Wednesday, September 19, 2007

In Which I Continue (Doggedly) To Espouse A Position That Is Anathema To Many Republicans


This Washingon Post piece by Michael Gerson is right on target. Here's a taste, referring to the current crop of GOP presidential candidates:
One gets the impression of decent men, intimidated by the vocal anger of elements of their own party.
How true. Polls continue to show most Americans (and most Republicans) would be willing to allow a path to citizenship for the illegals now in the USA. That position is so unacceptable to a vocal but activist minority among Republicans, however, that no candidate who really is serious about winning the nomination dares take it.

Or this:

That anger is pushing Republicans into some powerful symbols of indifference to Hispanic voters. The Univision Republican debate, scheduled for last Sunday with simultaneous translation into Spanish, was postponed when only Sen. John McCain agreed to show up. Rep. Tom Tancredo objected to the event on principle: "We should not be doing things that encourage people to stay separate in a separate language" -- which raises the question: Is saying "Viva Cuba Libre" no longer permissible for Republicans? And this snub came on the heels of conspicuous Republican absence at a forum held by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, and at the National Council of La Raza convention.

It is a strange spectacle. Conservatives are intent on building a more appealing, post-Bush Republican Party. But their most obvious change so far is to reverse remarkable Republican gains among one of the fastest-growing groups of American voters. The renovators seem more like the wrecking crew.

And here's one more:
Latino support for GOP candidates dropped back to 30 percent in 2006. According to one poll, Latinos under age 30 now prefer a generic Democrat over a Republican for president by 42 points. A harsh, Tancredo-like image of Republicans has solidified in the mainstream Hispanic media. And all of this regression will be even more obvious in the next few months, because more than half of the Hispanic voters in America live in states that are part of the new lineup of early primaries.

I have never seen an issue where the short-term interests of Republican presidential candidates in the primaries were more starkly at odds with the long-term interests of the party itself. At least five swing states that Bush carried in 2004 are rich in Hispanic voters -- Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Bush won Nevada by just over 20,000 votes. A substantial shift of Hispanic voters toward the Democrats in these states could make the national political map unwinnable for Republicans.

Ouch.

Read the whole thing. If you disagree with Gerson and with me, his piece might make you seethe. But I hope it will also make you think.

4 Comments:

Blogger Mitch said...

Borders. Language. Culture. If a nation-state is going to exist, then these three factors must be defined and protected.

I submit that those counties that operate in multiple languages (and thus multiple cultures) are breeding grounds for division. Canada,, Belgium, the former Yugoslavia come to mind. I don't know enough about Switzerland's internal politics to comment about that nation.

In this case, I believe Tancredo is correct - any activity that encourages speaking Spanish - and thus separating one culture from another - is damaging to the US. It may be bad politics, but so be it.

Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:51:00 AM  
Blogger The Hedgehog said...

Mitch, I certainly don't disagree with you on that point. But you miss the larger point. Yes, our borders are a mess and our culture is in danger. But is the answer to those problems "seal the border and deport them?"

Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:35:00 AM  
Blogger mwayne said...

"Seal the borders"?

Yes, both north and south. If we treated illegal immigration - especially on the southern border - as a de-facto declaration of war by Mexico (which I think it is), then, the appropriate military actions should be threatened and, if necessary, taken. I believe that the Mexican elite would rather take actions to reform their country's economy than suffer the wrath of the US Armed Forces.

As far as deportation, I agree with an LA District Attorney who suggests we start with those who are here illegally and commit felonies. (http://patterico.com/).

Here is AZ we had a situation the other day in which an illegal killed a Phoenix police officer to avoid being detained. Fortunately, the guy was killed by other cops. Now we don't have to put up with the expense of a trial and incarceration. I'd go so far as to tie his carcass to a pole on the southern border as a warning to others who want to enter illegally, and take out ads in Mexican newspapers

Of course, I'd go for the elimination of the anchor baby travesty, (HR 1940) as well as all government benefits, and an elimination of ALL Constitutional protections for illegals from any country who commit felonies. English MUST be the official language of the US, and all government business - including ballots - must be in English.

Harsh, yes, but either we take seriously the concept of the nation-state called the US, or we don't.

Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:30:00 AM  
Blogger Alexander said...

You talk like Mexico is already running our country with your concern of what Hispanics think.
I do not care what they think!
They are only the fastest growing minority because they have more children on average than native born Americans.
Believe me,second generation Hispanics will have 2.3 children like the rest of us and they will be complaining about the one hundred million Chinese that will overwellm the country in the next 10 years.
People are already considering learning Mandarin now.

Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:21:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home