I’ve been scratching my head about this whole “path to citizenship” debate on illegal immigration. Everything seems to be inside-out in terms of how this issue is being presented and I’ve been trying to figure out why. Consider this.
● Point One: The Republicans have a serious problem with illegal immigration. Our side has been so openly angry and offensive on the issue that we’ve basically lost all but the most hard-core right-wing Hispanics in the country. We even lost the Cubans.
● Point Two: One of the oldest rules of tactics is that when the other side is self-destructing, you let them. . . or you help them along. Obama has followed this perfectly until now. Indeed, he has largely stayed out of the immigration debate during his entire time in office except to poke conservatives with a stick. Conservatives have responded like Pavlov’s dogs and foamed at the mouth on command.
So far so good.
● Point Three: Then came Rubio. Marco Rubio figured out the problem with this and he proposed a way to fix this problem. He’s proposing a GOP-created path to citizenship which would undermine the idea that the Republicans are a bunch of racists and would, in a single stroke, end the issue so that conservatives stop reopening the wound day after day. This could actually go a long way to repairing the damage done by conservatives.
Ok, now it gets tricky.
● Point Four: The proper response by Obama should have been to claim Rubio’s bill and shove him aside so the Democrats could continue to claim the issue. Angry conservatives would then do the rest to reinforce the idea that Hispanics should always vote for the Democrats by tearing Rubio apart.
BUT that’s not how this is playing out. To the contrary, Obama has walked away from Rubio’s bill. He’s taken a few shots behind the scenes and offered vague imaginary counter-proposals, but by and large he’s abandoned the issue to Rubio. The MSM too has focused on Rubio’s bill as “the bill.” They have even run articles about how this is Rubio’s bill (and a Republican idea) and they criticized the bill for not being “tough enough.” This is very strange. Hispanic groups too have actually spoken about GOP “gains.” Because of these choices, this bill belongs to Rubio and the Republicans in the mind of the public. They are seen as the creators of the bill. They are seen as the people who need to make this happen. They are seen pushing this bill voluntarily and without Democratic support. That means they get the credit/blame, an opinion confirmed by the Hispanic groups talking about “gains.”
This is all very interesting.
Indeed, until now, the two ways the immigration debate seemed destined to play out was either (1) an amnesty gets passed over the GOP’s angry objections and Hispanics get permanently alienated (just like blacks were permanently alienated after GOP opposition to the Civil Rights Act) with no chance for the GOP to ever mend fences, or (2) the GOP continues to stand in the way of amnesty, alienating Hispanics until the issue finally gets resolved one way or another. But the Rubio effort, and the response by the left, has actually created an entirely new scenario, one in which the GOP gets full credit with Hispanics and essentially redeems itself. That could be a massive victory for the GOP and it’s not something I would have seen as possible until now.
But I’m left scratching my head as to why this is happening. Why would the Democrats play it this way? They are normally smarter than this. Then it hit me.
As I’ve said before, the Democrats are a collection of single issue groups held together by their common desire to get their stuff. But this type of structure is unstable because once a group gets what they want, they have no reason to stick around because they have no inherent loyalty to the rest of the party and there is no ideology for them to latch onto. Thus, the party cannot grant the groups what they want or the collective will collapse as a party.
This puts the Democrats in a bind. They love the immigration issue because it gives them a chance to frame the Republicans as racist and because it lets them use the promise of amnesty to win Hispanics by a 70% margin. But if they actually grant amnesty, then Hispanics have no reason to stick around anymore and they could fall back to the 20% margin they had in the 1980s and 1990s. That would mean a loss of about twice as many Hispanic votes as the Democrats would gain even if every single illegal alien started voting Democratic out of gratitude. That’s not good for the Democrats.
What this means is that the Democrats don’t actually want this thing to pass. BUT, they also can’t be seen to be opposing it or sabotaging it, because that would alienate Hispanic groups who would happily switch sides if the GOP embraced them. This creates a real dilemma for the Democrats: how do you stop something you can’t actively oppose?
I think the answer can be found in Obama’s behavior. By not embracing the bill and by promising an alternate bill which will never arrive, he keeps the Democrats from needing to support this bill for the moment. That gives them time to let conservatives destroy Rubio and his bill. To encourage them, Obama and the MSM have begun this campaign of attacking the Rubio bill for not being tough enough. The hope is that conservatives rise up and destroy Rubio. Then Obama can claim that if the Republicans won’t even pass Rubio’s bill, then there’s no hope for his bill either... “too bad, so sad, keep voting for us and maybe someday you’ll get what you want, senor.” This explains the articles about the bill being too free with citizenship, why Obama seems to be bidding to the right of Rubio on the issue, and why the Democrats seem to be dragging their feet suddenly: they’re baiting conservatives to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, I suspect that right now, the White House is thinking: “Crap! They might get this done and then we’ll lose our issue! Where the hell are those whiny conservatives when you need them!”
These are interesting times indeed.
● Point One: The Republicans have a serious problem with illegal immigration. Our side has been so openly angry and offensive on the issue that we’ve basically lost all but the most hard-core right-wing Hispanics in the country. We even lost the Cubans.
● Point Two: One of the oldest rules of tactics is that when the other side is self-destructing, you let them. . . or you help them along. Obama has followed this perfectly until now. Indeed, he has largely stayed out of the immigration debate during his entire time in office except to poke conservatives with a stick. Conservatives have responded like Pavlov’s dogs and foamed at the mouth on command.
So far so good.
● Point Three: Then came Rubio. Marco Rubio figured out the problem with this and he proposed a way to fix this problem. He’s proposing a GOP-created path to citizenship which would undermine the idea that the Republicans are a bunch of racists and would, in a single stroke, end the issue so that conservatives stop reopening the wound day after day. This could actually go a long way to repairing the damage done by conservatives.
Ok, now it gets tricky.
● Point Four: The proper response by Obama should have been to claim Rubio’s bill and shove him aside so the Democrats could continue to claim the issue. Angry conservatives would then do the rest to reinforce the idea that Hispanics should always vote for the Democrats by tearing Rubio apart.
BUT that’s not how this is playing out. To the contrary, Obama has walked away from Rubio’s bill. He’s taken a few shots behind the scenes and offered vague imaginary counter-proposals, but by and large he’s abandoned the issue to Rubio. The MSM too has focused on Rubio’s bill as “the bill.” They have even run articles about how this is Rubio’s bill (and a Republican idea) and they criticized the bill for not being “tough enough.” This is very strange. Hispanic groups too have actually spoken about GOP “gains.” Because of these choices, this bill belongs to Rubio and the Republicans in the mind of the public. They are seen as the creators of the bill. They are seen as the people who need to make this happen. They are seen pushing this bill voluntarily and without Democratic support. That means they get the credit/blame, an opinion confirmed by the Hispanic groups talking about “gains.”
This is all very interesting.
Indeed, until now, the two ways the immigration debate seemed destined to play out was either (1) an amnesty gets passed over the GOP’s angry objections and Hispanics get permanently alienated (just like blacks were permanently alienated after GOP opposition to the Civil Rights Act) with no chance for the GOP to ever mend fences, or (2) the GOP continues to stand in the way of amnesty, alienating Hispanics until the issue finally gets resolved one way or another. But the Rubio effort, and the response by the left, has actually created an entirely new scenario, one in which the GOP gets full credit with Hispanics and essentially redeems itself. That could be a massive victory for the GOP and it’s not something I would have seen as possible until now.
But I’m left scratching my head as to why this is happening. Why would the Democrats play it this way? They are normally smarter than this. Then it hit me.
As I’ve said before, the Democrats are a collection of single issue groups held together by their common desire to get their stuff. But this type of structure is unstable because once a group gets what they want, they have no reason to stick around because they have no inherent loyalty to the rest of the party and there is no ideology for them to latch onto. Thus, the party cannot grant the groups what they want or the collective will collapse as a party.
This puts the Democrats in a bind. They love the immigration issue because it gives them a chance to frame the Republicans as racist and because it lets them use the promise of amnesty to win Hispanics by a 70% margin. But if they actually grant amnesty, then Hispanics have no reason to stick around anymore and they could fall back to the 20% margin they had in the 1980s and 1990s. That would mean a loss of about twice as many Hispanic votes as the Democrats would gain even if every single illegal alien started voting Democratic out of gratitude. That’s not good for the Democrats.
What this means is that the Democrats don’t actually want this thing to pass. BUT, they also can’t be seen to be opposing it or sabotaging it, because that would alienate Hispanic groups who would happily switch sides if the GOP embraced them. This creates a real dilemma for the Democrats: how do you stop something you can’t actively oppose?
I think the answer can be found in Obama’s behavior. By not embracing the bill and by promising an alternate bill which will never arrive, he keeps the Democrats from needing to support this bill for the moment. That gives them time to let conservatives destroy Rubio and his bill. To encourage them, Obama and the MSM have begun this campaign of attacking the Rubio bill for not being tough enough. The hope is that conservatives rise up and destroy Rubio. Then Obama can claim that if the Republicans won’t even pass Rubio’s bill, then there’s no hope for his bill either... “too bad, so sad, keep voting for us and maybe someday you’ll get what you want, senor.” This explains the articles about the bill being too free with citizenship, why Obama seems to be bidding to the right of Rubio on the issue, and why the Democrats seem to be dragging their feet suddenly: they’re baiting conservatives to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, I suspect that right now, the White House is thinking: “Crap! They might get this done and then we’ll lose our issue! Where the hell are those whiny conservatives when you need them!”
These are interesting times indeed.
great article, Andrew. It will be interesting to see how the W.H. plays this one. As usual, I fear R's will find away to let O off the hook.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jed. No sooner do you say that than McCain and Graham... the usual suspects... are out there praising Obama for his efforts on passing immigration reform. What is it with those two guys that they play everything wrong?!! They should be claiming credit for this and calling Obama an obstructionist! Why is this so hard?
ReplyDelete(just like blacks were permanently alienated after GOP opposition to the Civil Rights Act)
ReplyDeleteLINK
LINK2
Note the vote totals by party for the "original house version".
K, Without getting too deeply into the history, first, let me point out that perception is reality in politics and it is taken as a matter of faith that Republicans were against the bill. You will find this belief to be a prominent reason blacks will cite for disliking Republicans.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the reason this belief developed was a series of events. First, the bill was seen as belonging to JFK/LBJ. This then led southerners to vote against the Democrats to demonstrate their opposition the bill -- in effect, they labeled the Republicans as the anti-CRA party. Moreover, the Republicans embraced these voters and would soon adopt Nixon's southern strategy, which pandered to those same voters. Then, many of the southern Democrats who fought the Act (like Thurmond) joined the Republican Party and were welcomed into the Party. Moreover, the selection of Goldwater as the nominee in 1964 allowed the focus to become on his vote against the Act, and the positions of a nominee are almost always perceived as the true beliefs of a political party, even when they aren't.
Thus, even though Republicans passed the bill in much higher number than Democrats, the perception became that the Republicans opposed it because (1) they chose a nominee who opposed it, (2) their party was chosen as the tool of a protest vote against it, and they embraced those voters and kept trying to win them, and (3) many of the Democrasts who opposed it switched sides.
Naturally, the Democrats pushed this perception too once it became clear they could win without the South and that they would not win the South back.
By the way, K, I'm not saying the perception is right, but right and wrong don't matter in politics... only perception matters. That's why it's critical for Republicans to learn how to play politics better so they can shape the perception on these issues.
ReplyDeleteAndrew...I think your premise is that if the Repubs follow Rubio's plan and grant amnesty, then they will get Hispanic voters to start voting Democrat? If so, do you have any data to show how those Hispanics who were amnestied in Regan's amnesty drive in the 80's voted?
ReplyDeleteI think, and this is just based on anecdotal evidence, that the reasons Hispanics vote Dem is because of many reasons, primarily, the illegals voting. Hell, we're not even allowed to ask for ID at voting places, much less if you are a legal citizen with voting rights? I ask you, if you think any of the voting places where there are heavy concentrations of illegals living, if the voting rolls are checked for accuracy? In Philly, there were 18 precints or so I think, that voted 100% for Obama this last election. Concern from the Repub side? None that I heard of.
By holding back so as to not "offend" the sainted Hispanic vote, Repubs do themselves a great disfavor. Has anyone asked legal Hispanics if they think their illegal cousins should be able to vote? Or if they should be granted amnesty? Many 'Hispanics' have been living here for centuries and probably have the same concerns for people entering the country illegally and not following the rules. We are just assuming that every Hispanic is okay with amnesty?
I think we have distorted this whole immigration issue and have painted the Repubs as "anti-immigrant" when in fact they are anti ILLEGAL immigration. Why can't they find a Rubio or Cruz who will emphasize that issue.
Yes I know we're talking "comprehensive" amnesty to deal with those "illegals" already here, in hopes of getting their future votes, but again, what makes Rubio, McCain and Grahmnesty and their ilk think that once "legal," these folks would vote for a party that wants them to pay high taxes, work harder and not send billions back to their families back home because the federal government here just started taking almost 50% of everything they earned in taxes? Money that they are now sending..tax free...back home?
Oh yeah, and I love how the reform bills always claim that if the illegals come forward, prove they've been paying taxes and have been working in this country for 10 years or so, then we will grant them citizenship! Are you kidding me?!?! How many current illegals working migrant farms get a frikking W-2 from their "employer?"
Nope, I think we're just setting ourselves up....AGAIN....to grant amnesty in the hopes that the vaunted Hispanic vote will start coming to the Repub side.
Again, I'd love to see how many illegals granted citizenship in the 80's started voting Repub out of gratitude for passing amnesty for them? My sense....very few use that as a thak you to the Repubs, instead voting as most poor people do, for the gov't assistance party.
Once again - that secret "let's all get on board so we don't derail" meeting would be very helpful. We could argue this issue out privately and support the result publicly. Of course, if the MSM was fair, the Right could argue this stuff without the arguments becoming talking points for the left...
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where exactly I stand on this issue, but I agree that the Right will hang themselves on it and the Left will point out a good tree...
As for the Left not wanting things fixed - I totally agree. This is why they have to keep finding points where race and gender are important instead of praising the successes of the last 40 years!
So I take it you don't agree with the criticism of Rubio's bill by NRO and other outlets, then. (I really should stop asking questions I already know the answer to, I guess....)
ReplyDeleteT-Rav, No, because most of what you find at place like NR these days is idiotic and shrill.
ReplyDeleterlaWTX, I think the left actually knows they can't fix anything. If they ever give one of their groups what they want, then the group will leave their coalition and it won't come back. They can't risk that, so they keep making these promises and then never granting them. To the contrary, they sabotage them.
ReplyDeleteSo, how do you rebut the claims of the Right such as that it will create a permanent Dem Majority
ReplyDeletePatriot, No, that's not my premise. That's the straw man premised the places T-Rav is talking about want you to believe I am arguing. They want you to believe that everyone outside the groupthink bubble is offering some fantasy scenario where Hispanics suddenly love us and all come vote for us. That's nonsense. It's also a complete distortion of what is being argued.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, the fact that places like NRO are running with that mischaracterization should give you pause about what else you can trust from those places.
My position is simple.
1. Hispanics used to vote for Republicans in the range of 40% (about a 20-25% gap).
2. Then conservatives started whining about deporting them all. Immediately thereafter, the numbers began to crash. The last couple elections have been all-time lows, with Romney losing Hispanics by 44% instead of the usual 20%.
3. Unless you want to believe that 24% of Hispanics sudden had an epiphany and realized they were Democrats, then you have to see the connection between the conservative stance and the crash in the number of Hispanics who vote for the Republicans.
4. Polls confirm the problem.
5. Dropping the deportation crap, which means admitting that these people are here to say, should bring Hispanics back to parity -- a 20% Democratic gap rather than a 44% gap. That difference wins us the White House and a lot more Senate seats.
That is the point. Not some fantasy scenario where they vote for us out of gratitude, but a scenario where we stop pissing them off and they feel free to vote their wallets again.
Kit, Because of the numbers.
ReplyDeleteThere are 47 million Hispanics in the country. When we started whining about deporting illegal aliens, we lost 20% of them as Republican voters. We should be able to get those back. That number should be about the same as if every single illegal voted Democratic. In other words, the worst case is a net of zero.
But with the "race issue" gone, the question comes down to economics and in that regard, as Hispanics become more middle class, they can then vote more Republican -- something they won't do if conservatives keep foaming at the mouth.
Further, the biggest chunk of illegals are concentrated in California, which we don't win anyways, so their votes won't really matter.
In fact, just to be clear, they already count in the Census so they count toward the numbers of representatives each state gets. That means nothing will change in the electoral college or the distribution of House seats. So the end result is that even if every illegal started voting Democratic tomorrow, it would only increase Democrats majorities in the places where Democrats already win.
At the same time, in states like Colorado it would help a LOT if conservative Hispanics would drift back even in small numbers to the Republican Party.
And what do you think of this link?
ReplyDeleteLINK
And this one LINK
I think the key here is to understand that Obama's goal is to remove the GOP from the House. He is not concerned w/ policy or getting bills passed. That is, I think the goal.
I think in the 2nd Link Boehner is right.
For the next 2 yrs we probably won't see any major bills passed and Obama and Reid are going to try and keep Congress as gridlocked as possible so in 2014 they can attack the GOP as being "obstructionist".
Andrew,
ReplyDeletere Dem-voting Hispanics
What about Texas and fears of illegals sending it blue?
By the way, I have to say on places like NRO and the others, you folks really need to pay attention to the crap they are feeding you these days.
ReplyDeleteThere was an article the other night at Daily Caller which really highlighted this problem. This article was about a woman named S.E. Cupp, who is a conservative who took a job at MSNBC. The premise of the article was that her exposure to MSNBC had warped her. The proof was that she now says she will boycott CPAC over their opposition to gay marriage.
First, let me point out the bizarre groupthink premise behind this article.... oh, if you talk to people outside the cult, you will start thinking like other people! Is this really what conservatism have become? Sorry for the language, but fuck that shit. That is KoolAid thinking.
Secondly, the author then had to admit that Cupp has always supported gay rights... which, of course, means that the entire premise of his article about her exposure to unclean people changing her mind was a fraud. So he tries to save his premise with false logic: "If she really believed this before as she says, why is she only boycotting CPAC now? Huh? Why not? Why not boycott CPAC in the past? See... clearly she changed because she met with unclean people! Burn her at the stake!!"
Well, asshole, how about the fact that the Religious Right has forced CPAC to ban GOProud? Perhaps her timing is in response TO YOUR OWN ACTIONS!
This is the kind of shit that is being pumped at out other blogs. It's retarded. It's groupthink. It's wrong. It is propaganda, lies and distortions. And this is the same on every. . . single. . . issue.
*** rant over ***
Kit, What about the links? It sounds to me like the GOP is going to make this happen.
ReplyDeleteAs for Obama winning the House for the Democrats, I'm sure that is his plan. What president wouldn't work to win more seats for his party?
Kit, Think about these numbers in Texas.
ReplyDelete2004 Bush won 49% of Hispanics Texas.
2008 McCain won 35% of Hispanics in Texas.
2012 Romney won 28% of Hispanics in Texas.
Now, do you believe that is the result of an epiphany? Or do you think that's because of the immigration issue? If that resets, then Texas will be even more red, not blue.
And before you answer, let me add one more piece: Perry won 38% of Hispanics in 2010 for a landslide win.
Think about that. At a time when the national GOP is crashing, the Hispanic-friendly Perry had no problems with the Hispanic vote.
There is NO reason to think Texas will go blue because Texans aren't acting like the rest of the GOP.
Moreover, there is every reason to think that an Hispanic friendly GOP can easily do what Perry and Bush have done.
Ok.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, calm down. I was trying to think of possible rebuttals to what you are claiming. :)
------------------
"It sounds to me like the GOP is going to make this happen."
Do you think the GOP is going to go ahead w/ some form of Amnesty?
Also, do you agree that we probably will not see any major bills passed until 2015 at the earliest because Obama will keep trying to play politics to damage the GOP?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, on my rant, you can disagree all you want with my on any issue. I'm fine with that. I know opinions vary and I'm all in favor of the free exchange of ideas and open debate.
ReplyDeleteMy point is to not let people use conspiratorial arguments and appeals to groupthink to sway you. But that is going on all across the conservative world right now. There are an amazing amount of lies, distortions and cult-like thinking being spread by otherwise reputable conservatives at the moment. Please think before you accept anything you read.
Kit, I'm not angry with you at all, I'm frustrated with the false and shrill arguments I'm seeing at places like Brietbart, NRO, etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there won't be any major bills coming out of the House. I suspect there won't be any until Obama is gone, even if the Democrats win the House -- which is unlikely.
Yes, I think the GOP has decided to do an amnesty. They are showing signs of being much smarter than I expected lately. Conservatives aren't, but the GOP is.
Kit, Look at the numbers I cited on Texas and tell me what you make of those?
ReplyDeleteAndrew, S.E. Cupp is also getting kicked around all over the place for daring to suggest that Rush isn't a deity. If the right's celebrities being placed above criticism and examination isn't a surefire sign that groupthink has entered (taken over) the right, what is?
ReplyDeletetryanmax, I am not surprised.
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% right, the deification of individuals is the surest sign of groupthink/cultism. So is renouncing people who voice even the slightest disagreement. Both are going on in conservative ranks right now.
I'm telling you, I get really frustrated these days listening to the radio or reading the idiocy at other blogs. I am hearing incredible distortions, cherry picking of facts, flat out lies, attempts to create a "crisis mentality" to short-circuit rational thought, specks of dust blown into mountains of national outrage, paranoia, and intense groupthink. And anyone who dares to disagree or even to suggest that we examine our beliefs gets disowned. . . they are no longer of the body any more and must be cleansed.
Even more interesting, these people who WHINE about anyone who doesn't toe the line as "attacking conservatism" are pouring out intense hatred at every conservative who doesn't toe the line 100% and with sufficient bile. Go read almost any conservative site and you will see that the primary focus of the hate are Republicans... all Republicans.
I agree with you Andrew. I think one of the conflicting special interest groups hassling Obama are the unions. Hispanics interestingly enough tend not to join. Conservatives are being dumb here because many Hispanics fit right in their wheelhouse. They are socially conservative and most actually live on very tight budgets. Become their protectors, the true little guy, and it is possible over time you might even see a shift closer or even above 50/50.
ReplyDeleteThis is also a good test of leadership for Rubio. If he can keep together the GOP and get this passed, even if ding-a-ling (sorry NSA, President ding-a-ling) signs it, I think Rubio is smart enough to take credit. He has got some of the media writings to back it up.
I wish McCain would get malignant ingrown toenail or something so he has to leave the senate. Dipshit. He will never learn when to keep his mouth shut. He didn't have to mention the president at all. A simple "we are working together with Senator Rubio to craft the best possible plan." It is ok to ride coattails but he just had to give the president credit and for what? Not talking to the press? Taking separate vacations? Wearing a new tie? Sometimes I think that man may have developed permanent brain damage from his captivity.
Koshcat, Agreed on all points.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why McCain can't STFU? Why does he feel compelled to help the enemy time and again? There was no reason whatsoever to praise Obama on this -- he should have been praising Rubio.
I also think Rubio is savvy enough to take full credit for this. I am feeling quite enthusiastic about it at the moment. The only question now will be what the Democrats do if the Republicans get the votes to pass this? My guess is they will engage in sabotage.
I agree completely about the ability of conservatives to attract Hispanics if they would stop being stupid about this. Look at the Texas numbers up thread and you'll see that Bush got 49% of them in Texas and Perry scored 38% at a time when the national party was falling into the low 20% range. There is no reason the GOP nationally can't repeat the success of the Texas GOP... if they stop being assholes.
Eh, eh, I'm a maverick! See how I reach around, er, across the aisle!
ReplyDeleteJohn, We hate you... why don't you reach out to us?
ReplyDeleteBTW, over 100 prominent conservatives/Republicans have signed a brief supporting gay marriage before the Supreme Court. I get the sense this issue is changing.
ReplyDeleteHere's the conclusion of the Daily Caller article on this issue about the popularity of the issue:
Polls show that public attitudes towards same-sex marriage have shifted drastically over the past decade. A majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, up from roughly one-third in 2003. And while only a third of Republicans today favor gay marriage, recent polls show that 70 percent of voters under 30 approve same-sex marriage.
We would love to have you join our party.
ReplyDeleteWhich party isn't silly?
ReplyDeleteWait, they hatin' on my true love S.E. CUPP?!?!?!
ReplyDeleteShe might have a fiancee but with my irresistable charms and incredible good looks I will woo her to be my love!
Kit, LOL! Grandiose delusions, huh?
ReplyDeleteTHEY ARE NOT GRANDIOSE DELUSIONS!!!
ReplyDeleteWOW!
ReplyDeleteWe conservatives may have our problems but at least our women are hot. And many are pretty bright as well.
I hear that the Senate Republican are going to cede all budget/sequester issues to Obama. I don't understand what that means, btw.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Homeland Security released about 500 to 4000+ (no one knows exactly how many) detained illegals because of proposed "sequester" budget cuts. Someone at Homeland resigned. The WH denies all knowledge. Film at 11...
Kit, Stop reading the Wikipedia, it's not good for you.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, Yup. Sure beats the days of Gene Kirkpatrick, doesn't it? :)
Bev, I've been hearing that for awhile, but also have no idea what it means. Don't really care either.
ReplyDeleteThe Homeland Security thing is really despicable. If any of them are criminals and they commit crimes, conservatives need to highlight this fact and hanging it around Obama's neck because this was a despicable trick to try to force the public to care about sequestration... which they don't.
Bev,
ReplyDeleteTwo thoughts came to mind on the homeland security thing:
1. Exactly what Andrew stated. Why do they need to release for "proposed" cuts rather than waiting for cuts? Cuts of course being newspeak for not nearly as much of an increase as before.
2. You will never hear this on the news at 11. If it ever gets on the news they will play it up as the GOPs fault for not negotiating with the president.
Koshcat, That's exactly why conservatives need to enter journalism, to push stories like this.
ReplyDelete"Stop reading the Wikipedia, it's not good for you."
ReplyDeleteI typed in "Denial" on Google (sorry, Eric) and that was the link at the top, okay! :)
Are you saying that Obama is trying to force a crisis on Sequestration instead of reaching across the aisle?
ReplyDeleteOn sequestration, why doesn't Boehner and every big gun in the GOP, whenever the effects of the cuts are brought up, just ask "Why does the White House want to cut the most important programs? Surely there are some wasteful things they can cut. But no, they want to cut the most important programs and items. Now why is that? We are not saying they have to cut the number of firemen, or aircraft carriers or anything like that. We're just saying they need to make cuts. The Democratic Obama White House are the ones deciding to cut the number of firemen, police officers, and aircraft carriers. They are the ones who want to cut the number of firemen, police officers, and aircraft carriers, not us."
And give an answer: "They are doing this to play politics. The Democrats want to hurt the Republicans and they do not care if the country gets hurt as well. They are playing politics with our country. Its despicable."
Kit, Honestly, I think the answer is that the Republicans just aren't good at politics. They remind me the old rich people you see on film who can only say, "I say!" when they are insulted. They don't seem to be able to frame arguments on their feet.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's why I'm hopeful about Rubio. He seems to think quicker on his feet. Look how he turned the water bottle incident from a negative to a positive.
ReplyDeleteOh, and this:
ReplyDeleteLINK
What do you think? Kinda creepy that a Senior White House official might say that to one of the most revered journalists in modern US history.
And one of the few journalists to take his job seriously, it seems.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, He has impressed me as well how quickly he seems to have people eating out of his hand. I'm not sure how he did it, but it makes me hopeful as well.
ReplyDeleteKit, Personally, I always viewed him as a hack, so it doesn't really bother me, but it can't be good for Team Obama that they need engage in fratricide here.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteRubio's smile probably had a lot to do with it. He's just so damn handsome!
I mean, seriously, could you say "No" to a face like this: LINK
No one can!
Kit, First impressions matter and Rubio comes across as "innocent" because he has a good smile and boyish looks. He doesn't look at all guileful. As strange as it my sound, that does matter.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI agree. Of course, those folk tend to be the craftiest... ;)
BUT RUBIO TOOK A SIP OF WATER SO HIS POLITICAL CAREER MUST BE RUINED!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteKit, That's pretty ridiculous, isn't it? And if that's all they have, then Rubio is miles ahead.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAndrew
The one problem with your analysis is that the illegal immigrants of today are not their father's illegal immigrant.
It used to be that illegals (mostly mexican nationals) would cross the border and find unscrupulous individuals that would pay them under the table for a fraction of what an American citizen would make. The Mexican National would gladly accept this pay however becasue pittance that it was it was much more than they could earn in Mexico.
We never cracked down on this for over 100 years and it had a negative impact on both Ours and the Mexican economy. These individuals upon being granted citizenship would join the melting pot. Heck Romney being Mexican was a perfect example of that.
Today's illegal is different though. They are not primarily Mexican so it is harder to bring money back home. Many are associoated with violent drug gangs or the Mexican Cartels and if they are not themselves part of the cartel find themselves under the gangsters thumbs.
When they get to this country many are not working. They are finding their way onto welfare roles.
I really don't beleive the Civil Rights Act really was the real factor in the abandonment of the GOP by blacks. I met too many elderly blacks her in North Florida that talk foundly of how it was the Republicans that fought for them in the 50's and before.
I beleive the two issues that couased this were 1) Affirmative Action and 2) Welfare. Welfare is a very deceptive trap. Especially to people who feel they are poor. Once in the system it is difficult to get out. It creates a culture of cash under the table which leads to criminal activity. HAving a bank account is seen as dangerous becasue if the government see you have too much money the benefits are cut off.
Today's hispanics may appreciate Rubio for his position which since he is demanding it be met with effective border security is a perfect blend of both. Obama initially used the security issue as a reason not to go for his plan. But I think in the end those that end up in states like California being sucked into the Welfare Projects are likely to remain democrats.
What you are saying will only help us with current hispanics in the middle class I think.
Indi,
ReplyDeleteMiddle class Hispanics would be the target group for us -- we don't score well among the poor of any race or the rich. The problem is that right now we don't score well among any Hispanics.
On the drug cartel argument, I see no evidence of the drug cartel issue. If a significant portion of the 11 million who are here were working for cartels, we would have a much greater problem. Their numbers would outnumber the entire US military by around 7-1. Vast portions of our country would be worse off than Columbia... they aren't.
On them being different because they're all on welfare, that doesn't hold true either. Estimates range from liberal claims that illegals absorb $2 billion in welfare to conservatives claiming the number is $19 billion. For the sake of argument, let's take the conservative number. Divide that by the number of illegals and you will find that each is taking on average $1700 a year. BUT Welfare doesn't pay that. According to Heritage Foundation, welfare pays around $28,000 a year. Doing the math, that means that 6% of illegals are on welfare -- compared to 4.9% of the general population using conservatives figures (liberal figures would put them at less than 1%). So the welfare argument isn't really true.
But even more importantly, look at the Texas numbers up thread. Those numbers for Perry were 2 years ago when the national numbers were crashing. Why would Texas Hispanics be immune to the effects on other Hispanics but then suddenly succumb in the 2012 election? It's the fact that the Texas GOP does not support deportation or other anti-illegal alien measures. To me, the evidence is pretty clear that if conservatives mend that fence, they can do what Perry did in Texas and score 38% as compared to 22%. That would mean the destruction of the Democratic party in a half dozen purple/blue states.
On blacks, there is never a single cause to any historical event. The problem, IMO, is that after the CRA was passed, the Republicans adopted the dissenters and then the Democrats exploited that rather skillfully.
Andrew
ReplyDeleteI agree that the drug Cartels are not a huge issue for Americans although they are a real issue in border states that should not be ignored.
They are however a huge issue for the country of Mexico where they run the government. I beleive that the Coyotee's must have strong ties to the Cartels and many of the illegals being brought accross the border are tied to that. This indadvertandly makes it out problem because it weakens Mexico as a trading partner.
The depressed situation in Mexico is potentially due to our immigration policy. That policy of amnesty is supported by the Mexican government becasue it solves the headache of dealing with their people. It also from what I am told nets them 30 billion I remember reading. It did not say where it was from, welfare, wages etc. That 2 to 19 billion comes from probably mostly California. I don't know what the dollar figures are but it is the headcount that matters most.
Welfare is segregated. Projects will tend to be one race despite that fact that the poor on welfare are fairly uniform. Whites, blacks, hispanics. When you create these single race ghettos it is easy to manipulate the people there and it enhances xenophobia. You can convince people the man is putting them down. When a race of people are a larger percentage of the projects such as blacks (40%) on welfare for many years since the Great Society it is easier to convicne them that the government is required to provide for them. Thus Dems gain a base that can't afford to abandon them if they want to.
I can only hope that you are right and that many of the hispanics are becoming more affluent and entering the middle class. But California and other states are getting illegals to flock there for benefits and should they create a large welfare class they can segregate the poorest of that minority and control them as well. I think the dem pols know this and encourage it.