP to save itself by changing Legal hispanic immigration.

1 posted on 06/25/2003 11:15:39 AM PDT by Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
If the US government granted blanket amnesty chaos would ensue due to the sheer, overwhelming numbers of illegal aliens. Local and Federal bureaucracies would be forced to expand just to process them all. Wouldn't that be great for California's budget?
2 posted on 06/25/2003 11:31:11 AM PDT by NewRomeTacitus (The purpose of Immigration Courts are to bypass the law. Silly rabbit, courts are for Citizens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
If the US government granted blanket amnesty chaos would ensue due to the sheer, overwhelming numbers of illegal aliens. Local and Federal bureaucracies would be forced to expand just to process them all. Wouldn't that be great for California's budget?
3 posted on 06/25/2003 11:32:51 AM PDT by NewRomeTacitus (The purpose of Immigration Courts are to bypass the law. Silly rabbit, real courts are for Citizens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus
"Wouldn't that be great for California's budget?"

What!?

Don't you know that NO ECONOMY ON EARTH can survive without BILLIONs of Illegal Mexicans "doing the jobs Americans won't do"?!

Can't you see how all those illegals have caused an economic boom in California!?

4 posted on 06/25/2003 11:39:36 AM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *immigrant_list; A Navy Vet; Lion Den Dan; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; madfly; B4Ranch; ..
ping
5 posted on 06/25/2003 11:45:03 AM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
I think O'Sullivan's right. We should restrict the Conservative movement to white guys. Screw trying to get anybody else in, let's just figure out how to keep "them" from voting.

< /sarcasm > (for those of you not-too-brights out there)

Geesh. People read O'Sullivan and assume we're a bunch of crackers.

6 posted on 06/25/2003 11:49:07 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (© 2003, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Well - what a depressing article.
7 posted on 06/25/2003 11:53:43 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
A rather pathetic spin attempt. This article is very outdated, Sanchez got his butt whipped in the election by Republican Rick Perry, despite Perry being, um, less than charismatic(to be charitable). Kinda silly to conclude that Dems won't go GOP by analyzing a DEMOCRAT primary.

Tancredo types might have a measure of credibility if they stuck to facts and didn't stoop to obvious exaggerations and fear mongering.
8 posted on 06/25/2003 11:53:59 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
But this article clearly shows the majority of elected Republicans know damn well that Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, will never vote GOP.

Of course not. Because their skin is not white. The Republican Party is only for white people with white hoods, and it's time we all faced up to that fact /sarcasm

9 posted on 06/25/2003 11:57:03 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Because Hispanic voters lean to the Democrats on economic and social grounds, the GOP would have to change almost all its policies (on taxes, welfare, regulation, labor law) to have any hope of attracting Hispanic crossovers in the long term.

One could say pretty much the same thing about Jewish, Black, feminist, gay voters. Maybe true, maybe not, but either way a depressing way to look at it.

10 posted on 06/25/2003 11:58:30 AM PDT by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
"Sanchez got his butt whipped in the election by Republican Rick Perry, despite Perry being, um, less than charismatic(to be charitable)."

Perry only got 35% of the Hispanic vote, despite the fact that the Mexicans in Texas are from the (Limited) parts of Mexico that vote the most heavily conservative in Mexican elections.

In California, the GOP only got 25 of the Hispanic vote.
11 posted on 06/25/2003 11:58:57 AM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie; Sabertooth; Fred Mertz; Uncle Bill
But unless the Bush administration wakes up to the electoral impact of continuing immigration, the most the GOP can hope for is to slow the pace of its decline.

..........

12 posted on 06/25/2003 12:00:21 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
"The Republican Party is only for white people with white hoods, and it's time we all faced up to that fact /sarcasm"

The GOP is for (the moment) Conservatives ie people who want limited government, family values, restrictions on abortion, anti-affirmative action etc etc.

The problem is that Most of the Mexicans coming into the US are from the parts of Mexico that vote the most heavily SOCIALIST in Mexican elections.
13 posted on 06/25/2003 12:02:24 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
I believe that what Sullivan documents is that no matter what Bush, you, I or anyone else wishes, the fact is that hispanics will vote Democrat. If that doesn't concern you, then by all means support more of them pouring across our border.

The idea that Bush is going to build support within that community by expressing concern for hispanics and granting legalization of more Mexican immigrants, makes three very classic mistakes.

1. You can't out-pander the Democrats
2. US citizens of Mexican decent have the most to fear from massive numbers of unskilled labor showing up here
3. US citizens of Mexican decent generally respect the laws on our books. If a leader doesn't, why should they vote for him?

14 posted on 06/25/2003 12:03:14 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
Sullivan may be a little too deterministic.

But if we adjust the formulation to say: Hispanics have a strong tendency toward economic progressivism which trumps their social conservatism - for the first few generations.

Italians and Irish were solid Democrats as well for the first few generations.

The problem is that Bush and Rove probably aren't keen on waiting thirty or fifty or eighty years for the generational patterns to start favoring them.

Either way the short term prospects seem a bit bleak. Perhaps all Bush can do is push Hispanic apointments, aggressively politic in hispanic communities and push local hispanic candidates and count yourself lucky to get 40% of the hispanic vote - and crack down on immigration.

15 posted on 06/25/2003 12:05:11 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
And what percent of Hispanic votes will the GOP get if it adopts the Tancredo strategy of not so subtle denigration and a cold war against Hispanics? One can be for sensible immigration reforms without the vitriolic tone. "Irish need not apply" is not a brilliant election strategy for conservatism.
16 posted on 06/25/2003 12:07:22 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
The only two things keeping Bush as the favorite, one is the histrionics over terrorism keeps his white base in line, and second, Democratic ineptness at overcoming Rove's triangulation strategies. If Rove is successful then Bush wins over a demo stiff because the only thing the Dems have now is race hatred because Bush has done a Pataki and taken the left's issues for his own. My guess is that the Dems capitualate because if they go for the race hatred angle they are pretty close to bringing catastrophe upon this country.
17 posted on 06/25/2003 12:07:48 PM PDT by junta (Xenophobia a perfectly reasonable response to the feckless stupidity of globalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NewRomeTacitus
If the US government granted blanket amnesty chaos would ensue due to the sheer, overwhelming numbers of illegal aliens.

That doesn't even include the legal immigrants the amnestied would bring in through the family chain. It is estimated that could be as many 27 million from Mexico alone. And since 65 to 75% of Mexicans lean democratic, the Republicans as a party would be history.

18 posted on 06/25/2003 12:08:12 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
"the Tancredo strategy of not so subtle denigration and a cold war against Hispanics?"

It's not Tancredo's fault that Mexicans are socialists.

If the government keeps bringing them in we are going to ensure an era of Democratic domination.

But as I say, changing Immigration policies can mitigate much of this problem for the GOP
19 posted on 06/25/2003 12:17:27 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Why is it that you and others on this forum turn this into an issue of race at every opportunity? I have "NEVER" met and discussed this issue with a hispanic who thought we were anything other than the biggest fools of all time for allowing what we do to take place.

Even those who get the goods and services thing we're schmucks for allowing it.
20 posted on 06/25/2003 12:19:56 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
It is estimated that could be as many 27 million from Mexico alone

Too low. More on the order of about 44 million.

Added to the 37 million "hispanics" here, would make them the largest ethnicity in the United States within a generation.

Mexico with Nukes.

21 posted on 06/25/2003 12:25:25 PM PDT by Regulator (Say...doya think that's what the Mexican leaders have in mind? No...couldn't be...could it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
(A Look Back on the Failed History of Hispandering)

Nice switch of the article title.

22 posted on 06/25/2003 12:25:25 PM PDT by rdb3 (Nerve-racking since 0413hrs on XII-XXII-MCMLXXI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
There are a number of absolutely idiotic concepts in what has been a strategy widely attributed to Karl Rove. If Rove really believes that a liberal immigration policy with respect to lower class Mexicans makes sense, he is pathologically dangerous, not only to the future of the Republican Party, but what is far more important, to the future of the United States of America. Let me mention but the most obvious--and most inane of those concepts:

1. That there is such a thing as an Hispanic vote. Only someone pathologically unwilling to look at reality--someone enslaved with low level verbal analysis rather than observation--would fail to understand that the middle-class Cuban exiles from Communism and the Spanish landowners, we acquired with the South West, and the middle class Americans, born of one of several Spanish speaking backgrounds, have absolutely nothing in common with the unskilled and semi-skilled, lower class Mestizos, flooding over the Southern border, seeking unskilled jobs. While a Republican strategy can well be devised to increase the Republican vote among the first three groups, there is no Republican strategy that will long succeed with the last group, other than one that absolutely abandons every other major constituency in the Republican Party. None! Such immigrants mean a net gain for the forces of the Left, however you choose to slice it.

2. That because people have a work ethic--really, here, only a recognition that one must work to survive--does not mean that they even have the same basic images of the human dynamic in their heads, as do another people with a work ethic. In the present instance, the images of human interaction, which the Mexican Mestizo underclass bring across the border, have very little in common with the images of human interaction, which drove the Founding Fathers, and on which our institutions are premised. One can expend millions of words, and make little or no dent in this reality.

Karl Rove needs to be discharged from his present role, or the Republican Party will find itself in an inexorable decline. Perhaps another popular war may delay that decline for a few months, perhaps even a year or two. But the demographics he seems to be encouraging will absolutely dictate that that decline takes place.

In short, it is survival time, for those of us who believe in the message of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Website

23 posted on 06/25/2003 12:28:56 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
bttt
24 posted on 06/25/2003 12:31:27 PM PDT by Marine Inspector (DHS BCBP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
I couldn't agree more.
25 posted on 06/25/2003 12:32:58 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Too low. More on the order of about 44 million.

Either the Republicans stop listening to the open borders, Wall St. Journal types who refuse to face reality or in 20 years conservastism will be a blip on the screen in the USA.

26 posted on 06/25/2003 12:35:07 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
there is no Republican strategy that will long succeed with the last group, other than one that absolutely abandons every other major constituency in the Republican Party. None!

Nothing will work! It is all defeat! Let's all just kill ourselves!

Get a grip.

Social conservatism and economic opportunity.

Gee, took me a whole five frickin' words and I've got a strategy to appeal to the Mexicans. That was tough!

27 posted on 06/25/2003 12:36:58 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie


Well it looks like O'Sullivan is blowing smoke or maybe smoking too much..... Sanchez along with the entire Democrat slate got their butts handed to them in November.... Remember the "Dream Team".. Sanchez the Hispanic; Kirk the African-American; Sharp the good ol' bubba; ...... What did Texas do? Sent them packing with their tails between their legs....

Sanchez.... 39.98% of the vote..
Kirk..... 43.37%
Sharp..... 46.06%

Sanchez the Hispanic got less than either of the other two... Combined, the hispanic, the black and the white bubba still didn't come close... So much for O'Sullivan's Texas theory at this stage.

28 posted on 06/25/2003 12:42:07 PM PDT by deport (TLBSHOW = BUSHBOT de EXTRAORDINAIE TRANSCENDS...MAY 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Ohioan
Not only did a clear majority of Republicans, including some close to the leadership, rally to the standard raised by Colorado representative Tom Tancredo in opposition to 245"(i); but those who voted against it included all the Republicans (and some Democrats) who are considering a run for higher office this year, with the sole exception of New Hampshire representative John Sununu Jr. The measure achieved its narrow victory only with the support of congressmen like Lamar Smith of Texas and Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who generally favor tighter immigration controls and would almost certainly oppose the broader amnesty proposal."

Republicans (Particularly the ones in the House) understand everything people like us have been saying.

I hope Bush AGAIN flops with Hispanics in 2004 (Check This Link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/934148/posts ) so that the political pressure on the White House will grow to the point where Bush has to reduce legal immigration.
30 posted on 06/25/2003 12:43:04 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: deport
Perry got 35% of the Hispanic vote.

This is not progress.
31 posted on 06/25/2003 12:46:41 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
One can be for sensible immigration reforms without the vitriolic tone. "Irish need not apply" is not a brilliant election strategy for conservatism.

Immigration reform? Irish? What are these things you speak of?

32 posted on 06/25/2003 12:47:10 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (RECALL DAVIS, position his smoking chair over a trapdoor, a memo for the next governor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
The very apogee of Hispandering will be when Bush appoints White House Counsel Gonzalez to the Supreme Court.

Gonzalez is vastly underqualified and far far too Liberal to be appointed, but he's just Hispanic enough.
33 posted on 06/25/2003 12:51:14 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Perry got 35% of the Hispanic vote.

AGAINST A HISPANIC. That's a great number!

34 posted on 06/25/2003 12:53:54 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Nothing will work! It is all defeat! Let's all just kill ourselves!

What a silly comment. What works is what has always worked, a rallying of the American mainstream to traditional values. Whenever we try it, people respond. Whenever we abandon it, we had better have something a lot better than Mr. Rove is peddling--errant nonsense--or we are in deep trouble.

Social conservatism and economic opportunity.

Yes, and what has that to do with the subject of this thread? The social conservatism of the American mainstream--the values of the Founding Fathers--are very different than those of the poorest class of Mexicans. But don't take my word for it. Look at who the Mestizo emigres have rallied to in the past. Was Cesar Chavez, the strident farm workers' union leader in the 1960s, etc., your idea of a social Conservative? (He was a known Marxist.) Why do you think the newer crop will be more Conservative?

As an easily identifiable group at or near the bottom of American societies, they are ripe for exploitation by the agitators of the Left, and there is nothing that you or Mr. Rove can do to make that factor go away. And the essential difference between them and poor Whites or Negroes, whose ancestors have been here for generations, is that you cannot offset that class-warfare appeal, with any counter appeal to their own cultural heritage. They do not share a cultural heritage with the rest of us.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

35 posted on 06/25/2003 12:56:37 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
That's a scary thought.
36 posted on 06/25/2003 12:56:55 PM PDT by warmath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
"Gonzalez is vastly underqualified and far far too Liberal to be appointed, but he's just Hispanic enough."

Great, a Hispanic David Souter...
37 posted on 06/25/2003 12:57:22 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Bush, being from the state of Texas, should have developed an insight into the mindset of the legal residents of Mexican origin. Most of them, being in the lower ranks of employment, feel threatened by the huge influx of illegals coming in to take their jobs and scale down their wage rates.

It makes no sense for Bush to pander to the large number of illegals that can't legally vote, and disgust the majority of legal Mexicans that can vote. This is one reason the Democrats are enjoying a majority of Legal Mexican voters.

38 posted on 06/25/2003 12:57:24 PM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
The very apogee of Hispandering will be when Bush appoints White House Counsel Gonzalez to the Supreme Court.

I hope he Hispanders to me and appoints Emilio Garza.

39 posted on 06/25/2003 12:58:15 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Was Cesar Chavez, the strident farm workers' union leader in the 1960s, etc., your idea of a social Conservative?

Was Cesar Chavez in a land of boundless economic opportunity and social mobility?

That would be . . . NO.

But by social conservative I'm talking gay marriage, etc. There ain't no Hispanic of any kind who wants that kind of crap.

40 posted on 06/25/2003 1:01:17 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: meenie
It makes no sense for Bush to pander to the large number of illegals that can't legally vote, and disgust the majority of legal Mexicans that can vote. This is one reason the Democrats are enjoying a majority of Legal Mexican voters.

It's enough to make one wonder who he is really working for......

41 posted on 06/25/2003 1:02:22 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (RECALL DAVIS, position his smoking chair over a trapdoor, a memo for the next governor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Wow... that really sold me.
42 posted on 06/25/2003 1:04:32 PM PDT by warmath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Closing our borders should be the number priority in homeland security. However, our politicians, the liberal media, and corporations have shown interest in sealing our borders from illegal immigrants. In fact, they support it by calling illegals, “undocumented migrants.” Illegal immigration shall be the death of America. California is the perfect example of what happens when the borders are not sealed from invaders.
43 posted on 06/25/2003 1:14:44 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
"The problem is that Most of the Mexicans coming into the US are from the parts of Mexico that vote the most heavily SOCIALIST in Mexican elections."

That's true. Most Mexican immigrants -- legal and illegal -- are staunch socialists in their political philosophy.
44 posted on 06/25/2003 1:15:47 PM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
"Illegal immigration shall be the death of America."

Actually it's not the end of America, because the Blacks and Asians, and Whites comprise 87% of the US population.

Immigration however will be the death of the Republican party unless they change Immigration policy.
45 posted on 06/25/2003 1:18:49 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
California is the perfect example of what happens when the borders are not sealed from invaders.

And look no further than Illinois...

The INS estimated in February 2003 that there were 432,000 illegal aliens residing in Illinois. This was more than double the INS estimate of 176,000 illegal immigrants in Illinois in October 1992. The INS increased the estimate to 290,000 as of October 1996. However, the INS downplayed this apparent 65% jump in illegal aliens in four years by stating that it believed it underestimated the 1992 illegal alien settlement by 44,000. This is due to an under estimate of illegal Mexicans. The revision of the earlier estimate meant that the INS acknowledged an increase in the resident illegal alien population in Illinois (largely Chicago) over those four years of 70,000.

The current INS estimate indicates that Illinois has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country.

46 posted on 06/25/2003 1:27:14 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (RECALL DAVIS, position his smoking chair over a trapdoor, a memo for the next governor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
The problem is that it is mostly the wrong "Hispanics"....judging from voting records.

W and Rove have rainmaker aspirations here. Too bad we're the guinea pigs.
47 posted on 06/25/2003 1:28:54 PM PDT by wardaddy (I was born my Papa's son....when I hit the ground I was on the run.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
The unwillingness of gov't officials to enforce immigration laws provide much needed cover for terrorists. Many cities have accepted the Mexican ID cards as valid forms of identification, and forbid the police from inquiring about a person's immigration status. Plus, several states are trending toward giving illegals in-state college tuition and driver licenses without showing any proof of citizenship. These policies are insane. We are asking for another 9-11.
48 posted on 06/25/2003 1:35:49 PM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Against a Hispanic with millions of his own dollars he spent.... 35% isn't bad, imo. What did Sanchez the Hispanic get.... 65% or so of his own race... The way this article would read he should have gotten the entire vote.
49 posted on 06/25/2003 1:45:24 PM PDT by deport (TLBSHOW = BUSHBOT de EXTRAORDINAIE TRANSCENDS...MAY 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
The current INS estimate indicates that Illinois has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country.

Of course, Illinois also has the fourth largest alien population in the country, after New Mexico, New York, and Ohio, so that's not too surprising.

50 posted on 06/25/2003 1:48:07 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson