Will the GOP ever appeal to Minorities?

[redcommander]

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

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

[redcommander]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[redcommander]

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

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

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