Will the GOP ever appeal to Minorities?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What gripes me is that beyond the wackos like Tom Tancredo there is not much of an anti-Immigrant wing the GOP. There is an anti-illegal immigrant wing that includes most of the party but many like Mitt Romney have made clear that they are pro-Immigration and genuinely want to continue legal Immigration but want to end illegal Immigration. If the distinction is made clear I highly doubt anyone would win running as Pro-illegal Immigrant. The trouble is Immigrant groups are inherently mistrustful and b/c of left wing missinformation beleive the GOP to be inherently anti-Immigrant. That is our fault for not articulating our positions better then it is the media's fault for acting like an arm of the DNC.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

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 find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They could if they wanted to.  See what Bush did in 2004, after apealing to latinos, he got over 40% of their vote, not bad compared to usual Republican performance. 

The question is if the GOP will want to pursue latinos, my guess is that, at least for the time being, they are too tied down by the tea party to try to pursue them.

The tea party has nothing to do with the GOP appealing to minorities.

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

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 find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

Yes.  Think you are right about the elitism thing. On immigration, I think its probably a lot like gay rights. Positions on the issues are relative as to rhetoric. Is a candidate who claims they are pro-gay rights because they believe that gay men should be allowed to have sex with each other more gay rights than a opponent of gay rights who just wants to make sure that courts can't force states to accept gay marriage?

Depending on how that is applied to the immigration arguement that really makes  little or no case for the simple reason is that there isn't a single defined way to apply it in your post and thus can be used for either side. The way I think you want it applied is actually a very damning critique of what I think should occur to attract minorities. A long winded way of calling it tokenism. The problem is, in order to accept that premise, you must first accept the notion that hipanics want an open border, unlimited immigration with no restrictions and immediate amnesty for all illegals in the country. I simply don't think that is the case, though that is what certain pressure groups want, but of course they have alterior motives and aren't just about representing there charge.


A fitting and acceptable "compromise" on immigration in general would be to make legal entry more streamlined, and remove some of the hoops to be jumped through. Its also very ideologically compatible since it attacks the bureaucratic beast. On the flip side a realization that some limits based on economic reality (reducing the ratio of unskilled versus skilled workers for instance), and other factors would be the necessary exchange. Sure, you can educate the unskilled, but even that has limits as well based on time and capacity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They could if they wanted to.  See what Bush did in 2004, after apealing to latinos, he got over 40% of their vote, not bad compared to usual Republican performance. 

The question is if the GOP will want to pursue latinos, my guess is that, at least for the time being, they are too tied down by the tea party to try to pursue them.

The tea party has nothing to do with the GOP appealing to minorities.

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

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 find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

Yes.  Think you are right about the elitism thing. On immigration, I think its probably a lot like gay rights. Positions on the issues are relative as to rhetoric. Is a candidate who claims they are pro-gay rights because they believe that gay men should be allowed to have sex with each other more gay rights than a opponent of gay rights who just wants to make sure that courts can't force states to accept gay marriage?

Depending on how that is applied to the immigration arguement that really makes  little or no case for the simple reason is that there isn't a single defined way to apply it in your post and thus can be used for either side. The way I think you want it applied is actually a very damning critique of what I think should occur to attract minorities. A long winded way of calling it tokenism. The problem is, in order to accept that premise, you must first accept the notion that hipanics want an open border, unlimited immigration with no restrictions and immediate amnesty for all illegals in the country. I simply don't think that is the case, though that is what certain pressure groups want, but of course they have alterior motives and aren't just about representing there charge.


A fitting and acceptable "compromise" on immigration in general would be to make legal entry more streamlined, and remove some of the hoops to be jumped through. Its also very ideologically compatible since it attacks the bureaucratic beast. On the flip side a realization that some limits based on economic reality (reducing the ratio of unskilled versus skilled workers for instance), and other factors would be the necessary exchange. Sure, you can educate the unskilled, but even that has limits as well based on time and capacity.

That's what "pushing to the center" would be like for immigration.- Make it safer and easier to come to the United States without neccesarily having "open boarders"...or still staying strong on immigration without  talking about mass deportations or shootings.

Stop with the excessive hyperbole. No one is talking about shootings or even mass deportations.

The arguement is between giving the law breakers a free pass and a slap in the face to those who did it legally or engaging in reasonable enforcement and border controll to reduce the number of illegals through attrition.

Notice I said compromise on "immigration" as in immigration in general and the process by which people can come, not illegal immigration. (I knew this would trap people, especially those who like too conflate the two constantly and exaggerate the position of the opposition. hehehe )

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its not hyperbole. I hear it all of the time from conservatives who believe that illegal immigration should be dealt with by violence. The point is that moral absolutionism does not work with issues like this. The point is that this issue is more than just a bunch of "criminals" commiting illegal acts.

No one serious and relevant is. And just because some nutcase takes such a stupid stance doesn't mean that all of us who want a responsible immigration policy want "to use violence to deal with this issue".


I never said it wasn't more than just a bunch of criminal committing illegal acts but that is the unvarnished truth of what is happening. I will not hessitate to call it like it is on this issue simply because a bunch of identity politics grievance mongers want to manipulate the debate by claiming that such honesty is racist or incompassionate. Which as I have pointed out is part of a purposeful political strategy to achieve an end result, ie Open borders.