THE MYTH OF HISPANIC (GOP) VOTERS
For months I’ve been bringing you articles and opinions from “Conservatives”, writers, and blogs who declare there is no racism against Hispanics. Well, here is yet another in that series, that proves them wrong. Kudos to Harold Hutchison (and his new job) at Called As Seen, for picking up on this City Journal article by Steven Malanga “…When facing up to the feeble national numbers, most observers claim that the Hispanic vote is still important in swing states where the Hispanic population concentrates…In Arizona, though Hispanics make up 17 percent of the state’s population (and 28 percent of voting-age adults), they constituted just 13 percent of voters in 2004. Bush, who won the state by 210,700 votes (including 103,700 from Hispanics), would not have lost Arizona even if his opponent, John Kerry, had won every Hispanic vote.
The Arizona vote points to another fallacy about Hispanic political power: namely, that a liberal immigration policy will win voters for the Republican Party, and not cost it any. In fact, polls suggest that Bush’s immigration policy might cost more votes than it gains.
Consider: in 2004, 78 percent of the Arizona electorate (1.74 million voters) told pollsters that immigration should either stay at current levels or decrease. One can only imagine how those voters would have reacted in the summer of 2004 if the president had introduced an immigration-reform bill similar to this summer’s, which offered a path to citizenship for some 12 million illegals along with vastly expanded legal immigration slots in order to clear up the nation’s backlog of visa applications.
Given what the voting numbers show us, it’s unlikely that Hispanics will become an important voting bloc as soon as many predict. And by then, Hispanic citizens might find that an immigration policy based on enforcing borders and increasing the number of better-skilled immigrants, which many Republicans advocate, actually benefits them. For one thing, recent economic studies show that the country’s current levels of immigration are hurting immigrants who are already here—and they hurt native-born Hispanics more than most U.S. residents…
But much of the commentary on Hispanic voting power tends to ignore such issues, focusing instead on Hispanic voters’ supposed anger at Republicans and comparing it with black voters’ desertion of the party after key Republicans opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. But the analogy hardly stands up. For one thing, American blacks were striving to obtain rights already guaranteed in the Constitution, but denied to them. By contrast, American Hispanics encounter no such widespread and organized discrimination. The current immigration debate is not about denying them anything, but about dealing with those now here illegally and those yet to come….”
The Arizona vote points to another fallacy about Hispanic political power: namely, that a liberal immigration policy will win voters for the Republican Party, and not cost it any. In fact, polls suggest that Bush’s immigration policy might cost more votes than it gains.
Consider: in 2004, 78 percent of the Arizona electorate (1.74 million voters) told pollsters that immigration should either stay at current levels or decrease. One can only imagine how those voters would have reacted in the summer of 2004 if the president had introduced an immigration-reform bill similar to this summer’s, which offered a path to citizenship for some 12 million illegals along with vastly expanded legal immigration slots in order to clear up the nation’s backlog of visa applications.
Given what the voting numbers show us, it’s unlikely that Hispanics will become an important voting bloc as soon as many predict. And by then, Hispanic citizens might find that an immigration policy based on enforcing borders and increasing the number of better-skilled immigrants, which many Republicans advocate, actually benefits them. For one thing, recent economic studies show that the country’s current levels of immigration are hurting immigrants who are already here—and they hurt native-born Hispanics more than most U.S. residents…
But much of the commentary on Hispanic voting power tends to ignore such issues, focusing instead on Hispanic voters’ supposed anger at Republicans and comparing it with black voters’ desertion of the party after key Republicans opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. But the analogy hardly stands up. For one thing, American blacks were striving to obtain rights already guaranteed in the Constitution, but denied to them. By contrast, American Hispanics encounter no such widespread and organized discrimination. The current immigration debate is not about denying them anything, but about dealing with those now here illegally and those yet to come….”
In fact, Malanga has co-authored a book with Heather MacDonald who is, in my humble opinion, one of the worst offenders at spreading anti-Hispanic canards and platitudes that are prevarications and reek of racism. Malkin’s Immigration Blog still has a link to MacDonald’s deplorable tome, Hispanic Family Values.
YES MR. MALAGNA, THERE ARE HISPANIC REPUBLICANS
Al Cardenas Hispanic Vista’s Column proves Malanga completely wrong. Evidently Hispanic Republicans want the very same thing “non-Hispanic” Republicans want. Who knew they were just like the rest of us? (anyone with a brain)
“…Ronald Reagan was more than just an appealing candidate. He was a compelling leader capable of uniting and mobilizing economic, social and defense-minded conservatives together in a movement to bring change to our nation. His victories would not have been possible without this coalition. Reagan didn't carry California by running as Hillary-lite.
I know, because I was there. I first joined the "Reagan Revolution" in 1975 after being recruited by David Keene, the current leader of the American Conservative Union, to co-chair South Florida's effort for the Gipper. It was an uphill effort to run against an incumbent President in the post-Watergate era. The battle for the nomination may not have been won in Kansas City's Cow Palace during the summer of 1976, but the war for the soul of our party was. The GOP came to embody conservatives' principles from then on.
We won that struggle because our principles were more important than power. We knew that the passion and emotion that the movement stood for surpassed the "electability" arguments for victory that our opposition was touting as they headed to defeat at the hands of Jimmy Carter. To this day, I remain convinced that Ronald Reagan would have defeated Jimmy Carter in 1976 just as he did four years later in 1980. Elections are best won when they are run on purposes higher than personal gain or victory for victory's sake.
Not since 1976 have I felt a stronger need to put our house back in order; to have a national referendum on who we are and what exactly we Republicans stand for today. A healthy debate on the principles that our party's standard bearer should swear to uphold will ignite a rejuvenation of our base, a rekindling of our spirit and the selection of the right nominee for the presidency.
We are at an inflection point in our history, which deserves serious thought. A presidential primary should be about who can best represent the conservative values that Ronald Reagan and I fought for in 1976, and have ever since. In a few months, this primary election process will be concluded. Voters have precious little time left to ponder the future of our party. Are we in favor of fundamentally strengthening the house that Ronald Reagan built, or are we willing to head in a different direction because of a superficial case for "electability," a case history has proven wrong?
More importantly, can America meet the new generation of challenges by only strengthening its military and economy, without renewing its inner strength? Our conservative principles of faith and family, our unique culture form America's heart and soul. They compose the most important leg of the stool on which America's strength rests.
Those who are making the "electability" argument have either forgotten the lessons of 1976, 1980 and 1984 or were too young to even remember. Who can defeat Hillary Clinton? It's not the Republican most like her.…”
I know, because I was there. I first joined the "Reagan Revolution" in 1975 after being recruited by David Keene, the current leader of the American Conservative Union, to co-chair South Florida's effort for the Gipper. It was an uphill effort to run against an incumbent President in the post-Watergate era. The battle for the nomination may not have been won in Kansas City's Cow Palace during the summer of 1976, but the war for the soul of our party was. The GOP came to embody conservatives' principles from then on.
We won that struggle because our principles were more important than power. We knew that the passion and emotion that the movement stood for surpassed the "electability" arguments for victory that our opposition was touting as they headed to defeat at the hands of Jimmy Carter. To this day, I remain convinced that Ronald Reagan would have defeated Jimmy Carter in 1976 just as he did four years later in 1980. Elections are best won when they are run on purposes higher than personal gain or victory for victory's sake.
Not since 1976 have I felt a stronger need to put our house back in order; to have a national referendum on who we are and what exactly we Republicans stand for today. A healthy debate on the principles that our party's standard bearer should swear to uphold will ignite a rejuvenation of our base, a rekindling of our spirit and the selection of the right nominee for the presidency.
We are at an inflection point in our history, which deserves serious thought. A presidential primary should be about who can best represent the conservative values that Ronald Reagan and I fought for in 1976, and have ever since. In a few months, this primary election process will be concluded. Voters have precious little time left to ponder the future of our party. Are we in favor of fundamentally strengthening the house that Ronald Reagan built, or are we willing to head in a different direction because of a superficial case for "electability," a case history has proven wrong?
More importantly, can America meet the new generation of challenges by only strengthening its military and economy, without renewing its inner strength? Our conservative principles of faith and family, our unique culture form America's heart and soul. They compose the most important leg of the stool on which America's strength rests.
Those who are making the "electability" argument have either forgotten the lessons of 1976, 1980 and 1984 or were too young to even remember. Who can defeat Hillary Clinton? It's not the Republican most like her.…”
OPSE – YET ANOTHER HISPANIC REPUBLICAN! m
Raoul Lowery Contreras is a leading Hispanic Republican. Here’s his most recent debate summery and I think you will discover who he’s rooting for.
“…On the Republican side, we find Rudy Giuliani with 27.2% in the RealClearPolitics.com polling averages, Fred Thompson 22.6%, Mitt Romney9% and Senator John McCain 14%. The others running waste time and space.
McCain was the original front runner but he has run behind for months. He has a chance because of his position on the War; he strongly supports the war in Iraq and the larger War on Terror – in that, he mirrors most Republican thought especially if the war continues to improve for the U.S.
Least likely to win is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Republicans are rare in Massachusetts, despite that he did a fine job. However, his Mormon religion is weighing heavily against him with Christians. The fact that of his five adult sons, not a single one has seen fit to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States combined with Romney’s non-service is the nail in his coffin.
Fred Thompson hasn’t made much of an impact and will likely fade from the scene as we get into serious campaigning. We must also consider that the only photos of Thompson in an American military uniform come by way of his play acting a naval officer in the film "Hunt for Red October."
Rudy Giuliani, former New York City Mayor, brings his strong law and order history as an U.S. Attorney, as an Associate Attorney General and as a Mafia-buster to the campaign. Adding to his tough persona are his anti-terror positions. He has led the pack for a year and leads into the big time Super primaries of California, Florida, New York and New Jersey. His federal law enforcement service serves him well.
He will explode out of those important primary states with the most convention delegates. Giuliani has led the Republican pack in the polls for a year. Will he win the nomination? No one knows, Quien Sabe? The country will suffer if he doesn’t.”
McCain was the original front runner but he has run behind for months. He has a chance because of his position on the War; he strongly supports the war in Iraq and the larger War on Terror – in that, he mirrors most Republican thought especially if the war continues to improve for the U.S.
Least likely to win is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Republicans are rare in Massachusetts, despite that he did a fine job. However, his Mormon religion is weighing heavily against him with Christians. The fact that of his five adult sons, not a single one has seen fit to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States combined with Romney’s non-service is the nail in his coffin.
Fred Thompson hasn’t made much of an impact and will likely fade from the scene as we get into serious campaigning. We must also consider that the only photos of Thompson in an American military uniform come by way of his play acting a naval officer in the film "Hunt for Red October."
Rudy Giuliani, former New York City Mayor, brings his strong law and order history as an U.S. Attorney, as an Associate Attorney General and as a Mafia-buster to the campaign. Adding to his tough persona are his anti-terror positions. He has led the pack for a year and leads into the big time Super primaries of California, Florida, New York and New Jersey. His federal law enforcement service serves him well.
He will explode out of those important primary states with the most convention delegates. Giuliani has led the Republican pack in the polls for a year. Will he win the nomination? No one knows, Quien Sabe? The country will suffer if he doesn’t.”
FINGER SNAP: I now wonder if one of the reasons certain anti-immigration conservatives are hitting the "myth of the Hispanic Republican" so hard is because many might echo Senor (for all you English Only folks) Conteras opinion, and support Rudy Giuliani? Just a thought.
Trackposted to PerrIi Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.">
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
