Immigration

Can the GOP Embrace Hispanics and Small Government at the Same Time?

The Republican coroners dissecting Mitt Romney's campaign will likely submit competing diagnoses for what ultimately did him in, but at this point many of them seem to agree that the GOP's refusal to court Hispanics is a top contender.

|

The Republican coroners dissecting Mitt Romney's campaign will likely submit competing diagnoses for what ultimately did him in, but at this point many of them seem to agree that the GOP's refusal to court Hispanics is a top contender.  

"If we don't do better with Hispanics we're going to be out of the White House forever," said Republican strategist Ana Navarro as the networks were projecting Romney's loss. This morning, the Wall Street Journal chided Romney for "failing to appeal more creatively to minority voters," and concluded that "The GOP needs to leave its anti-immigration absolutists behind."

Obama would have lost if the Hispanic vote had been split evenly (as opposed to 75-23 in Obama's favor), and that's going to be the case in every election going forward. As John Zogby notes, "the white percentage of the vote will only continue to decline with each new election."

In the wake of last night's loss, Republican Senator, Romney surrogate, and Hispanic person Marco Rubio proposed a vague idea:

"In the next Congress, I am committed to working on upward mobility policies that will ensure people who work hard and play by the rules can rise above the circumstances of their birth and leave their children better off," the Florida Republican continued.

"The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them. I look forward to working on these goals with my new and returning colleagues in Congress and hope the president will get behind our efforts."

Republicans actually did a pretty good job of communicating their beliefs. When offered Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, and Rick Perry–three small-government candidates who were also aware of the importance of Hispanic voters–Republicans instead nominated a candidate who thinks illegal immigrants should deport themselves.

This decision, notes Politico's Jonathan Martin, cost the GOP big time: "In 2004, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics."

What I suspect Rubio and like-minded Republicans are actually saying–especially when they talk about creating an environment where people "can rise above the circumstances of their birth"–is that the GOP needs to change its policies, rather than do a better job of selling the ones it has. Writing at National Review Online, Heather Mac Donald simultaneously argues that Hispanics won't take the GOP as it is, and that the changes required aren't worth it: 

It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.

A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — "it favors only the rich;" "Republicans are selfish and out for themselves;" "Republicans don't represent the average person"– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

[A] strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children are poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers' aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

In light of what it would cost the GOP to court the Hispanic vote, Mac Donald concludes that "a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future." To which the obvious reply is: The Hispanic vote is growing whether Republicans embrace it or not. With its relevance (and down the road, existence) at stake, the GOP should probably find a way to sell small government and free markets to people who could–judging by Mac Donald's own observations–benefit from both.

NEXT: Romney's Future Role in GOP Unclear

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. http://www.reuters.com/article…..9K20121107

    Puerto Rico wants to become a state. The next design of the flag is going to need some serious contemplation.

    1. Can’t we just give them back to Spain with a little note saying “Sorry about that Spanish American War, we got a little carried away”

      1. I like the second one better.

      2. How about three rows of seventeen? We could just have the blue canton stretched across the top.

        1. Nope. Let’s just change the star field count. Start changing the stripes and things will just start looking silly.

          1. I’ll get around Reason’s ridiculous spam filter by saying:

            Yep.

          2. Nope. Let’s just change the star field count. Start changing the stripes and things will just start looking silly.

            I was being silly. They had to change the flag law after Louisiana gained statehood because it brought the count to 18 stars and 18 stripes.
            http://www.crwflags.com/art/hi…..nrouge.gif
            They realized eventually we would have the pinstriped flag.

    2. I always look at that and say, “Oh, Ohio!”

    3. I don’t see why the average citizen would want to. Most don’t pay federal income taxes and they get the full benefit of our military protection.

    4. This was probably the final blow to us libertarians today. Damn.

        1. Granting statehood to Puerto Rico would be like adding a half–size Massachusetts to the country.

    5. Meanwhile, Texas might decide otherwise
      http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma…..s-america/

  2. Well, Harry Reid is going to nuke the filibuster rules. Not sure if he can do this for the lame duck session, but he can when the new Congress convenes.

    So that clears one obstacle to comprehensive immigration reform. Thankfully, the Dems can still blame the Republican House for blocking it, so its not like they’re out of excuses.

    1. He can do it either. Adopt new rules in the new session. on the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and can be changed by majority vote.

      or the “nuclear option” during a lame duck.

  3. Apparently, Americans as a whole don’t want small government because better than 98% of the ones who voted, voted for clowns who were promising to give them bigger government.

    1. That’s the message I got out of it. Pretty clearly.

      1. The message I got out of it is that Americans are stuck in binary thinking and the two major parties are quietly aware of it and looking to keep them that way.

      2. I found out that a lot of people will vote for legal weed and also the guy who’ll put ’em in jail for said weed, in the same year. Dumb fucks, we’re a nation of goddamn dumb fucks. Jesus.

        I can’t wait for the whining when Washington has $100 eighths and DEA everywhere.

        BUT WE VOTED FOR OBAMA! HE’S COOL!

        1. Well, one this is for sure. If they want this to work they need to be careful about pricing themselves out of a legitimate legal market. With a $25 VAT tax, and all of the regulation, that might be a problem.

          I think there is a 6 plant clause in the law that let’s them grow six plants, but I am not sure exactly how that works.

          This is all so new that I am probably getting WA and CO laws crossed up at points.

          1. My understanding from talking to my brother who lives in WA is that they legalized possession of up to an ounce for personal recreational use, and left it up to the state-run liquor store commission to figure out how to regulate the living crap out of growing it.

            I’m guessing the latter will be a clusterfuck.

            1. I read that they were going to tax the growers for growing it, then add a 25% tax when he sells to the wholesaler and then a 25% sales tax for the consumer. The cartels are going to love this shit.

              1. Maybe epi, or dunphy can help us out on this. It’s actually hard to find the details of the new laws (my google-fu must be rusty).

                1. It’s legal for recreational use, you can grow up to six plants for your own use, and the supposedly defunct Liquor Store Board is going to sell it.

                  Basically, it’s a sop to a stupid union that got fucked, finally and deservingly, by our referendum on private store liquor sales. So now, the shit market we had in liquor will be replaced by one in weed.

                  It’s better than it being illegal, and it has the added feature of the stores being run by the state. So if the DEA wants to raid one, they’re raiding WA state property and confiscating WA state pot. This could lead to some…interesting results.

                  1. I’m guessing the “grow six plants for your own use” will cause a thriving market of low cost weed that will bury the bureaucratic liquor stores.

                    If you can only be busted for actual sales, not possession, it removes a huge amount of the risk involved for grower/salespeople.

                    1. Plus, openly growing plants outdoors is WAY cheaper than clandestine grow ops indoor.

              2. The state government need to be careful about pricing themselves out of the market. It’s not like everyone illegally growing weed in WA is gonna say, “I’ll give up the huge profits I can make competing against overtaxed and low quality gov’t weed.”

                1. The Supreme Court said in 2005 that the federal Controlled Substances Act preempts state law, so the state law is not a defense to federal charges. Gonzales v. Raich. The big question is how the feds will respond. Maybe the same mealy-mouthed message as to the medical industry people “go about your business under our watchful eye but we reserve the right to arrest/charge you any time. Good luck getting insurance/financing.”

                  1. But the federal Controlled Substances Act also says an officer enforcing a state or local law regarding a federally controlled substance is exempt. So if the state liquorcannabis stores are staffed by enforcement officers of the state, they can’t be convicted by the feds for their operation. The feds will have to wait outside the store y confiscate the pot from the buyers.

  4. Sure they can. But how effective is that when the other party are dividing everyone up by race, gender, color, sexual preference, and anything else they can think of and promising each group more free stuff?

    There are only 2 paths for the GOP to remain a relevant party. Unfortunately the one I see them taking, is to divide everyone up in 2 groups by whatever attribute and promise them all more free stuff than the other party is promising.

    It goes down like this until the debt bubble collapses and all hell breaks lose. Either that or we get smaller, more accountable government, and everyone does their best to tow their own load.

    Which one of those scenarios is most likely to happen?

    1. …tow their own load.

      …toe their own lode.

      1. …The Blue Lion

        (of freedom)

      2. pull their own weight?

  5. The problem is that the GOP’s immigration position is completely contradictory to their supposed support for small government. What could be more intrusive than the government reserving the right to tell you were you are allowed to live and work? When you focus so much of your effort on a contradiction, it leads people to suspect that your claims to support scaling back government are being made in bad-faith–you only want less government for yourself, more government for everyone else.

    1. What could be more intrusive than the government reserving the right to tell you were you are allowed to live and work?

      Umm, let’s see, I dunno, maybe telling you what you can or cannot put into your own body?

      1. I think we can all agree that the various levels of government have all kinds of intrusiveness baked in.

    2. Until we eliminate borders someone will be setting the rules for entry. Telling someone where they can live and work is just a fact of life.

      1. It’s a wonder how the United States survived before 1917 with eliminated borders!

        1. They didn’t have the same public welfare infrastructure in 1917.

          Hell, they barely had an income tax.

          1. What’s Latin for non sequitur?

            1. I believe the term you seek is “derp”

            2. I’m unclear on why comparing the availability of social welfare in 1917 to today is a non sequitur.

              America was quite a different place in 1917, politically and socially. Suggesting that open borders then is equivalent to open borders now seems strange.

              1. fish posited that the alternative to setting rules for entry is eliminating borders. I pointed out that that is not the case, as 300 years of American history — or any intelligent thinking — would attest.

                If you believe the US should set stricter rules for receiving social welfare, I hope you are not surprised to find that I agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the “open borders means eliminated borders” misconception.

                1. Gotcha.

                  There’s some confusion as to what “open borders” means among libertarians. If it means “setting rules for entry,” it’s not often used that way.

      2. But those “rules for entry” need not include:
        1) Rules forbidding US citizens from hiring people who aren’t legal residents.
        2) Rules that make it impossible for most people to become legal residents.

        It’s entirely possible to have (say) “rules for entry” that allow Americans to hire whomever they want and just make sure that immigrants have a legitimate job offer when they come here.

        The current rules are restrictions on *AMERICANS* not foreigners. They prevent Americans from making job offers to people unless they are already legal residents.

      3. Just wait until they start doing it in reverse, because it is inevitable, and they are already starting to say things that give away their intentions.

        Soon enough, you will not be permitted to leave the country. Unless you are an elite official of the state traveling on official state business. There is no avoiding this.

        The amount of revenue that they need to keep this spending train rollling will just increase exponentially and so taxes will rise and rise until people start to flee. This is already happening and will increase with the level of taxation. The only solution will be a Soviet style block on citizens leaving.

  6. This article is absurd in that it has as its premise that Republicans are fans of free markets and limited government.

    The Republicans are like their Whig parents and Federalist grandparents, Mercantilists, the proponents of state control of the economy that Adam Smith was trying to rebut when he wrote The Wealth of Nations.

    The Republicans make insincere noises about loving free markets in order to hoover up votes from people who are hoping for something to balance the implacable hostility of the Democratic party towards liberalism. The Republicans don’t have and never have had any sincere desire to increase economic freedom.

    Thus, to court hispanic votes, the Republicans just have to dial back the “deport Messicans took our jerbs” rhetoric and be more honest about their interventionist policy aims. Which is quite feasible.

    1. I don’t think it’s gonna happen. Many R’s are reasonable enough to see your point. However the far right spin machine on the radio and Fox News isn’t going to yield an inch. And they hold sway over a large enough proportion of the rank and file In the party to force every politician to pass a litmus test in any primary.

  7. …should probably find a way to sell free markets and limited government to people who aren’t white and/or rich.

    Since they’ve been unable to sell that to the black community over the past few decades, despite the fact that the black community is demonstratively poorer for its close association with the Democrats, I think the GOP is screwed.

  8. About the time it dawns on the GOP that we don’t need to wall off Mexico, the TSA will decide we have to wall off Mexico. And Canada.

    1. To keep us from leaving. Revenue, need MOAR!

      1. Doesn’t matter. There is this little thing called, “FATCA”.

  9. So how is the Libertarian Party doing with Latino’s. Were tens of thousands showing up for Garry Johnson campaign events?

    1. That’s a good question, maybe they could do a Spanish version.

      Come to think of it, maybe we could send them translated copies of the books of Bastiat, Toqueville, Friedman, Hayek, etc…

  10. Can the GOP Embrace Hispanics and Small Government at the Same Time?

    1. They had the opportunity but they nominated a big government Obama clone instead this year.

      1. Funny, they did that last time also. I am starting to think that they cannot learn from their mistakes.

  11. Can the GOP Embrace Hispanics and Small Government at the Same Time?

    I’m gonna guess they’ll embrace neither, at least not until they get their asses handed to them so thoroughly that they get a friggin clue.

    1. Didn’t Republican favorites Allen West and Mia Love just lose? and how many seats did the democrats gain in the house? If this isn’t what an ass kicking looks like, then what is?

  12. The only way for the GOP or the larger liberty movement to gain inroads in the Hispanic community is to be able to successfully explain and articulate how unfettered markets, while at times cruel and destructive, over time lead to greater advances in income and living standards across all income groups. The GOP and even many a libertarian have taken it as an article of faith at this point that no longer needs to be articulated well. Reagan was the last one to really put it in a pithy way with the “rising tide raises all ships” remark.

    That said, envy is still the thing that most animates people these days, most especially anyone on the left. They’d rather lose $10 and have the rich guy lose $100,000 than they gain $10 and the rich guy gain $50,000.

    1. That’s not just a feature of the left. All humans have a built-in “fairness” sense that leads them to make economically irrational choices similar to your example in behavioral experiments.

      These studies are showing more and more that economic activity is not always rational–as if we needed economic behavioral studies to know that. What we should be learning is that policy that values simplicity is likely to be inadequate if your goal is human well-being. “I got mine, fuck off,” for example, may not represent a rational or fair outcome.

      1. … but “I want, gimme!” does? 😉

        1. Don’t feed it.

      2. Hello Rawls. Welcome back from the grave.

    2. They’d rather lose $10 and have the rich guy lose $100,000 than they gain $10 and the rich guy gain $50,000

      This is one of the main tenants of progressivism. Envy. The other one is control. Envy and control seem to go very well together. They use envy to acheive more control.

      1. I’m pretty tired of people dismissing any and all possible discussion of wealth inequality or the notion that the rich, not the poor, have been gaming the system to their favor with tired, lame psychobabble. None of you is rich, so not only are you being a Scrooge-like caricature in your dismissal of human need, you’re doing it on behalf of other people you will never meet.

        What if it turns out that liberals aren’t motivated by envy? Will you have to address the issue then? Or is evading the issue the whole point?

        1. Don’t feed it.

        2. What if it turns out that liberals aren’t motivated by envy?

          Yeah, or what if gravity suddenly stops working tomorrow?

          1. It’s not exactly envy – at least, not always. It’s more like a dog-in-the-manger attitude. It isn’t so much that they want what the “rich” have – it’s that they don’t want anyone to be richer than someone else.

  13. Can the GOP Embrace Hispanics and Small Government at the Same Time all?

    No.

    And fixed.

  14. Obama wins second term! Women and minorities hardest hit!

    1. only because he loves them and wants them to get in the damn car.

  15. …the GOP should probably find a way to sell small government and free markets to people

    Very easy to say (snarkily) but how exactly do you expect this to happen? These supposed economic refugees sound pretty much standard left-wing folks.

    As a supporter of increased legal immigration, these class-warfare comments give me pause.

    1. Not every brown skinned person thinks alike.

      1. No shit, huh?

        The majority of Hispanics in America are white, so what exactly is your point?

        The majority of black people who vote Democrat ain’t exactly being served well by their policies, yet receive 90+ of their votes. Why?

        1. Maybe the anwser might be in the recent documentairy movie “Runaway Slave” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55aujTwuJY8

    2. …the GOP should probably find a way to sell small government and free markets to people

      Sure. Because that’s working out so well for the Libertarians.

      1. Are you a floatee – or a sinker stinker? 🙂

  16. Goin’ to Wally-World in a few.

    Who thinks that they are actually gonna have any ammo left?

    1. Me.

      Around here, people will hit the stores for guns, but they tend to keep 20 to 50 rounds per gun. Baffles mew hat they’re thinking.

      1. mew hat

        … me what …

        1. I like the “baffled mew hat” formulation better. Has a “tow the lion” ring to it.

      2. The walmart I go to sells out the day they get shit, election or no.
        I’ll ask the lady working the counter if they had extra business today and give a report upon arriving home.

        They are that much cheaper than the competition. They get these ammo cans full (1600rds) of cci mini-mags for like $120; they’re gone on arrival. That and the $19 100 packs of federal 9mm fmj. I’ve compared with online prices and after shipping walmart comes out well ahead.

      3. Yeah, saw some dude on the “Doomsday Prepper” show (which I love) who had, like 60 guns. I’m thinking, I can only fire two at once. I have 5 people in my house, all of whom can shoot, and….I dunno….20 or so guns.

        It’s AMMO I’m stocking up on! Not guns.

        Just getting into reloading – fun, saves money, barter-able skill…me like.

        1. Just getting into reloading – fun, saves money, barter-able skill…me like.

          Plan on getting into reloading when I graduate, I barely have enough time to hit the range now.

          And yes, for those who haven’t seen it Doomsday Preppers is an awesome show.

          Okay, I am really leaving now, I’ll report back on what the walmart lady says.

          1. Be well, Citizen

            1. Well, they had ammo but nothing that was on sale.

              Bought a few boxes of 9mm to replenish from the last shoot.

              Fuck man, have you guys been to walmart lately?

              Dang it is trashy.

  17. Can the GOP Embrace Hispanics and Small Government at the Same Time?

    Neither.

  18. Can the GOP Embrace Hispanics and Small Government at the Same Time?

    Neither.

    Yup, they should work on the small government thing first. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.

    1. The issue is that they’re failing with Hispanics because the Left has successfully painted them as limited govt types while they’re actually not. Moving more forcefully into free market economics will not gain them any inroads with hispanics and may very well cost them (although perception as it is suggests that there is not much more damage they could endure in that segment of the identity politics population). If anything, the more frightening prospect is that Hispanics being slightly more socially conservative may push the Right into a far less libertarian direction, thereby screwing us out of even the lesser of two evils choice that some are accustomed to making.

      1. Latinos roundly support the Dems on abortion rights.

        http://latinainstitute.org/Latinopoll

        I was pretty shocked when I read that. The Latinos = Catholic conservatives meme is apparently wrong.

        1. Because the Latina Institute is representative of all hispanics…..

          Jesus you’re fucking ignorant.

          Polling data and election results have shown that hispanics are reverse libertarians, “Free shit Army” on fiscal issues and Moral Majority “kill the gheyz and keep the bitches barefoot” on social issues.

          Put Prop 8 and its resounding support in hispanic precincts in your pipe and smoke it.

    2. Yep. Or maybe they could start by just following their own rules. I would have considered voting for the Republican just to get rid of Obama. But when the ham-handed enforcers came out against their own to ensure solidity for Romney, they lost any chance.

  19. Maybe Hispanics are just international Californians. Californians are notorious for leaving California because the taxes and then voting for the very same policies that caused them to leave California in their new homes. Maybe Hispanics are the same and just like big corrupt government like they have at home?

    1. Californians are notorious for leaving California because the taxes and then voting for the very same policies that caused them to leave California in their new homes.

      Said every Coloradan this morning.

      1. Ummm, lot of Hispanics in Colorado. It’s not just Californians fleeing that screwed the pooch for Romney there.

    2. I hope that Stormy’s optimism above is well founded: GOP just needs to be more principled and more honest.

      I’m afraid you are right though. All the non-Cuban-latin people I know (not named ‘Old Mexican’) are just plain old lefties.

    3. Maybe Hispanics are just international Californians.

      Less snooty Massholes?

  20. [N]early one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics.

    The average hispanic female in California has her first kid at 18 years old. It’s pretty hard to make it out of poverty when you refuse to give yourself a chance.

    1. Yeah – unfortunately, that’s my cousin’s daughter in TX (not CA). Saw her a couple yrs ago for the first time since SHE was a little tyke. She had one in tow and one in the oven.

      Now she’s up to FOUR – and, of course, no husband, no visible means of support….shit….gonna be a hard life, cuz.

      1. A friend of mine in Denver joined the Big Sisters program. Her new little “sister” is the second oldest of 5 kids, all of them with a different father. The mother is 36 and……a grandmother. The grandkid, by the way, had a congenital heart defect and needed nearly $200,000 in surgeries before he was a year old. 100% of that was paid for by evil, rich taxpayers who don’t pay their fair share.

      2. There are different reasons for it in TX. The town I went to High School in banned Planned Parenthood a few years before we moved there, refused to distribute those dirty heathen condoms to students and taught abstinence-only in health class, and in a completely unrelated development, had to have a daycare on campus to keep so many girls from dropping out after they got pregnant as Sophomores or Juniors. I was a virgin until college because I was scared shitless of getting stuck there. 10 years later, most of the girls who had kids in high school are either married to guys they wouldn’t have been caught dead with back then or sharing houses so they can babysit for each other while working $10/hour jobs.

  21. I’ve been thinking about this since last night, and I think that Romney did face one serious problem:

    Obama has been in the unique positon of being surrounded by a creepy cult of personality that’s nigh impenetrable.

    This cult was allowed to talk openly about Obama’s greatness in the realm of civil liberties and general great humanity as President.

    My opinion is that Romney nor his campaign cared much about these things– civil liberties, indefinite detention, drone attacks, deportations of illegal immigratns. He was so focused on being the consultant-in-chief, that he just kept mentioning how many jobs he was going to create vs. Obama.

    Had the Romney campaign cared about these issues, they could have hammered on Obama’s record by giving straight facts on the Administration’s record in each of the areas I mentioned above, plus several I didn’t, and at minimum, it would have shamed the Cult of Personality into shutting up- even though they would still vote for him.

    That constant drone from his cult never had any shame, and so their message was allowed to continuously ring out, loud and clear. I seriously think it would have done Obama big damage to force that impenetrable cult of personality into a quiet corner where no one paid attention to them. You won’t ever convince them to withdraw their vote from Obama, but I do believe that you can get them to shut up for the duration of the campaign.

    1. Why exactly would Romney criticize Obama for the policies he also favors?

      If the GOP wanted to hammer Obama about that, they could have nominated Ron Paul (or earlier on, Gary Johnson). They didn’t, and lost the ability to attract enough liberals to swing the election.

      1. And all of the Obama cultist I know don’t have a bit of shame over any of that stuff. They think it is great.

        1. And that should be no surprise.
          I clicked around last night,and there was Sarah Palin. I keep having to qualify myself today! LOL I am not fan whatsoever of Sarah Palin.
          But… she was absolutely right on in her assessment of the night as a disaster for Republicans. She didn’t flinch nor did she sugarcoat it at all. And paralling your comments about the cultists having no shame, last night she said, “It’s all about getting the win.”
          She’s quite right. Doesn’t matter how. This is hardball, all means necessary. If that doesn’t underscore the cynicism and disturbing truth in this dreadfully absurd game, I don’t know what does.

        2. I agree with John: It wouldn’t’ve gotten them to shut up. They’d’ve just shouted it as part of the evidence of how great Obama was, showing that he was pragmatic, a problem-solver, not an ideolog — killing, kissing, whatever was called for. That was the whole point, re-electing him because he was black but could act “white”.

      2. Why exactly would Romney criticize Obama for the policies he also favors?

        I said:

        My opinion is that Romney nor his campaign cared much about these things– civil liberties, indefinite detention, drone attacks, deportations of illegal immigratns.

        What I’m implying here is yes, Romney was alas, the wrong candidate because the GOP went out of their way to pick a candidate that shared Obama’s positions.

        What I’m really saying is that a candidate needs to do that against an Obama presidency. The candidate certainly wasn’t because, as you rightly say, he and Obama had the same positions on these issues.

    2. Had the Romney campaign cared about these issues, they could have hammered on Obama’s record by giving straight facts on the Administration’s record in each of the areas I mentioned above, plus several I didn’t, and at minimum, it would have shamed the Cult of Personality into shutting up- even though they would still vote for him.

      You have more faith in those that pulled the lever for Obama than I. When it comes down to it, even if Ron Paul had ran against Obama, the difference on foreign policy wouldn’t have cost Obama at all. The Neocons would abandon the non-interventionalist for Obama in numbers enough to at least offset the gains by a non-interventionalist, while the two things that really drove Obama’s re-election would persist: EAT TEH RICHIEZZZz!1111!1!11!!!!!! and BUT MY VAGINA!!!!11!11!!111!!!!!

      1. I’ll eat the rich.

        But I ain’t touchin’ THAT vajayjay.

    3. Not sure, Paul. It’s still the economy. Problem is, however, too many consider the “economy” as equivalent to some kind of government assistance or even government employment. The masses seem apathetic in their view of bombing foreigners. Or maybe they buy into the enemy characterization.
      I am not a Repub, but I think Romney, with some errors along the way, ran a darn good campaign, and for a 65 year old guy, he was tireless. I was truly impressed. I don’t think Reagan himself could have done better (in this day and age, mind you). Everything is too far gone.
      But I tend to be contrarian when everybody starts ganging up on someone who is not solely to blame. Romney was fine; now the sleazy pundits got their hindsight. I even defend Bush II now and then when morons think that the meltdown is attributable to him and not a century-long trend. Everybody piles onto these guys when there’s so much more, systemically and culturally, that is to blame.
      You are right that Romney and everyone should be upset about the violence and our civil liberties. But it’s not going to win a general election. People suck; they care only about an income, exclusively, and government provided is just fine too.
      It’s all a shame.

      1. For the record, I believe that Romney was unfairly treated by the opposition, in particular, that whole “most right-wing candidate EVAR!” trope was such utter bullshit, and yet regular folks near and dear to me actually believed it. Frankly, it was depressing.

        He ran a good campaign if your forgive all of his faults as a candidate: A one term bluer-than-blue state governor who had almost no limited government cred. The problem didn’t lie so much in the execution of his campaign, but the very existence of his candidacy.

        I still say that the reason he didn’t hammer on Obama’s weaknesses is because what we saw as an Obama liability, he saw as something he could just do better.

    4. …My opinion is that Romney nor his campaign cared much about these things– civil liberties, indefinite detention, drone attacks, deportations of illegal immigrants…

      Unfortunately, IMHO, Romney shares that apathy with the public. Let’s run through them.

      Civil Liberties. Everyone likes to talk them up. Until a boogeyman appears that civil liberties looks like it’s getting in the way of stopping: terrorism, drugs, kiddie diddlers.

      Indefinite Detention: So long as it’s only Abdul Haji Bombs that’s getting locked up, the general public could give a shit.

      Drone Attacks: Ditto. That may change when they starting shooting at shit in this hemisphere; first in Mexico, then later in the U.S. I think the former happens within O’s 2nd term, the latter within the next 10 years. Sorry sloop, but the American public will spend plenty of women and children’s lives in Pakistan if it means a 5 percent less chance of an airplane blowing up here. (Not that I believe that’s the actual calculus, but that’s the perception. Disagree with it and you get treated like Ron Paul.)

      Deportations of Illegals: Also popular among everyone who isn’t Hispanic. And for some reason, O doesn’t take the heat from them that he should.

      Am I wrong? If the general public doesn’t care about these issues, why would Romney make them an emphasis of his campaign?

      1. Good questions, Gray Ghost. It seemed like the Obama Cult of Personality cared about those things in 2007.

        I don’t know whether the general public cares about them during an actual election.

  22. “In the next Congress, I am committed to working on upward mobility policies that will ensure people who work hard and play by the rules can rise above the circumstances of their birth and leave their children better off,” the Florida Republican continued.

    Seriously?

    This is the Great Brown Hope?

    What about the ponies, dammit?

  23. The question is not “Can the GOP sell small-government to Hispanics?” It has never been the question.

    The question is “Are Hispanic immigrants receptive to small-government ideas?” The last election highlights the fact that white Americans are only so-so on small-government/individual liberty ideals.

    If they are not, and I’ve seen no evidence that shows they are, why should we allow them to become citizens through some kind of amnesty package?

    1. Hispanics are not a bunch of clones thinking in lockstep. Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote and won. Romney got about half of that and lost.

      1. Bush got 44% of a smaller voting population. Romney got 27-ish% of a larger voting population.

        That’s not a good trend.

        And I’m not suggesting Hispanics are clones. When you’re talking aggregate populations broad generalities will and should be applied.

      2. It was actually 40%.

        1. And Bush expanded the government. Back in 2000, he was talking about the government paying for prescription drugs and all that BS.

  24. HOLY FUCK! Headline on Drudge says that Boner is gonna work with the Dems to raise taxes. Prepare your anuses boys, you’re gonna get fucked by BOTH TEAMS now!

    1. they don’t want those defense cuts.

      1. They don’t want to see defense SLASHED, NoVa.

        SLASHED. To DANGEROUSLY LOW LEVELS.

        SLASHED.

        1. Just think of what would happen! Al Qaeda might land ground forces and take over DC!

          1. It’s too late. My brother just got notice that there will be layoffs at his contractor. he’s fine apparently — but the sense i get is these cuts are coming sequestration or not. sequestration might just be an excuse.

            1. Funny, I was recently assured by my managers that nothing was going to happen to any of our programs as long as the D’s controlled the Senate.

    2. And this is new in what way?

      – said every US citizen’s anus

    3. I called this one a long time ago, even if Flopney had won.

      1. Is this the “sacrifice” that Obama was talking about?

        1. Yep, wrapped up in “fairness” with a pretty pink bow called “coming together.”

    4. It’s what the voters want. Right?

      1. This country is so incredibly fucked, holy shit.

        1. You’re just realizing this, dude?!?

          1. There’s a difference between knowing and knowing, bro.

            1. So now you actually feel it in your plums?

              1. My plums are pruned thanks to the news.

                1. “I laser. It’s like a turtle shell down there.”

        2. leave while you still can

      2. Fuck them. Raise the living hell out of taxes and regulate everything that doesn’t move. They wanted full retard, give them full retard.

        That said, Reid has already said that the Dems won’t let entitlements be cut. So this is nothing but Bohner putting something out there so no one can say he didn’t.

        1. We’ve officially become a post-retard nation. Whatever the next level is beyond retard, we are it.

          1. Megaretarded? Metaretarded? Ultraretarded? joe-level retarded?

            1. Tulpa, we’ve gone full Tulpa.

              1. Tulparded?

          2. I concur. It’s time to start watering the crops with gatorade now.

        2. There is a certain sense in a scorched-earth policy. It’s not like Republicans are willing to make hard decisions–go ahead and let the Wookie win, see how that goes for a while.

        3. the nuclear option. stifling regs, stifling taxes. and without any spending cuts, it still won’t be enough to balance the budget. especially when revenues decrease bell-curve style and still nobody gets it.

  25. It’s a libertarian paradox. Unlimited immigration must be supported and applauded, even if it turns the country into an anti-libertarian hell hole.

    1. We seem to be getting the hellhole part even with somewhat restricted immigration.

      WEIRD!

      1. And record deportations by the guy who got 75% of the Latino vote?

        Here’s my question, why is no one talking about the Latina vote?

        1. Wise latina vote even.

        2. Maybe Latinos aren’t voting based on immigration?

          Nah, couldn’t be….

    2. What the GOP could do is begin seriously encouraging immigration from areas like India, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East(well, scratch that one for now). Immigrants from these countries are generally so overwhelmed by the opportunities here, generally sympathetic to free enterprise as they’ve seen the kleptocrats and bureaucratic corruption within their own countries, and are a bit more favorable towards free markets.

      If you’re being called a racist because the brown folk ain’t voting for you, get a browner folk that will.

      1. Asians broke for Obama 3-to-1. Haven’t seen any numbers for Indians.

      2. Wasn’t there an article the other day pointing out that those immigrants still tend to vote Democrat?

      3. If you’re being called a racist because the brown folk ain’t voting for you, get a browner folk that will.

        Yup…

    3. That’s why I gave up on libertarianism. Sure, they promise more individual liberty than any of their competitors. The problem is that the practical result would be The World’s Greatest Cocktail Party for about 15 minutes, followed by an extended stay in the gulag. I’ve decided I’d rather settle for slightly less freedom and be able to enjoy it indefinitely than a whole lot of freedom that’ll be down the crapper tomorrow.

  26. Prepare your anuses boys, you’re gonna get fucked by BOTH TEAMS now!

    Bipartisan consensus makes my ass hurt.

  27. Immigration is not an issue. As soon as our elected officials have managed to spend us into a 3rd world shithole, and it’s not far off, people will just go home and stop coming because there ain’t no fucking jobs or opportunities to start businesses. Simple as that.

    1. As soon as our elected officials have managed to spend us into a 3rd world shithole, and it’s not far off, people will just go home and stop coming because there ain’t no fucking jobs or opportunities to start businesses.

      As a Californian, let me explain how this theory actually translates in practice:

      When our government spends us into a third world shithole, the ones with the money and means to escape will leave and find a new home (a home which they will proceed to destroy with their shitty voting preferences yet again) while the leeches and those too poor to flee remain stuck.

      1. Sudden, see my other post higher up in the thread. This WILL happen, and it will result in that wall everyone has been talking about. Only Ron Paul was right, it will be to keep us in because they can’t afford to lose any revenue.

  28. Obama would have lost if the Hispanic vote had been split evenly (as opposed to 75-23 in Obama’s favor), and that’s going to be the case in every election going forward. As John Zogby notes, “the white percentage of the vote will only continue to decline with each new election.”

    Once controlling for other things – or even merely income and education levels – I would severely doubt that the ceteris-paribus effect of “hispanic” is important. Maybe so, but I’ve never seen pundits address the ethnic vote question except in the most grotesque of crude correlations.

  29. There is also the fact that the GOP now has at least 2 high profile Latinos in congress. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Just sayin.

  30. It’s good to see that some commentators understand the dilemma of the GOP courting the Latino votes.

    Latinos are not fiscal conservatives who are turned off by the GOP’s immigration stance. In addition to their penchant for big government, the third world tendency for blaming the establishment (superpower nations, colonialism, old feuds with rival nations) fit naturally with the left’s identity politics. Same for Asians.

    The truth is, limited government is a tough sell around the world. In this site, you’ll find spirited defense of free trade, outsourcing, market discipline over bailout, and etc. But in most parts of the world people will be fine and dandy with the government bailing out their national brand, and fiery nationalist candidate who promises to stand up to foreign devils who flood their market with cheap goods.

    Unless the majority of Latinos achieve middle class status and feel the pain of the government taking 40-50% of their pay, they’ll have good reason to stick with the democrats. And if history is any indication, there will be almost no Latino backlash if statists randomly ban products made with immigrant labor or strangle small businesses with high taxes or whatnot.

    1. Unless the majority of Latinos achieve middle class status and feel the pain of the government taking 40-50% of their pay, they’ll have good reason to stick with the democrats.

      Excuse me while I go off myself. You pretty much just explained the vicious circle here:

      Latinos are not middle class and therefore vote for candidates who will tax the everloving fuck out of middle class. Result: middle class does not grow, likely shrinks. Thereby creating as many or more people to continue voting to tax everloving fuck out of remaining middle class.

  31. I think the article is more a wake up call for “Reason” types than the Republican Party. Limited Government has never been popular among people of limited (relatively speaking) IQ and rarely sells well among the underclass. The only solution to the “Mexican Problem” from a libertarian perspective is either limit their numbers or limit their ability to to effect change through structural changes in government (repeal income tax, federal welfare, ect). We are never going to “win them over” to our side.

    For the Republican Party, the solution is much simpler. Since the GOP doesn’t actually care about limited government at all, they just need to counter the Democratic propaganda, push for Mexican centered social welfare programs, and enact new socially conservative laws that appeal to Mexican sentiment.

  32. I have no confidence whatsoever that hypocrite Boehner and the alleged thrifty right will have the balls to sustain gridlock, but it’s the only thing that can slow the tide. There is a lot that a House majority can do to make a President “lame.” But it takes leadership and real, real cojones.

  33. Mitt just needs to start speaking BAD SPANISH on TELE-MUNDO the way Michael Bloomberg does in NYC.

  34. The people that want less government as in no welfare programs, unemployment programs, labor laws, etc. are NOT

    – The unemployed, the poor, the disabled
    – Those who’s businesses were gobbled up by Big Box Stores
    – Those who’s jobs have been shipped out
    – Those experience salary stagnation
    – Those two paychecks away from homelessness

    Libertarians should consider focusing on Personal liberties also and not just economic liberty.

    Being conservative or libertarian is a luxury. That means you are doing FINE. No one unemployed with a family, mortgage, etc. is pushing for no unemployment and no protection from creditors or the elimination of safety nets.

    1. And as more people leave the middle class, more people will leave the conservatives/libertarians.

      You guys should at least wait until the economy comes back.

      1. So I guess we’re in a downward cycle where the drug pusher keeps selling people the junk that keeps him hooked.

        Economic liberty would allow more poor people to rise into the middle class, but the Democrats don’t want that because keeping people in poverty keeps them voting for handouts.

        Ask yourself: If a bigger social welfare state actually help lift people out of [poverty and into the middle class, wouldn’t the Democrats be voting against their own interests? Fewer poor people = fewer votes for Democrats and more votes for Republicans.

    2. “Libertarians should consider focusing on Personal liberties also and not just economic liberty.”

      Seriously? Libertarians are about the only ones who focus on personal liberties.

    3. Libertarians should consider focusing on Personal liberties also and not just economic liberty.

      Maybe you should consider reading the archives here before further embarrassing yourself.

    4. Why do you think I say that Libertarians should consider focusing on Personal liberties also and not just economic liberty?

      To me, it appears that Libertarians would vote for Romney or other republicans more for the promise of lower taxes than personal liberties.

      1. Why do you think I say that Libertarians should consider focusing on Personal liberties also and not just economic liberty?

        Because you can’t read, obviously. If you could, you would have noticed that the vast majority of libertarians here did not vote for Romney, and routinely discuss civil rights issues.

      2. You’re an idiot. This place talks about all facets of human liberty and its constant assault by forces across the political spectrum.

        You’re a fucking Democrat, of course you don’t care about economic liberty. You’re just like every fucking Republican who comes here and tells us not to worry about personal liberty, because it’s not important. We disagree. Jailing a man for starting a business without a license is just as repugnant as jailing a man for possession of marijuana. Infringing on human liberty is an evil act.

      3. The trouble, Ms. Bowie, is that Republicans do promise and often deliver lower taxes (“lower” meaning either than the status quo or, more often, than others would raise them to), while Democrats are no better on personal liberties (and are often worse, depending on which personal liberty is in question), and Libertarians (who aren’t cross-endorsed by other parties) don’t win. So, according to a recent poll cited here, most libertarians who vote expressed a preference for Romney.

  35. I think there’s a reason beyond welfare and economic class that explains why Hispanics and Blacks vote Democrat. Asians, Jews, and Muslims are all comparably or more successful compared to (non-Jewish) whites. And yet, all three groups are solid Democratic blocks

    1. It doesn’t require calculus. Why do you think Asians, Jews, and Muslims (with or without head-pieces) vote Liberal?

      These people are far from social liberals, btw. These people tend to be business owners, btw.

      Why do u think it is?

      1. Don’t know about Jews and Muslims, but lots of Asians do rely on welfare or unemployment checks. The Asian college kids dig the left’s agenda on diversity, education spending, and tax hikes.

        Asians are nationalists, and that’s especially true for older crowd. Bailout tactics to save Toytota or Hyundai (especially to guard against Chinese or American imports) would have enjoyed greater national mandate in places like Japan or Korea. They’re not so philosophically against the notion of a nationalized healthcare either.

        1. Perhaps it’s a NYC thing, but I don’t know a single Asian on welfare. In fact, I don’t know a single Asian over 30yo making less that $150k.

          And the ones hear illegally and no speke-de-engle are not eligible for welfare.

        2. “Don’t know about Jews and Muslims, but lots of Asians do rely on welfare or unemployment checks.”

          Where do you live? Cause that totally does not jive at all with what I’ve seen, and I’ve lived my entire life in California, home to a third of the nation’s Asian population. And a quick google search showed that Asians are less than 3 percent of welfare recipients, despite being about 5 % of the population.

          “The Asian college kids dig the left’s agenda on diversity, education spending, and tax hikes.”

          College kids in general support these things

      2. Because democrats supported the 1964 civil rights act, and Republicans responded with the Southern strategy.

        It’s that simple.

        1. How does that explain the other groups, including Jews, who were previously voting Democrat? Also, blacks started voting Democrat under FDR, although the 90+% started in 64. Your history is also grossly inaccurate. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act (and the Voting Rights Act) than Democrats, and of the Southern Dems who opposed it, only two I believe (Strom Thurmond and a representative also from South Carolina) ever became Republicans. The South also didn’t become solidly Republican at the presidential level until 84, didn’t hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1995, and even today hold strong presences in state governments in the South. The “Southern Strategy” existed to some extent, but was not the all-encompassing platform you make it out to be, nor was it entirely racial. The fact is that religious Southerners weren’t going to keep voting for a party that was/is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, seen as the party of atheists and hippies, and is seen as relatively anti-military

          1. Because if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes a truth.

            The Republicans were branded racists, and it stuck.

    2. The latter are largely educated progressive — true believers. The former are GIMMEDATs.

      1. Is it just that? Is there not a broader underlying, cultural reason for why almost every single minority, whether religious, ethnic, racial, regardless of how educated or economically successful they are, votes Democrat? The only minority groups I can think of that vote Republican are people of Cuban or Vietnamese nationality, and even that is changing in the younger generation.

        1. *Obviously when I say “ever single minority” I’m talking about minority groups, not individuals

          1. *every

        2. Is there not a broader underlying, cultural reason

          No. Progressives have international prestige. That’s why educated immigrants, and highly educated natives, are progressive. It’s also why Republicans are always calling the progressive positions 20 years ago “traditional America.” Imagine you were Indian, had never heard of libertarianism and moved to France, wouldn’t you just vote for whomever Du Monde endorsed?

          Hispanics and blacks are a different case entirely. They’re basically ethnic unions, and we know which party gives patronage to unions.

          1. Most immigrants, even from groups that become economically successful, aren’t wealthy or super-well educated

            1. Right. That’s why I specified “educated immigrants” and “highly educated natives.”

        3. Schools and culture. The Democrats are the cool, tolerant, diverse party. The Republicans….well, they usually don’t come out and call them racist, but sometimes they do come out and say it. Did you see that little black boy who thought Mitt Romney was going to bring back slavery? Someone told him that. Someone willfully lied to a child.

          1. This is true and yet … rather unfair … when you consider that Bush had a black woman as his Secretary of State. And of course Colin Powell is a Republican. And Clarance Thomas.

            At some point you have to add up all the Black Republicans and admit that there’s a few too many for all of them to be self-hating Uncle Tom traitors.

            Most often the image of racist Republicans is something that some Democrat somewhere has created by taking sound bites out of context and spinning it.

            The Willie Horton ad was 20 years ago.

            The real problem is a braod consensus amoung black people that they are owed something by society. Which is what makes it impossible to sell them the concept of self-reliance and limited government. It’s impossible to sell self-reliance to someone who not only is financially dependent on the state, but thinks that being financially dependent is their right.

            1. Eh, the Willie Horton ad….I was told in school that it was race baiting, a dog whistle. Except then we watched it. It’s not racist at all. It simply shows a photograph of Horton, just as it shows a photograph of all the people mentioned in the ad: Bush, Dukakis, and Horton. It’s a devastatingly simple and effective ad, because it focuses on the simple facts of the matter: Dukakis supports weekend furloughs for violent criminals, and as a result one particular felon committed three other felonies.

              I heard something new this election cycle: If you can hear the dog whistle, you’re the dog.

          2. This was largely what I was suggesting, especially the second sentence. That’s how the Democratic party is viewed, and the Republicans are viewed as uptight, uncool old white bigots

            1. You just gotta love how successful owning the news and entertainment media for the last 60+ years has been for the Democrats……

        4. Among Jews, it’s a mutually reinforcing feedback between culture and politics. You associate with people who are like that, so you get y stay like that to keep those ass’ns, and it gets passed down thru generations — not parent to child, particularly, but more friends-of-parents to friends-of-children. Pretty much like religion. Probably the same thing with blacks.

          Know the positive feedback factors that people in small political parties (including but not limited to Libertarians) complain about that shut them out? Those same factors operate within each of the large political parties and against the other, too. If you’re in a one-party city, the only direct way to have influence is to operate within that party.

          1. Also, as to how multiple minorities would tend to band together in one party, that’s also partly because of fear of the majority. Whether you’re afraid of the others taking away your dole, or putting you in extermination camps, you don’t fear other minorities because you realize they too are too weak to do more than defend themselves; rather, you fear the majority, which is secure enough to possibly go on the attack against your minority. There are Jews who shudder slightly when their so-nice neighbors sing any Christmas carols that are too specifically religious. So people segregate into the party of “true blue Americans” and the party of everybody else.

            Another factor is geographic. Because of waves of immigration and internal migration, the country is inhomogeneous in that regard, so the coastal cities tend to be where the political “blues” (as opposed to the “true blue”) are concentrated.

  36. Sometimes you jsut gotta troll with the punches!

    http://www.post-anon.tk

    1. Man, anon-bot’s self-awareness is down.

  37. Going to throw a wet blanket over your little mope-fest…

    A lot of people voted for Obama because they honestly believe that he’s not a socialist. They think he’s genuinely some sort of moderate centrist who believes in free markets. They think he’s like Clinton. They think all that stuff about him being a socialist is something that lying Republicans are just saying. They are completely brainwashed by the liberal media and think the Republicans have gone crazy radical and actually want to ban birth control. They just aren’t paying that much attention, you see, to spend enough time thinking about the actual policies to understand what is going on. And Obama keeps making those big speeches where he says he loves free markets, and they just take that shit at face value.

    1. Especially since, hell, the Republicans also give big speeches where they say they love free markets, and then undermine them and practice their own brand of cronyism.

  38. Pat McCrory won an open governor seat in North Carolina as a Republican. He did the same among whites (70% vs. 68%) as Romney, but won by 12% while Romney squeaked through. How? Because he ran 9 points better among blacks (OK, maybe not a surprise with Obama), 15 points better with Hispanics (46% vs. 31%), and 8 points better with Other (51% vs. 43%).

    He’s one of the few statewide candidates to outperform Romney. Obvious conclusion is that there’s something to learn from him.

  39. D?nde est? mi burro gratis?

  40. From the political bar. The GOP must introduce the Whiskey into the Hispanic social drinking. The GOP is allowing the Democratic Party go to party with the Hispanic community and celebrating victory tossing cheap political Cuba Libre and Margarita cocktails. If the GOP wants to attract the Hispanic’s vote, must lead in immigration reforms. The majority of the people labeled as “illegal alien” are in the country escaping from misery and politically incorrect governments. Making those people the target of small political agendas, create a resentment difficult to erase when it comes to political alliance. The word community includes cultural, religious and economic values shared by the majority of the group independent from the immigration status. I think the GOP holds in its core the values of the Hispanic community, but the political message is wrong and confuse many in the community. The right way to attract the Hispanic’s vote is to send a clear and concise message including “solutions”, not ideological points of view. The GOP must rethink their position without abandoning their political values and without compromising the truth. The truth in this case is, people need economic stability to feel secure politically. The next political cocktail from the GOP to the Hispanic community must include whiskey, rum, tequila and a good imported beer to finish the political GOP Sunrise.

  41. strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics cheap nfl jerseys are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children are poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

    In light of what it would cost the GOP to court the Hispanic vote, Mac Donald concludes that “a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future.” To which the obvious reply is: The Hispanic vote is growing whether Republicans embrace it or not. With its relevance (and down the road, existence) at stake, the GOP cheap MLB jerseys should probably find a way to sell small government and free markets to people who could–judging by Mac Donald’s own observations–benefit from both.

    1. From the political bar. The GOP must introduce the Whiskey into the Hispanic social drinking. The GOP is allowing the Democratic Party go to party with the Hispanic community and celebrating victory tossing cheap political Cuba Libre and Margarita cocktails. If the GOP wants to attract the Hispanic’s vote, must lead in immigration reforms. The majority of the people labeled as “illegal alien” are in the country escaping from misery and politically incorrect governments. Making those people the target of small political agendas, create a resentment difficult to erase when it comes to political alliance. The word community includes cultural, religious and economic values shared by the majority of the group independent from the immigration status. I think the GOP holds in its core the values of the Hispanic community, but the political message is wrong and confuse many in the community. The right way to attract the Hispanic’s vote is to send a clear and concise message including “solutions”, not ideological points of view. The GOP must rethink their position without abandoning their political values and without compromising the truth. The truth in this case is, people need economic stability to feel secure politically. The next political cheap nfl jerseys cocktail from the GOP to the Hispanic community must include whiskey, rum, tequila and a good imported beer to finish the political GOP Sunrise.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.