Will the GOP ever appeal to Minorities?

[Scam of God]

If the GOP drops the anti illegal immigration stance, what party is going to pick up on it?  It's only going to get worse then this country will become North Mexico.

So? The free movement of labour is essential to maintaining a free-market economy.

[5280]

Ok, so if they cross the border and take some of the jobs such as minimum paying, construction, fastfood etc.  Where are those people going to fill in for, what about teens in high school that want to work but can't because they're filled?

[Хahar 🤔]

You don't believe that the market would fix those problems?

[Phony Moderate]

Yes, it does already. Homophobes are a minority.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes, it does already. Homophobes are a minority.

The majority of the people in this country are rednecks, and this hispanics moving into the country aspire to be rednecks.

[5280]

Yes, it does already. Homophobes are a minority.

The majority of the people in this country are rednecks, and this hispanics moving into the country aspire to be rednecks.

I'm not a redneck, and I'm not a Liberal!

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes, it does already. Homophobes are a minority.

The majority of the people in this country are rednecks, and this hispanics moving into the country aspire to be rednecks.

I'm not a redneck, and I'm not a Liberal!

My post had nothing to do with you.

[Inoljt]

Read through this thread, found it interesting. Some comments:

It's sad that minorities such as your self hate the GOP (though I can sympathize it at times) because the Democrats take you for granted, therefore they don't help minorities (seriously, what have they done for minorities since the civil rights act that actually worked?).

Civil rights was pretty big, though. I appreciate being able to drink at the same fountain as a white person.

They could ask poor southern blacks what the Democrats have done for them, for instance.

They elected a black president. That was also a fairly big thing to do (many "poor southern blacks" didn't think it could be done, but there you go).

I can empathize with all of them in fact. But, that doesn't change the fact that they broke the law.

I think opponents of immigration have this strange obsession with "breaking the law." Breaking the law isn't the big deal you make it out to be: for example, I break the law every time I drive 70 in a 65 mph zone. Should I be deported out of this country?

The only growing constituency of the GOP seems to be poor white people who may have gone GOP on "cultural" grounds

To be fair, there are a lot of poor white people out there. It's not a bad constituency to build upon.

[Badger]

Read through this thread, found it interesting. Some comments:

It's sad that minorities such as your self hate the GOP (though I can sympathize it at times) because the Democrats take you for granted, therefore they don't help minorities (seriously, what have they done for minorities since the civil rights act that actually worked?).

Civil rights was pretty big, though. I appreciate being able to drink at the same fountain as a white person.

Meh. You're not missing much.

Welcome to the forum!

[Bo]

Yes, they will, but only after they abandon "Trickle-Down" economics and adopt an economic policy that favors ordinary Americans over the rich.

[krazen1211]

Didn't President George W. Bush get something around 40% of the Hispanic Vote and 30% of the Asian Vote in 2004?

[redcommander]

Didn't President George W. Bush get something around 40% of the Hispanic Vote and 30% of the Asian Vote in 2004?

Yes. Bob Dole actually won the Asian vote with about 51% if I'm correct in 96. It's alarming how badly Republicans are doing with Asian voters nowadays considering that even Dole won a majority with them, and before him the party used to win handily in the Asian community. I don't think that the party has to become pro-immigration to appeal to minorities in general. Most people recognize that uncontrolled immigration leads to problems with assimilation and economic matters. The party can still have a law and order stance on the issue, but should make sincere efforts to recruit minority candidates, have a presence in inner-cities again, and drop the anti-education, pro-gun, anti-global warming, and lack of fiscally responsible policies. The key is also for immigration to be dealt with in a way that doesn't appear to be discriminatory or race based.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Didn't President George W. Bush get something around 40% of the Hispanic Vote and 30% of the Asian Vote in 2004?

Yes. Bob Dole actually won the Asian vote with about 51% if I'm correct in 96. It's alarming how badly Republicans are doing with Asian voters nowadays considering that even Dole won a majority with them, and before him the party used to win handily in the Asian community. I don't think that the party has to become pro-immigration to appeal to minorities in general. Most people recognize that uncontrolled immigration leads to problems with assimilation and economic matters. The party can still have a law and order stance on the issue, but should make sincere efforts to recruit minority candidates, have a presence in inner-cities again, and drop the anti-education, pro-gun, anti-global warming, and lack of fiscally responsible policies. The key is also for immigration to be dealt with in a way that doesn't appear to be discriminatory or race based.

A lot in this post. Some right, some wrong, some absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, the GOP doesn't have to, and even if they did, they shouldn't find themselves embracing La Raza and other such groups as a way to gain minority votes. The first key is messaging and outreach and the second is making sure that the methods aren't discriminatory, as you said. I would point out that the GOP doesn't have to become "Pro-immigration" because it is already "pro-immigration". I hope you meant "pro-illegal immigration", otherwise you might be confusing the GOP with some weird third party.

I don't recall the GOP being anti-education. On the contrary, I think the best hope for the education system rests with a combination of GOP originated reforms opposed by teacher's unions (and supported by Obama atleast in words, if not action), and a series of changes that aren't currently part of either side's "education plan". But certainly, I wouldn't characterize the GOP as "anti-education" and in fact, a large number of minorities support school choice.

I find it interesting that your plan to build an "inclusive" GOP starts off by telling certain current members of the coalition to fly a kite. You don't win elections by giving your current base the finger and telling them to get lost in exchange for the "hope" that a new base will form hopefully sooner rather then later. That will lead to party splits and a permenent Dem majority for a few decades.

Gun Control is a dead issue nationally,. The Democrats are scared to death by it and the GOP has already suffered the damage in pro-gun control areas. Not to mention the advancement of lawsuits against key gun control measures. If a local candidate is pro-gun control in Long Island or something that is fine but going as far as to drive the NRA into the waiting arms of Heath Shuler/Ted Strickland type blue dogs, is risky and possess a far greater danger to GOP electability at present for no meaningfull benefits. As for the others, I am sure higher energy bills and taxes will do wonders to attract new voters, even minorities.

Moving to the left on a few select issues, none of which cracks the top priority list save education, is hardly a convincing strategy to win minorities.

[redcommander]

Didn't President George W. Bush get something around 40% of the Hispanic Vote and 30% of the Asian Vote in 2004?

Yes. Bob Dole actually won the Asian vote with about 51% if I'm correct in 96. It's alarming how badly Republicans are doing with Asian voters nowadays considering that even Dole won a majority with them, and before him the party used to win handily in the Asian community. I don't think that the party has to become pro-immigration to appeal to minorities in general. Most people recognize that uncontrolled immigration leads to problems with assimilation and economic matters. The party can still have a law and order stance on the issue, but should make sincere efforts to recruit minority candidates, have a presence in inner-cities again, and drop the anti-education, pro-gun, anti-global warming, and lack of fiscally responsible policies. The key is also for immigration to be dealt with in a way that doesn't appear to be discriminatory or race based.

A lot in this post. Some right, some wrong, some absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, the GOP doesn't have to, and even if they did, they shouldn't find themselves embracing La Raza and other such groups as a way to gain minority votes. The first key is messaging and outreach and the second is making sure that the methods aren't discriminatory, as you said. I would point out that the GOP doesn't have to become "Pro-immigration" because it is already "pro-immigration". I hope you meant "pro-illegal immigration", otherwise you might be confusing the GOP with some weird third party.

I don't recall the GOP being anti-education. On the contrary, I think the best hope for the education system rests with a combination of GOP originated reforms opposed by teacher's unions (and supported by Obama atleast in words, if not action), and a series of changes that aren't currently part of either side's "education plan". But certainly, I wouldn't characterize the GOP as "anti-education" and in fact, a large number of minorities support school choice.

I find it interesting that your plan to build an "inclusive" GOP starts off by telling certain current members of the coalition to fly a kite. You don't win elections by giving your current base the finger and telling them to get lost in exchange for the "hope" that a new base will form hopefully sooner rather then later. That will lead to party splits and a permenent Dem majority for a few decades.

Gun Control is a dead issue nationally,. The Democrats are scared to death by it and the GOP has already suffered the damage in pro-gun control areas. Not to mention the advancement of lawsuits against key gun control measures. If a local candidate is pro-gun control in Long Island or something that is fine but going as far as to drive the NRA into the waiting arms of Heath Shuler/Ted Strickland type blue dogs, is risky and possess a far greater danger to GOP electability at present for no meaningfull benefits. As for the others, I am sure higher energy bills and taxes will do wonders to attract new voters, even minorities.

Moving to the left on a few select issues, none of which cracks the top priority list save education, is hardly a convincing strategy to win minorities.

Sorry I didn't mean pro-immigration, I meant pro illegal/irresponsible immigration such as supporting chain migration policies for example. Many Americans except for a small group recognize you can't for the well-being of the nation have a laissez faire immigration system. It's not anti-immigrant to be promoting a responsible pathway for citizenship for those people across the world waiting legally to enter the nation. I'm frankly tired of the idea that Republicans have to go the route that Bush tried to do with supporting open borders and pushing amnesty. It didn't help him win over Hispanics and other minority groups, and it won't help future Republican candidates to win their votes either. There needs to be toned down rhetoric on the issue though. As for the issues of education and economics, I think it would help the Republicans appeal to minority groups if they didn't come off as anti-well educated. The two Americas argument of Palin for example, and the argument by Christine O'Donnell that you should vote for her because she didn't go to Yale is what I mean. A degree from a prestigious university shouldn't be thought of by candidates and leaders as a bad thing but an honor. Republican policies aren't anti-education in the sense of not supporting it, but in the way certain people approach well-educated people. I do think the trickle-down theory has many problems in it, and that Republicans should perhaps show more willingness towards supporting a larger amount of intervention in the economy, and support for welfare and social programs.

[memphis]

They have their "minorities," most notably evangelicals. If what the question meant was will they ever appeal to black and latinos, all they have to do is change their positions. Unlikely to happen in the short term.

[Person Man]

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

[Person Man]

They have their "minorities," most notably evangelicals. If what the question meant was will they ever appeal to black and latinos, all they have to do is change their positions. Unlikely to happen in the short term.

In a way, you are right. If someone told you that they were a Fundamentalist Christian in the late 70s, or saw you be animated by the Holy Spirit in church, they would see you as some sort of strange exotic culture from the Third World or they would at least be tempted to ask you if you normally wear a beard or head scarf.

[redcommander]

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

I meant the rhetoric from some Republicans about being elitist if you go to a prestigious school. Not everyone who goes to one is automatically a blue-blood or wealthy as some people like Palin seem to think. It just seems like a large turn off to some people who want an actual debate on issues rather than hearing class warfare rhetoric. The government itself is pretty open already to various personal and economic backgrounds, so I don't really see the need for Republicans to make it seem as though they are defenders of the average American when we don't live in an era like in the past when government actually was restricted on the basis of what college, how much money you had, and what family connections you had.  As to immigration, I still think it is a problem with the way the issue is conveyed to minority groups rather than the policies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

I find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

[Person Man]

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

I find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

Yes.  Think you are right about the elitism thing. On immigration, I think its probably a lot like gay rights. Positions on the issues are relative as to rhetoric. Is a candidate who claims they are pro-gay rights because they believe that gay men should be allowed to have sex with each other more gay rights than a opponent of gay rights who just wants to make sure that courts can't force states to accept gay marriage? 

[Mehmentum]

They could if they wanted to.  See what Bush did in 2004, after apealing to latinos, he got over 40% of their vote, not bad compared to usual Republican performance. 

The question is if the GOP will want to pursue latinos, my guess is that, at least for the time being, they are too tied down by the tea party to try to pursue them.

[Mechaman]

I find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.  

I agree.
I hate nativism and racism however the extent to which the amnesty side calls any effort at curbing illegal immigration as closed minded is just crazy.  Three kids wearing an American flag to school?  OH THAT IS RACISM RIGHT THERE CHARLIE!
I believe Brother Bilo made a good point when comparing it to gay marriage.  The issue is much more complex than "oh we love/hate gay people".  Same thing with immigration.  It isn't limited to "oh we love/hate immigrants", there issues relating to the legal process of coming to this country.  Do we allow an amount of amnesty, or do we require everybody to go through the normal process?
This is what I like to call the death of civil debate.
If we are talking about simple border enforcement, yeah nine times out of ten I won't think racism is afoot.  When it gets to really draconian measures like limiting how many people can LEGALLY immigrate to the US or calls to abolish birthright citizenship, yeah I might get a tinge feeling that nativism might be afoot.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They could if they wanted to.  See what Bush did in 2004, after apealing to latinos, he got over 40% of their vote, not bad compared to usual Republican performance. 

The question is if the GOP will want to pursue latinos, my guess is that, at least for the time being, they are too tied down by the tea party to try to pursue them.

The tea party has nothing to do with the GOP appealing to minorities.

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

I find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

Yes.  Think you are right about the elitism thing. On immigration, I think its probably a lot like gay rights. Positions on the issues are relative as to rhetoric. Is a candidate who claims they are pro-gay rights because they believe that gay men should be allowed to have sex with each other more gay rights than a opponent of gay rights who just wants to make sure that courts can't force states to accept gay marriage?

Depending on how that is applied to the immigration arguement that really makes  little or no case for the simple reason is that there isn't a single defined way to apply it in your post and thus can be used for either side. The way I think you want it applied is actually a very damning critique of what I think should occur to attract minorities. A long winded way of calling it tokenism. The problem is, in order to accept that premise, you must first accept the notion that hipanics want an open border, unlimited immigration with no restrictions and immediate amnesty for all illegals in the country. I simply don't think that is the case, though that is what certain pressure groups want, but of course they have alterior motives and aren't just about representing there charge.


A fitting and acceptable "compromise" on immigration in general would be to make legal entry more streamlined, and remove some of the hoops to be jumped through. Its also very ideologically compatible since it attacks the bureaucratic beast. On the flip side a realization that some limits based on economic reality (reducing the ratio of unskilled versus skilled workers for instance), and other factors would be the necessary exchange. Sure, you can educate the unskilled, but even that has limits as well based on time and capacity.

[Mehmentum]

They could if they wanted to.  See what Bush did in 2004, after apealing to latinos, he got over 40% of their vote, not bad compared to usual Republican performance. 

The question is if the GOP will want to pursue latinos, my guess is that, at least for the time being, they are too tied down by the tea party to try to pursue them.

The tea party has nothing to do with the GOP appealing to minorities.

Sure they do, the tea party forces Republican candidates to unyeildingly follow their principles, regardless of what any other group thinks.

Latinos tend to hold different priorities and positions than the Tea Party.  This includes but isn't limited to immigration.  For example, Latinos are more liberal than the general population when it comes to the environment.    http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2010/04/08/polls-indicate-high-latino-support-for-climate-change-and-environmental-justic-issues/

Normally, this wouldn’t be a big problem for Republicans.  They have other issues in common with Latino voters (for example, abortion).  Republicans who run in districts and states with large latino populations could moderate their positions on some issues and emphasize others.

However, as long as the Tea Party has a large influence in Republican primaries, any candidate attempting to appeal to Latino’s through this process will be rejected by the Tea Party in favor of a candidate with a purer ideology. 

[Person Man]

They could if they wanted to.  See what Bush did in 2004, after apealing to latinos, he got over 40% of their vote, not bad compared to usual Republican performance. 

The question is if the GOP will want to pursue latinos, my guess is that, at least for the time being, they are too tied down by the tea party to try to pursue them.

The tea party has nothing to do with the GOP appealing to minorities.

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

I find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

Yes.  Think you are right about the elitism thing. On immigration, I think its probably a lot like gay rights. Positions on the issues are relative as to rhetoric. Is a candidate who claims they are pro-gay rights because they believe that gay men should be allowed to have sex with each other more gay rights than a opponent of gay rights who just wants to make sure that courts can't force states to accept gay marriage?

Depending on how that is applied to the immigration arguement that really makes  little or no case for the simple reason is that there isn't a single defined way to apply it in your post and thus can be used for either side. The way I think you want it applied is actually a very damning critique of what I think should occur to attract minorities. A long winded way of calling it tokenism. The problem is, in order to accept that premise, you must first accept the notion that hipanics want an open border, unlimited immigration with no restrictions and immediate amnesty for all illegals in the country. I simply don't think that is the case, though that is what certain pressure groups want, but of course they have alterior motives and aren't just about representing there charge.


A fitting and acceptable "compromise" on immigration in general would be to make legal entry more streamlined, and remove some of the hoops to be jumped through. Its also very ideologically compatible since it attacks the bureaucratic beast. On the flip side a realization that some limits based on economic reality (reducing the ratio of unskilled versus skilled workers for instance), and other factors would be the necessary exchange. Sure, you can educate the unskilled, but even that has limits as well based on time and capacity.

That's what "pushing to the center" would be like for immigration.- Make it safer and easier to come to the United States without neccesarily having "open boarders"...or still staying strong on immigration without  talking about mass deportations or shootings.