Lion of the Blogosphere

Guns, immigration, and Republicans

From a NY Times article dated yesterday:

Bruised by successive presidential defeats in which Hispanic voters played a significant role, Republicans are eager to join in producing legislation that would make it easier for people to immigrate to the United States or stay here in some cases if they entered illegally. The cause has been helped by years of a sputtering economy, which has reduced the flow of illegal immigrants, and thus the red hot anger directed at them, as well as increased border security.

But while Republicans are drawing back from their outspoken stance on immigration, as well as opposition to gay marriage and other social issues, they have found gun rights a secure policy to defend, often with the help of Democrats from conservative states, and are almost certain to oppose any agenda beyond changes to background checks for gun owners.

As much as you may think the NY Times is liberally biased, and certainly the Times is no friend of Republicans, I think this article correctly describes the mood of the Republican party.

Working class whites in states not bordering an ocean really love, love, love their guns. This cuts across party lines. There are working class whites who vote Democratic, but they also love guns. I think I may have underestimated that passion when I thought, a month ago, that the Newtown massacre would result in some sort of gun control legislation. It may still, but it’s no slam dunk.

But with respect to immigration, the people who love it are the elites. And of course the people who want to immigrate, or who have immigrated but want to bring in their families, also desire more immigration, but they don’t really have much control over the agenda of either party. I don’t see much evidence that the average white voter, or even the average black voter, is as pro-immigration as either party. Has any Republican ever lost a primary election because he was too hard on immigration?

The analysis about Hispanics is extremely shortsighted. If Hispanics voted Democratic, why would Republicans want to make it easy for more Hispanics to become American citizens and therefore voters? Oh wait, I know. Republicans think that Hispanics are heavily into Catholicism, therefore they are “natural Republicans” because they must be pro-life. I would tell Republicans, not that they are smart enough to listen to me, if Hispanics don’t care enough about abortion to vote Republican today, what’s going to change tomorrow? I think that the vast majority of Democratic-voting Hispanics don’t really care that much about other people having abortions, and they are not going to vote against their perceived direct interests because Republicans might make abortion illegal.

Do Republicans think Hispanics will be so grateful that they caved in on immigration? The Hispanics who really care about that issue are surely smart enough to know that it’s the Democrats who are really on the side of more immigration and not Republicans.

I predict that, in the future, we will not see Hispanics becoming Republican because of the abortion issue. Instead, I predict that we will start seeing anti-abortion Democrats winning primary elections because of support from Hispanics.

It should be pointed out that Romney lost Ohio, a key swing state with a low Hispanic population, because he couldn’t get enough working class whites to vote for him. And my reading of the exit polls is that working class whites thought that Republicans cared more about the rich. Could this possibly be because an issue that Republicans were most vocal about was to make sure that taxes don’t get raised for the rich?

The final conclusion here is that Republicans just aren’t very smart.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 30, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Posted in Politics

60 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I once had a hoped that Republicans would agree to amnesty for illegal immigrants in exchange for a freeze on all immigration, both legal and illegal, but that is too “outside the box” for most Republicans to think about. No, Republican politicians seem to be for immigration (the legal kind) just as much as Democrats, so the only real sticking point is how soon illegal immigrants will be eligible for citizenship under this latest amnesty.

    On the broader point about what the GOP needs to do to start winning elections, the main thing is that they need to start appealing more to single women, especially to single white women. Alas, the abortion issue is too valuable to the GOP’s base, so I don’t expect them to be able to attract many single white women in the coming years.

    The fact is the GOP is going the way of the Whig Party (as you so astutely observed post-election).

    Jay

    January 30, 2013 at 10:36 PM

    • Single women want free stuff from the government pure and simple. They will not vote Republican. They have no interest in the common good. They don’t want to do for others. They want others to do for them. They want to underpay the labor they hire and they want to be overpaid for their labor. They want a government to enforce rules that give them more than they earn. It is pretty simple really. They cannot become Republican voters.

      Immigration reform isn’t popular with Democratic voters. It is a loser even among Democrats. Of course so was gay marriage until the relentless media coverage endlessly pushing it. Now they will push immigration. I don’t know how long it will take the media to shame people into submission, but they won’t let up until they get de facto open borders. Ironically, bringing third world folks here makes it more like the third world and therefore less attractive to immigrants, so immigrants may be part of the solution in a sick kind of way, but not before they destroy any affordable places to live. The Nebraska prairie is looking better every day. I mean who would leave clean affordable California to go to Texas if it weren’t for the fact that every affordable place in California has been destroyed?

      not too late

      January 31, 2013 at 7:41 AM

      • Hispanics vote Democrat for substantial welfare benefits. They can’t support that Sacred Catholicism and resulting perpetual Bambino Booms without that secured, first.

        Food and shelter is the basic building block in the foundation.

        EVERYTHING warned of in the first amnesties has indeed come true.

        Firepower

        January 31, 2013 at 10:15 AM

      • It’s not just single white women; single white MEN want free stuff and BigGov security too.. The voting gap for women was 24 %; the voting gap for men was 18%. 51% of American adults are unmarried. They vote for BigGov security.

        jz

        January 31, 2013 at 11:41 AM

  2. “Republican politicians seem to be for immigration (the legal kind) just as much as Democrats”

    During the debate, Romney said he wanted to “staple a green card” on every STEM diploma.

    youngreact

    January 30, 2013 at 11:41 PM

    • So, why isn’t
      Brandon and all
      his white compadres
      lining up to fill engineering jobs

      Firepower

      January 31, 2013 at 2:48 PM

  3. I wonder if hispanics will end up being a democratic demographic like organized labor where they vote democrat no matter how little they actually get from democratic politicians.

    Voting democrat as a union member means at best, you’ll be spared right-to-work legislation. Maybe on a national level you’ll see some favorable NLRB appointments. You can forget about card check, updates to Taft-Hartley, or any new OSHA legislation being passed.

    Labor’s essentially caught between a rock and a hard place here; vote for the guys who take you for granted or vote for the guys who want to bring back dogs and pinkertons to the picket lines.

    At any rate, I don’t see what the GOP has to gain from trying to out-left the democrats. The whole lower taxes for rich guys plank in the platform mystifies me too.

    Republicans always seem to do best when they can play off people’s fears like they do with gun control. The southern strategy is a perfect example of this following the turbulent 60’s.

    They need to realize that their base consists of NY Post readers & some WSJ readers, that they can scare some Daily News readers onto their side, and that the NYT/financial times crowd is a lost cause.

    High Prole & Proud

    January 30, 2013 at 11:59 PM

    • Organized labor’s days are numbered. As soon as they get enough replacements, the Democrats will turn on them. There are no friends of labor. Both parties serve the elites. There is no real left, only this phony left that serves the interests of elites.

      not too late

      January 31, 2013 at 7:44 AM

    • high prole n proud quzzified:
      I wonder if hispanics will end up being a democratic demographic like organized labor where they vote democrat no matter how little they actually get from democratic politicians!

      Um, let me guess: YES
      FTFY

      Firepower

      January 31, 2013 at 2:50 PM

  4. I don’t think the Republicans will get a majority of the Hispanic vote but a bipartisan compromise will take the immigration issue out of the mid-term elections in 2014. Decrease the overall enthusiasm of the Hispanic vote and appealing to more of them on social issues like abortion, ssm, and the economy will help a lot.

    cesqy

    January 31, 2013 at 12:17 AM

    • Did you say enthusiasm of the Hispanic vote? Hispanics are least enthusiastic voters.

      not too late

      January 31, 2013 at 7:46 AM

    • @cesqy
      You just provided a rather
      complicated way
      of saying:
      “fail”

      Firepower

      January 31, 2013 at 2:51 PM

  5. …or rather, Republican politicians are not very smart. I know you know that Republicans are smarter than Democrats on average.

    Jokah Macpherson

    January 31, 2013 at 12:37 AM

    • Average Republican is smarter than the average democrat but the average democrat politician is a much, much smarter politician than the average republican politician

      anonymous

      January 31, 2013 at 4:57 PM

      • Bingo!

        But it must be pointed out that Mitt Romney is extremely smart. Unfortunately, most other Republicans aren’t as smart as him.

        Could you please make up a pseudonym and not comment as “anonymous”?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM

      • But it must be pointed out that Mitt Romney is extremely smart. Unfortunately, most other Republicans aren’t as smart as him.

        You should do more number crunching of the election results now that the official vote count has been submitted.

        Romney lost because the absolute number of Republicans actually fell compared to 2008. And 2008 was also a low GOP turnout election. Mitt wound up with more overall votes than McCain only because Romney, based on CNN exit polls, won the Independent vote 50-45 over Obama. McCain by contrast lost Independents by 52-44% in 2008. The result was Romney netted 2 million more Independent votes than McCain did but still lost because of an unenthusiastic base.

        Based on CNN exit polls, the voter turnout model for 2012 was D 38%, I 29% and R 32%. Total vote counts came out to 129,064,662. Romney Republicans 96-3%, Independents 50-45%, and lost Democrats 92-7%.

        In 2008, CNN’s voter turnout model was D 39%, I 29% and R 32%. The total vote count was 131,313,820. McCain won Republicans 90-10%, lost Independents 44-52%, and lost Democrats 89-10%.

        The total number of Republican votes for 2012 was 41,300,692 (0.32 * 129,064,662).

        The total number of Republican votes for 2008 was 42,020,422 (0.32 * 131,313,820).

        Romney lost almost 800,000 Republicans compared to McCain’s already dreadful performance.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 31, 2013 at 10:01 PM

  6. You misread economic conservatives. They are smarter than Democrats and social conservatives, but they lack compassion. They have a direct interest in promoting Hispanic immigration to undermine the working class. Many of them dislike social conservatives, and “giving in” on immigration to promote their wants undermines social conservatives. People like Karl Rove are realistic enough to understand that immigration reform harms the GOP in the short run, but they hope to increase Hispanic Republicanism over time because they see the immigration as inevitable. Many Jewish and immigrant conservatives identify with the transformative immigrant narrative.

    Though you are right that Hispanic immigrants won’t vote Republican in large numbers, GSS shows that socially conservative values would be the best means of persuading them.

    Gun rights issues are pretty complex. This issue unites libertarians, constitutionalists, and veterans. It involves a red-state sport, obviously. However, most people do not realize that guns are a new piracy cause. Since the far left doesn’t care much about selectivity in who can purchase guns, it makes little difference that early adopters of printable guns will be only those who can afford the expensive 3D printers. Even before the printers become cheaper, printer owners could offset the cost by selling guns, especially if the guns are banned, which would increase black-market value. One group is currently offering downloadable versions of the AR-15 for free.

    nooffensebut

    January 31, 2013 at 1:26 AM

    • Wow, this seems like a formula for Republican defeats as far into the future as one can see. And, downloading and fabricating a firearm does you little good if it is illegal to own and use.

      CamelCaseRob

      January 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM

      • Most gun control concerns sale, not ownership. The vast majority of my music collection is illegal to own and use, but it sounds pretty good. I wonder what sort of sentence a jury would hand a man who saved his family from an intruder with an illegal gun.

        nooffensebut

        February 1, 2013 at 12:37 AM

  7. Economic security comes first for most voters, and poor people like it when government gives them aid. That’s why poor Catholic Latinos vote for Democrats, and it’s the same reason why poor blacks started voting for Democrats 80 years ago. Stop and think about that for a moment.

    80 years ago, the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were still within living memory. There were still Civil War veterans walking around. And Democrats were the party of Southern Segregationists and the Ku Klux Klan. And a majority of blacks voted for FDR anyway, because of his anti-poverty policies.

    Pocketbook issues always come first, except for voters who have their economic security nailed down, and are free to vote on other issues.

    DaveinHackensack

    January 31, 2013 at 2:43 AM

  8. Democrats are complete liars. Democrats ARE the true party of the rich, the elite, the strange socialist/capitalist + culturally liberal/totalitarian hybrid elite.

    Republicans should start ditching free trade/free markets, Ayn Rand libertarianism, cultural liberalism and pro-immigration.

    Become a socialist/protectionist, anti-immigration, pro-gun, slightly culturally conservative party with welfare benefits regional/secessionist/separatist Party. That’s a formula that would win. Why?

    Urban places = Mostly liberal
    Rural/suburban places = More conservative

    SWPL Whites (e.g. poor brainwashed hipsters) and the rich White liberals (e.g. Al Gore, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Bill Clinton) are a huge drag down in the coalition. They will never ever ditch their support for Blacks/Hispanics, despite the fact that White liberals live in nearly all white enclaves, send them to expensive majority white private schools and socialize with other white liberals plus a couple of good Asians thrown in. White liberals are driving gentrification in major US cities but *gasp* are not called racist for doing so.

    Blacks and Hispanics are a lost cause. They will always vote for race. And money/welfare. And listen to white liberals when they tell them that black/Hispanics babies should be aborted. Most abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods. And most babies aborted are minorities.

    In fact “poor neighborhoods with crime and high abortion rates” is a proxy for Black/Hispanic. The anti-abortion movement is mostly lower class white chicks.

    70% of Asians, 70% of Hispanics and +90% of Blacks voted for Barack Hussein Obama. And people tell me that demographics don’t matter?

    First of all we should disarm the rich white liberals and good Asians. And then Blacks/Hispanics will be dealt with.

    How to get rid of rich white liberal elitists (5% of the population) is a good question. Poor SWPL hipsters are more easily convertible to demographical realities. It’s the upper-class white liberals that are a huge problem.

    56dftv

    January 31, 2013 at 5:35 AM

  9. Abortion has little to do with “women’s rights” in the USA. It’s mostly about race.

    Rich white liberal women just like shouting about depraved lower IQ women to have their babies aborted, and the Snooki and Bristol Palin type girls get angry about their shouting because they think it’s directed at them.

    Rich white liberal women should just come out of their closets and admit their racism.

    56dftv

    January 31, 2013 at 5:37 AM

  10. IF comprehensive immigration reform passes in the next couple of years, the Republicans will receive a smaller portion of the Hispanic vote than it does today.

    If President Obama gets to have a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden surrounded by liberal Hispanic activisit, liberal Democratic senators and a bunch of cute Hispanic kids, the Democrats will receive all of the credit

    Immigration reform will be the death of any conservative party in the U.S. and will cause the U.S. to become a one party state. The Democratic Party will just rename it self the Institutional Democratic Party and politics will be fight over tax collecting to fund the welfare state.

    Demographic changes will eventually destroy the Republican Party. Immigration Reform is just a way to commit suicide instead of waiting for the higher birtrates of non-whites to do it.

    superdestroyer

    January 31, 2013 at 6:22 AM

  11. Hispanics are not socially conservative. They favor gay marriage and abortion rights at a higher rate than the general population. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/latinos-endorse-legal-abortion/
    I don’t where this image of Hispanics as “devout Catholics” comes from. My conception of them has always been laidback, fiesta-loving, “let the good times roll” types. Hispanics are family-oriented and not anti-religion, yes, but they’re not evangelicals. Fairly moderate and culturally pretty tolerant overall. Which is not good for Republicans.

    My guess as to why Republicans are laying off gay marriage and immigration: money. Their big money donors don’t want them to take strong positions on these issues, as many of them are culturally liberal, multicultural, and make money off cheap labor. On guns, their donors don’t feel that strongly. Sure they see owning guns as some stupid redneck diversion, but they don’t feel threatened in Manhattan and DC. I’d also mention that some of their donors, from the gun industry, have a lot to lose from gun control.

    Another aspect to consider is that gun owners are a well organized group, while anti-immigration activists hardly even exist and can’t punish politicians at the ballot box. Remember how McCain killed JD Hayworth in the primary? Christian Righters are an organized group too, which is why the Republicans are still theoretically anti-gay marriage, but they’re shrinking in importance, so it’s increasingly safe to ignore them. Especially considering that gay marriage is more a state issue than a federal issue (like immigration and banning semiautomatics).

    Ryan

    January 31, 2013 at 6:47 AM

    • Politicized religion is a very anglosphere thing. Many people around the world, even if they are highly religious, consider it a private/community matter. So Hispanics might not want to make abortion illegal, but if someone in the church/community gets pregnant there will be very strong social pressure for them to keep it and the guy to marry. The application of unofficial social pressure is an important part of many cultures policing methods. Its something that we lost in the west with multi-culturalism and the subsequent moral subjectivisim. Now you can’t judge anyone for anything, and if its legal its ok morally.

      asdf

      January 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM

      • Um, no. Religion as a private matter is a new idea. The rulers back in the day weren’t idiots. They knew how to use religion to indoctrinate and unite the people. The last thing elites ever want is for the people to come after them. Enter religion, which is used to define the nation’s enemies and channel energy where elites want it to go. The priest is on the front line for the elites of any society.

        acapulco fish

        January 31, 2013 at 7:47 PM

    • It is easier than polling data. More than 50% of Hispanic children are born to single mothers. Any demographic group with that statistics is not motivated at all by social conservative issues. Also, Hispanics to not attend church any more than white and much less than blacks.

      Church attendance being a sign of social conservatism only applies to whites.

      I suspect that the comprehensive immigration reform is a huge gift tot he cheap labor Republicans right before the Republicans complete their collapse and cease to exist.

      superdestroyer

      January 31, 2013 at 8:46 AM

    • This is why Lion’s prediction:

      “Instead, I predict that we will start seeing anti-abortion Democrats winning primary elections because of support from Hispanics.”

      will not come to pass. Lion is right that Hispanics won’t become Republican anytime soon, either.

      Anthony

      January 31, 2013 at 12:11 PM

    • Yes, that’s very true, and perhaps explains why we don’t hear as much of the “natural Republican” nonsense as we used to. I think even the GOP has caught on to that. However, “they’re not evangelicals”?? Mmmmm, maybe not in California, but their numbers in Texas a growing rapidly, and the Texas GOP has been far more accommodating to them than their CA counterparts. There are a number in the legislature and at local levels. Romney won Texas with 57%. In a state which, like California, is already majority non-white Anglo, you can’t do that without significant numbers of Hispanics, so I think the Dems’ plan to turn Texas blue will be quite disappointing to them for at least another 10 years.

      Furthermore, immigration (at least from Mexico) is a red herring issue which will fade from public view in the not too distant future for the following reasons:

      1) Like everywhere else around the world, Mexican fertility rates have fallen off a cliff, so it won’t be long before there simply won’t be quite as many to make the trip (and its attendant risks) in the first place.

      2) The Mexican economy is in far better condition than the status quo stateside, so why come here if you have a better chance of a job there? At the rate things are going with the domestic economy (“poised” for recovery, doncha know), and with incompetence and venality in The White House ratified by a low-intelligence electorate, perhaps it won’t be long before Americans start sneaking across the border to get jobs in Mexico!

      3) It will also be a matter of time before the Mexican government starts taking the drug wars seriously and makes some ruthless moves to eradicate it, if only to promote tourism. I think Mexico now is at the same stage Colombia was back in the 90s.

      sestamibi

      January 31, 2013 at 11:39 PM

  12. Why would anyone think catholic hispanics would vote pro-life when white catholics don’t? Only baptists and snakehandlers vote pro-life.
    The premise of all this is wrong, it presupposes that a reasonable person should want republicans to win, that there’s some benefit to having republicans in office. If you’re related to the Koch’s, if you’re really itching to move your call center overseas so you can save 10% of your costs or if you like locking people up for smoking pot, the republicans are for you. If you’re a decent human being and patriotic american, you would recognize republicans are no friend of yours.

    S_McCoy

    January 31, 2013 at 6:53 AM

    • “Only baptists and snakehandlers vote pro-life.”

      and Orthodox Jews.

      not too late

      January 31, 2013 at 7:51 AM

      • I’ve been tangentially connected with the pro-life movement for years. Its leadership and core membership are totally dominated by Catholics.

        You’re probably looking at overall voting stats for Catholics, but a large percentage of Catholics don’t practice. Their voting practices are mostly indistinguishable from other people in their socioeconomic groups. Only a minority U.S. Catholics go to church regularly, and they were more likely to vote for Romney than others in their socioeconomic groups.

        hick

        January 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM

    • I don’t see how any sane, decent, honest, patriotic person could be a Democrat.

      Tarl

      January 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

  13. I think the template for Republicans should be to systematically go after Democrat interest groups. They did that in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan, with right-to-work legislation and curbs on public employee unions. This has systematically defunded the Democrats. In Indiana, the Republicans now hold the governor’s mansion as well as supermajorities in both houses. Democrats are totally marginalized.

    There are a number of ways to do this at the national level. Of course, you can’t cave on immigration, that just creates more Democrats. Actually going in the other direction, with Arizona style immigration enforcement, is what is needed.

    If illegals can’t get their kids educated for free, they will leave. Proving that you are here legally before you are allowed to enroll in school is the enforcement mechanism that would be most effective. Illegals would be running towards the exits if we did that.

    If you are pulled over and can’t produce an ID, you should be held until the police can verify who you are. If you are an illegal, you should be deported. It’s pretty simple.

    Buzzcut

    January 31, 2013 at 7:49 AM

    • Proving that you are here legally before you are allowed to enroll in school is the enforcement mechanism that would be most effective. Illegals would be running towards the exits if we did that.

      Except that the SCOTUS ruled in 1982 in “Plyler v. Doe” that illegal kids have a “constitutional right” to “free” k-12 education funded by you and me. That’s one of the magnets that brought them here in the 80s–which led to the disastrous 1986 amnesty.

      Activist

      January 31, 2013 at 11:49 AM

      • If you read the decision, you will see that it says that STATES cannot do that. The federal government could, but chooses not to.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 31, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    • “If you are pulled over and can’t produce an ID, you should be held until the police can verify who you are.”

      A society in which going for a walk in your neighborhood with nothing in your pockets is *illegal* is a society I have no desire to live in. Having to carry papers on one’s person is the line in the sand between a basically-free society and a police state.

      Kyo

      January 31, 2013 at 12:30 PM

      • That would be true in a society that wasn’t flooded with illegals. Get rid of them, and then we can go back to “no papers required”.

        Tarl

        January 31, 2013 at 2:39 PM

      • This is a case of being so principled that you are stupid and your enemy uses your decency against you. I don’t want to be asked for papers either, and if we don’t have idiots on the police force in our own home towns, then we won’t have the police asking for papers from ordinary folks speaking with ordinary American accents. The police will be using the law as necessary with folks who barely speak English. Duh.

        not too late

        January 31, 2013 at 7:56 PM

    • Oops, I missed the “pulled over” part. Presuming that that means “pulled over while driving”, then I don’t have a problem with drivers being licensed; automobiles are dangerous things. And you can keep your license in a locked glove compartment and never have to think about it. Just as long as they’re not asking passengers for papers.

      Kyo

      January 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM

    • “If illegals can’t get their kids educated for free, they will leave. Proving that you are here legally before you are allowed to enroll in school is the enforcement mechanism that would be most effective. Illegals would be running towards the exits if we did that.”

      There are several problems with this. In some cases the children are in fact natural born US citizens, even if their parents are illegals. It would be hard to deny education to a child that was a US citizen.

      If you could do this, some illegals with foreign born children might self deport, but many would not. You would end up with large numbers of illegal children hanging around with nothing to do and getting into criminal activity.

      “If you are pulled over and can’t produce an ID, you should be held until the police can verify who you are. If you are an illegal, you should be deported. It’s pretty simple.”

      There are some states like Arizona and Alabama where they have laws close to this. Alabama arrested a German Mercedes-Benz executive who was visiting an Alabama Mercedes manufacturing plant because he was not carrying his passport when stopped for not having a valid license plate tag on his rental car. He was charged with not carrying his papers, but was released when someone else got his passport from the hotel. This was a major embarrassment to Alabama new immigration law, since it appeared the arresting officer followed the statue correctly.

      You have to wonder if foreign company might think twice about locating a plant in a state with laws like Alabama.

      mikeca

      January 31, 2013 at 7:14 PM

  14. I think one theory is that Hispanics, even when given citizenship, won’t vote enough to matter. By immigration reform, Republicans get to look non-racist for once, while helping out their business supporters.

    albert magnus

    January 31, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    • That’s a good theory but it doesn’t matter whether hispanics vote or not. As long as they can be convinced to –register– to vote, they will be on the voter rolls. From there, the democrat machine will ensure their voices are heard whether they personally bother to show up or not.

      anonymous

      January 31, 2013 at 5:04 PM

  15. “Could this possibly be because an issue that Republicans were most vocal about was to make sure that taxes don’t get raised for the rich.?

    The Republicans/Romney never addressed raising taxes on the rich. Obama reframed Romneys view of not raising taxes on anyone. It was Obama who successfully lead the electorate to believe that the rich don’t pay their fair share by repeating that mantra 10,000 times. I see that LION was successfully indoctrinated.

    Take away: repeating a message makes it true.

    jz

    January 31, 2013 at 11:34 AM

  16. Kiddy Fiddler Bob, the Administration’s point man on the immigration amnesty, is in serious poltiical trouble:

    Under-age sex scandals, hiring illegal immigrants, illegal campaign contributions from mysterious “businessmen” with Italian surnames, Medicare fraud–it’s all coming down on him at the same time.

    The MSM is trying to hide how far the corruption goes down with KFB. Blogs like this one should keep the pressure up so they don’t get away with it.

    Activist

    January 31, 2013 at 11:52 AM

    • Rubio sounds defensive because of the criticism he’s garnered from the right. Apparently he didn’t realize writing an amnesty bill for Obama might not go down well with the base. Marco must not be very smart he’s probably lost the 2016 nomination before it the primaries even began. To hell with him; bring on Scott Walker, Bob McDonnell and Senator Ted Cruz.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 31, 2013 at 10:06 PM

  17. Lion wrote,

    “And my reading of the exit polls is that working class whites thought that Republicans cared more about the rich. Could this possibly be because an issue that Republicans were most vocal about was to make sure that taxes don’t get raised for the rich?”

    Non-white proles are pro-immigration for ethnic-affinity reasons, but beyond that, this is largely like low taxes for the rich: an upper-class stance. The movement is fueled by cheap-labor Republicans, Conquistador-American leaders (bipartisan!), elitist SWPLs. and public union honchos.

    Depressed wages as a consequence of flooding the labor markets: these interests can and do say, “not my problem.”

    What is it that el partido de Carlos Rove has to offer to working-class whites?

    amac78

    January 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM

    • Ethnic activists are not concerned with lowered wages because they want to gain wealth by looting white people’s assets, not by working. The more ethnics, the easier to loot white wealth. Hence they want more and more of “their people” in the country.

      Activist

      January 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM

  18. The winning strategy for Republicans is very simple. In order to get the votes that they need they need to win the Midwest by winning the blue-collar vote. In order to get the youthful, high-tech activists that they need they need to win the libertarian vote. Here are the policies:

    Protective Tariff “Made in USA by American workers” policy
    Anti-immigration “American jobs for Americans, wages are too low”
    Pro-Abortion
    Pro-Gun (the candidate would be shown hunting with blue-collar guys)
    Pro-Gay Marriage
    Pro-Straight Marriage (give married couples, particularly those who reproduce, special benefits)
    Anti-Censorship
    Anti-Police State
    Taxes? Why talk about that?

    T

    January 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM

    • Most “youthful, high-tech activists” are not libertarians. The number of young libertarians is vastly swamped by young Obamaniacs, and no amount of gay marriage-pandering is going to win them over to the fusty ole’ GOP.

      However boringly corrupt and cynical the Dems are in reality, the youth of this world are intoxicated with revolutionism, and this manna only the god of Leftism can deliver. “Anti-censorship”? Our universities adore speech codes. Protective tariffs? All humanity is American! Low wages? What’s a wages? Peace Land Bread! “No more Tsars, Daddy! Only workers in a workers’ State!”

      Never mind that libertarians are anti-Right revolutionists themselves . . . .

      Lucius Somesuch

      January 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    • Wrong frame. The correct frame is: what is right and what is wrong? Winning elections is not primary.

      Andrew E.

      January 31, 2013 at 3:05 PM

  19. Good article but Hispanics will not rally behind Democratic pro-lifers (do many really exist?). Democrats have a lock on many states and cities but we are not seeing any internecine battles over abortion.

    Demographics are already at the tipping point at the presidential level. Republicans could theoretically hang on for 10-15 years in Congress. But by being so stupid on nearly every single issue they are turning off their white base while not attracting any of the voters that hate them.

    We truly are looking at California writ large in terms of U.S. politics.

    AssNeck

    January 31, 2013 at 1:07 PM

  20. Part of the problem for Republicans is big business and big agriculture like immigration because it provides a pool of cheap labor. Both big business and big agriculture are major contributors to the Republican party.

    The other solution to the immigration problem is to make it so difficult for illegals to live in the US that they self-deport. This was the Romney proposal, although he was vague on how he would implement it. The most obvious way is to make it very difficult for illegals to work in the US. Things like require green card verification and stiff fines for employers that hire illegals without checking. Of course that is not going to happen, because business and agriculture would never stand for it, and they are the big contributors to politicians.

    I remember in the 1980s I visited a friend staying in Switzerland. The first thing she did was to take my passport to the local police station and register that I would be staying with her. All foreigners were required to register with the local police where they were staying. Hotels did this for most tourists, but I was staying at her home. I bet Switzerland had very little problem with illegals.

    mikeca

    January 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM

  21. The gloom and doom about the Republicans voting for amnesty is premature. I am fairly confident that we will get a majority of Repubs and a few Dems to block this pile of garbage.

    Endless whining won’t do any good. I can assure that the Repubs are very skittish about this amnesty and supporting. Once that smarmy little twerp Rubio is revealed to be punk he is, then support will fall apart.

    Mike

    January 31, 2013 at 1:19 PM

    • I don’t know if we can stop it. My congressman and senator in PA, who have always opposed amnesty, are seeming open to the idea. Both are highly intelligent men who must know that we would be legalizing 12 milion Democrats and committing suicide as a party under this plan. But I will fight. I will call. Every week.

      For some reason our elected Republicans do not feel the need to honor their promises to us on immigration. Always looking for a way to kill our party and country. Only thing which will stop them is threats. Threats to stay home. Every Republican must pledge to stay home in 2014 rather than vote for an amnesty-supporting Republican.

      Jack

      January 31, 2013 at 6:27 PM

  22. @Mike –

    Perhaps you are right and the Repubs are skittish, though their death-wish impulse seems to be consistent and strong. Moths fluttering around the amnesty flame.

    It may help to write Congress and remind them that amnesty and open floodgates remain highly unpopular outside the Beltway. I assume jaded staffers tally emails rather than read for content, so a simple, quickly-worded statement would suffice.

    “During this long-lasting recession, some politicians want to flood the labor market, driving down wages and keeping unemployment high. Americans near the bottom would suffer the most — although recent STEM graduates would be in for a shock, as well. That’s why I am against the increased immigration and amnesty of the proposed ‘Reform.'”

    House of Representatives. Senate.

    amac78

    January 31, 2013 at 5:58 PM

    • NumbersUSA should focus on breaking Rubio away from the gang of 8 (soon to be the gang of 7 when the FBI hauls away Sen. Menendez D-Dominican Republic.) If Rubio falls away from the legislation then it won’t get out of the Senate because Democrats will need 12 of 45 Republicans to defect on motion for cloture. Senator Mike Lee of Utah has already ditched the group and only McCain and the soon to be primaried Lindsay Graham are the only remaining Republicans who voted to support the 2007 amnesty.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 31, 2013 at 10:09 PM

  23. If Menendez goes down, the open borders lobby will lose a lot of pro-amnesty pull. Or Menendez’s departure will at least slow the legislation down enough that 2014 midterms will start to loom large in the minds of nervous officeholders up for re-election.

    With bad economic news coming out this week, the closer to midterms we get, the less likely amnesty will pass.

    Keep up the blogging pressure on Menendez. If he has to resign, there’s a chance (a slim one, true) that Christie will put a reasonable Republican in his place.

    Activist

    January 31, 2013 at 10:00 PM

  24. How Ironic. The Aztecs will finally win, 500 years later. This time they get both continents.

    islandmommy

    January 31, 2013 at 10:19 PM

  25. The Republican Party will gain an electoral majority again by taking advantage of a fissure within the Democratic Party that will erupt. When it will erupt is anyone’s guess, but the last two Presidents to change the party (Nixon and Reagan) did so by peeling off a significant faction of the Democratic Party: Nixon got Southerners, Reagan got evangelicals. The Republican Party will continue getting more and more white working class voters: this is why the Midwestern states are trending Republican (but no one in the media seems to realize this). Then all you’re left with in the Democratic Party are white liberals and minorities. One of these groups will break off.

    Bilbo Baggins

    February 8, 2013 at 1:21 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: