What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[Derek]

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

[Derek]

As a very conservative/libertarian Republican, I'd love to see my party support almost open borders and English classes for those who migrate from Mexico and other places.  Another thing the party could do is support affirmative action programs to help with getting into colleges and schools.

[Derek]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

First of all, the GOP is NOT the fiscally conservative party if you look at the fiscal records of the last five Presidents before Obama. Thus, I don't think the GOP would be able to appeal too well to fiscally conservative minorities. Secondly, even though Bush talked about a lot of important minority issues in 2000, he still didn't do very well in winning the votes of any minority group.

You have a point. Bush didn't do well among them. Further, I would like to point out that it's never really been about what benefits minorities. It's always been more about helping democrats get elected to office. My point can be made in the fact that if Obama were a Republican, then the black community would reject him as only being half black and remind us that he was raised by a white woman.

[Derek]

support affirmative action, it actually does help kids in certain areas who just haven't had the family structure to do better. Yes, this is the same Derek who sympathized with McVeigh on another forum on here.

[Derek]

They could drop the racism, but people who are under constant threat are wary, so not easily fooled, and anyway they'd risk losing their core vote - racist whites.  Racism is really their finest trump card, as Nationalism and xenophobia aren't so hard hitting.

And anyway, their economic policy (which is their Raison d'être, the way they serve their masters) is essentially and thoroughly racist, so they wouldn't really be the Republican Party without the racism.

Come on you know better than to believe what you typed.

[Derek]

What about the GOP is racist?

[Derek]

It isn't really surprising. Latino voters already thought that the GOP was against them and illegals before Arizona passed this law, so why would it make a huge difference in how Latinos perceive the GOP?

No, it actually signifies something rather important.  As was previously noted here, Reagan passing Amnesty in 1986 did almost nothing for the GOP among Hispanic voters (Bush Sr. won only about 27% in 88), despite the fact that they supported it.  Now, passing a tough-on-illegals bill has also done next-to-nothing (at least for now anyway).

I think this means that what's dragging the GOP's share among Hispanics down is not the tangible immigration policies that they produce, but rather the perception that they don't care and/or are racist.

I don't think there's much actual opposition to securing the borders among Hispanics, i just think the Democrats have been successful in turning the immigration question from secure/open borders to support/hate Hispanics, in the same way they portrayed tough-on-crime policies in LA and NYC as being Anti-black.

Wow, I totally agree. Bush actually fought for the Hispanic vote, and won 44%, without which Kerry would have been victorious for sure. I've always thought that if the Republicans really tried, they could win a majority of Hispanics and perhaps even a quarter of blacks over a half dozen election cycles or so.

About a year before the election, I thought that Bush would win the Latino vote. I guess the Latinos really don't care about Miguel Estrada.

[Derek]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

I disagree with your proposed solution--the Biggest problem the GOP has with Hispanics is an image problem, not an issue problem.  If you break it down by issue, Hispanics are remarkably Fiscally Conservative; they supported things like Welfare reform in the 90s, and are highly entrepreneurial and self-relying.  The Problem is that the GOP can't seem to shake the notion that they're "Anti-Hispanic."

I agree with you that it's not really an immigration issue either.  Both the Reagan Amnesty and the Arizona bill had negligible impacts on GOP Hispanic support nationwide.  I think the best bet for the GOP is to do what so many are unwilling to--actually campaign for their votes.  Republicans have a lot to work off of in terms of mutual values and goals, and if they can break the carefully crafted Democratic meme that the Republican party is full of violent racists, electoral gains will follow.

I agree with you. They're fiscally and socially conservative. Republicans just need to address that to them stronger.

[Derek]

End slavery and pass the Civil Rights Act.

Oh wait...

After that ^ close this thread. Well said PA, well said.

[Derek]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

I disagree with your proposed solution--the Biggest problem the GOP has with Hispanics is an image problem, not an issue problem.  If you break it down by issue, Hispanics are remarkably Fiscally Conservative; they supported things like Welfare reform in the 90s, and are highly entrepreneurial and self-relying.  The Problem is that the GOP can't seem to shake the notion that they're "Anti-Hispanic."

I agree with you that it's not really an immigration issue either.  Both the Reagan Amnesty and the Arizona bill had negligible impacts on GOP Hispanic support nationwide.  I think the best bet for the GOP is to do what so many are unwilling to--actually campaign for their votes.  Republicans have a lot to work off of in terms of mutual values and goals, and if they can break the carefully crafted Democratic meme that the Republican party is full of violent racists, electoral gains will follow.

The problem is that the GOP ins't fiscally conservative. If you look at the fiscal records of the last three GOP Presidents, they were just horrendous. Thus, if the GOP run as fiscal conservatives, Democrats could just point out that 80% of our national debt was accumulated under the last 3 GOP Presidents and that they only things Republicans do are make us more in debt to China. And GWB campaigned heavily for the Latino vote in 2004 and made a large effort to reach out to the Latino community. Even that didn't help much--Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, in contrast to 35% in 2000. However, keep in mind that the whole country swung 3% GOP in 2004 (relative to 2000), and thus the Latino vote only trended GOP by 2%, which isn't very much. Not to mention that Kerry was just a horrible candidate. I agree that the GOP needs to improve its image among Latinos as well, by a lot. But to be honest I don't think it will help the GOP that much. I mean, the perception of the GOP as racists only emerged in a large scale in the last decade, yet the Democrats have won the Latino vote by large margins ever since the 1930s, way before any perception of the GOP as racist came about (heck, back then the Democrats were perceived as the more racist party).

Isn't freeing blacks from slavery and voting for the civil rights bill enough for you?

[Derek]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

I disagree with your proposed solution--the Biggest problem the GOP has with Hispanics is an image problem, not an issue problem.  If you break it down by issue, Hispanics are remarkably Fiscally Conservative; they supported things like Welfare reform in the 90s, and are highly entrepreneurial and self-relying.  The Problem is that the GOP can't seem to shake the notion that they're "Anti-Hispanic."

I agree with you that it's not really an immigration issue either.  Both the Reagan Amnesty and the Arizona bill had negligible impacts on GOP Hispanic support nationwide.  I think the best bet for the GOP is to do what so many are unwilling to--actually campaign for their votes.  Republicans have a lot to work off of in terms of mutual values and goals, and if they can break the carefully crafted Democratic meme that the Republican party is full of violent racists, electoral gains will follow.

The problem is that the GOP ins't fiscally conservative. If you look at the fiscal records of the last three GOP Presidents, they were just horrendous. Thus, if the GOP run as fiscal conservatives, Democrats could just point out that 80% of our national debt was accumulated under the last 3 GOP Presidents and that they only things Republicans do are make us more in debt to China. And GWB campaigned heavily for the Latino vote in 2004 and made a large effort to reach out to the Latino community. Even that didn't help much--Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, in contrast to 35% in 2000. However, keep in mind that the whole country swung 3% GOP in 2004 (relative to 2000), and thus the Latino vote only trended GOP by 2%, which isn't very much. Not to mention that Kerry was just a horrible candidate. I agree that the GOP needs to improve its image among Latinos as well, by a lot. But to be honest I don't think it will help the GOP that much. I mean, the perception of the GOP as racists only emerged in a large scale in the last decade, yet the Democrats have won the Latino vote by large margins ever since the 1930s, way before any perception of the GOP as racist came about (heck, back then the Democrats were perceived as the more racist party).

Isn't freeing blacks from slavery and voting for the civil rights bill enough for you?

Blacks did vote GOP for decades after the end of slavery. Of course, FDR changed all that. The civil Rights Movement wasn't really a partisan affair. There were plenty of people in both parties  on both sides of the debate. Johnson's emphatic support for it certianly cemented blacks in the Dem camp however. Blacks voting for the Dems today isn't about Civil Rights. It's a rejection of the every man for himself attitude among the GOP.

And which direction has the crime rate gone in black communities since the Johnson administration? How many more babies do we have born out of wedlock? What has happened to the poverty rate among blacks? The black community is a perfect example of what the country would be like if everyone voted democrat.

[Derek]

The GOP should focus on winning the Hispanic, Asian, and maybe even the Arab vote.

For Latinos, I agree that the illegal immigration issue should be downplayed when addressing Latino voters. The GOP supported amnesty for illegals back in the 1980s, yet it didn't help them  very much with the Latino vote afterwards. I think Latinos voted for the Democrats since the 1930s, and I think the main reason is economics, since Republicans were the more socially liberal party up until the 1970s. Even though the GOP has been making a big deal out of social issues lately, that didn't help them win over too many additional Latino votes. Thus, I think the GOP is going to need to move leftward economically if they want to win a significantly larger share of the Latino vote, since "trickle-down economics" just doesn't sell very well to Latino (and black) voters.

I disagree with your proposed solution--the Biggest problem the GOP has with Hispanics is an image problem, not an issue problem.  If you break it down by issue, Hispanics are remarkably Fiscally Conservative; they supported things like Welfare reform in the 90s, and are highly entrepreneurial and self-relying.  The Problem is that the GOP can't seem to shake the notion that they're "Anti-Hispanic."

I agree with you that it's not really an immigration issue either.  Both the Reagan Amnesty and the Arizona bill had negligible impacts on GOP Hispanic support nationwide.  I think the best bet for the GOP is to do what so many are unwilling to--actually campaign for their votes.  Republicans have a lot to work off of in terms of mutual values and goals, and if they can break the carefully crafted Democratic meme that the Republican party is full of violent racists, electoral gains will follow.

The problem is that the GOP ins't fiscally conservative. If you look at the fiscal records of the last three GOP Presidents, they were just horrendous. Thus, if the GOP run as fiscal conservatives, Democrats could just point out that 80% of our national debt was accumulated under the last 3 GOP Presidents and that they only things Republicans do are make us more in debt to China. And GWB campaigned heavily for the Latino vote in 2004 and made a large effort to reach out to the Latino community. Even that didn't help much--Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, in contrast to 35% in 2000. However, keep in mind that the whole country swung 3% GOP in 2004 (relative to 2000), and thus the Latino vote only trended GOP by 2%, which isn't very much. Not to mention that Kerry was just a horrible candidate. I agree that the GOP needs to improve its image among Latinos as well, by a lot. But to be honest I don't think it will help the GOP that much. I mean, the perception of the GOP as racists only emerged in a large scale in the last decade, yet the Democrats have won the Latino vote by large margins ever since the 1930s, way before any perception of the GOP as racist came about (heck, back then the Democrats were perceived as the more racist party).

Isn't freeing blacks from slavery and voting for the civil rights bill enough for you?

Blacks did vote GOP for decades after the end of slavery. Of course, FDR changed all that. The civil Rights Movement wasn't really a partisan affair. There were plenty of people in both parties  on both sides of the debate. Johnson's emphatic support for it certianly cemented blacks in the Dem camp however. Blacks voting for the Dems today isn't about Civil Rights. It's a rejection of the every man for himself attitude among the GOP.

And which direction has the crime rate gone in black communities since the Johnson administration? How many more babies do we have born out of wedlock? What has happened to the poverty rate among blacks? The black community is a perfect example of what the country would be like if everyone voted democrat.

And dirt-poor white areas in the rural South are the perfect example of what the country would look like if everyone voted GOP.

What's their crime rate? Wedlock births? That's a bad example anyways.

[Derek]

No, if the whole country voted GOP it would look more like Cherokee county GA.  Rich, Suburban, Pro-business, and Socially Conservative.

Exactly it's not like the poor whites in the south vote GOP anyway.

[Derek]

Yeah, freedom and civil rights acts mean nothing. It's all about more welfare benefits from the New Deal

Yes the democrats learned how to manipulate minorities with that and now look at the crime rate and out of wedlock births. How are those democrats working for you?

[Derek]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

[Derek]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

[Derek]

They're able to obtain jobs because they get paid minimum wage or less under the table. When suggesting amnesty and affirmative action I was saying more where I stand than where my party should stand. I happen to oppose the GOP on those issues. If it's not popular with my base, I can bring up how it would be easier to track them through the FBI that way.

[Derek]

They're able to obtain jobs because they get paid minimum wage or less under the table. When suggesting amnesty and affirmative action I was saying more where I stand than where my party should stand. I happen to oppose the GOP on those issues. If it's not popular with my base, I can bring up how it would be easier to track them through the FBI that way.

If the GOP is going to support amnesty and AA, then it's going to alienate its base without gaining many minority votes, and thus it is going to hurt the GOP much more than it's going to help.

I know that I'm saying that I disagree with the GOP on policy here but not necessarily strategy.

[Derek]

Again, I restate, simply reach out to the communities during campaigns and while in office. Republicans don't seem to care about their votes (or at least come off that way), not even for purely political purposes.

Reach out to Spanish-speaking media, black media, make sure all campaign literature and speeches, etc. have Spanish translations, speak in front of the NAACP, etc. Even if what a Republican says may anger them (such as welfare hurting the black family), every election a few blacks will trickle over to the Republicans (thinking, "Hey, he may be right").

If the Republicans were able to win just 25% of the black vote, think of how many razor-thin Democratic Senate and House victories would have become Republican victories.

If the GOP had 25% of the black vote, I don't think you'd have more than 100 democrats in the house or more than 40 in the senate. I'm not sure we'd have another democrat in the white house for 25 years either. Taking 15 points from the black community would completely change how the democrats campaigned at the federal level.

[Derek]

The sad fact is that blacks and hispanics, being poorer and paying little income tax on average, are going to vote for the candidate that gives them the most handouts. Republicans would never be able to offer more handouts than the Democrats. Republicans would have to completely alter their traditional ideology to do that. Asians are different, but there are too few of them to matter and they are concentrated in blue states like California anyway.

Here's the real question we should be asking: What should Republicans do to boost their share of the white vote to sufficiently offset the increase in minorities?

That is a good idea. Whoever runs in 2012 could portray Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with the common man. He's one of them and not one of us. That will send a message that no one talks about but is in the back of everyone's mind. By one of them I actually mean he's a Washington insider who extends the tentacles of Washington into the rural areas of the south and midwest, but the phrase can be taken either way. Being a called a racist will only fall on ears within the factions who are already voting for Obama.

[Derek]

The sad fact is that blacks and hispanics, being poorer and paying little income tax on average, are going to vote for the candidate that gives them the most handouts. Republicans would never be able to offer more handouts than the Democrats. Republicans would have to completely alter their traditional ideology to do that. Asians are different, but there are too few of them to matter and they are concentrated in blue states like California anyway.

Here's the real question we should be asking: What should Republicans do to boost their share of the white vote to sufficiently offset the increase in minorities?

I'm pretty sure the GOP has close to 100% of the white male vote.  The only demographics worth fighting for are white women and hispanics.  That is why McCain picked Palin, because he wanted to win White Women voters, but Palin was perceived largely as inexperienced and unintelligent,and not ready for VP or president.  Any other female Senator or Governor can win more women voters.  Meg Whitman could easily win California and become president in 8 years.

Actually McCain only had the white male vote by about 10 points. He was in the mid 50's.

[Derek]

Yeah, that's a ridiculous claim. McCain won the white male vote only by about 57-41.

If whites voted as a bloc the way blacks do, they'd decide every election.

I really don't understand why you think the "Whites" would all vote for one candidate such as the GOP candidate.  So, 60% of the country should just vote for the GOP nominee because that person is also white?  Blacks voted for Obama because they hoped he would have an ear for their concerns and issues, not just because he was Black.  Its not about race or racism, its about trusting that person to listen to your voice.  So its ludicrous to think that Whites should not vote for Obama because he is Black or that he won't listen to Surburban white voters. 

In the past elections, there has been 2 white guys, and the White voters didn't have to vote as a bloc!  They actually could decide between 2 candidates not just based on skin color!

He talked about whites voting in a bloc because you said McCain won nearly 100% of the white male vote, which was completely inaccurate. And the GOP would fail if it tries to appeal to poor minorities, since those groups feel that the GOP doesn't care about them and have felt that way for decades. Thus, it is too late for the GOP to try changing their views. And a lot of blacks did vote for Obama (especially in the primaries) because he was black. If Obama was white, Hillary would have won 70+% of the black vote in the Democratic primaries and less blacks voters would have came out to vote in the general election.

Exactly right. you can't tell me some 94% of the black voting public voted for Obama because of his legislative record.

So why did about 90% of Blacks vote for Kerry and Gore?

I was talking more about the primaries and Obama's race probably did give him several extra % of the black vote in the general election.

Yeah they voted for Obama in the primary because they wanted a black president. Considering there hasn't been one in the over 200 year history of America, I don't think they were in the wrong.

So racism is okay when blacks do it?

Yep just ask the Justice Department and look at how they handled the new black panther party from the last election.

[Derek]

Republicans have shown that they can win without any minorities, but that era is fading. Simply supporting affirmative action isn't going to cut it unfortunately. Call for "open borders" with guards who let people easily and amnesty. Also, alot of my conservative counterparts don't realize this but amnesty allows more foreigners to be tracked as opposed to now where the government doesn't know exactly who is who within the illegal community.

I have explained this 100 times. You don't concede, you fight. The pressure groups who control minority votes will never support Republicans. You have to break their grip on those votes. You have to prove to them that they are self serving and not looking out for their best interests.

I won't go into detail on the Amnesty thing (I just did recently). The people pushing amnesty know damn well that future illegal immigration will be encouraged and they will demand yet another amnesty. These groups have been hindering enforcement operations and demaning amnesty since the when the ink had barely dried on the Reagan Amnesty. You are naive or unaware of the history if you think that we won't be having this same arguement 15 years from now. It never changes, it has been their game since the 60's. They won't machine voters, not good policy. I'll be damned if I sign of a bill that only benefits these groups and big agribusiness. It will do nothing for the immigrant who came here legally, the next wave of illegals who will be exploited, the victim of ID theft, and most certainly not the country at-large. My view is the "compassionate" view not the open borders one.

Oh and I please don't hit me with that "you can't round them up crap" because  I already went through why that is not necessary two days ago. Go dig for it.

Its not going to be easy, its going to take courage and effort. Simply changing one position is not going to do it. Bush promised everything under the son and got to 44% of Hispanics, 1% more among African Americans (I will note we are still in the mid 30's among Hispanics about 10% better then Dole's performance in 1996) but it was unsustainable and the promises impossible. A different approach is needed.

I'm against promising handouts. That does seem to be the mentality that alot of minorities have fallen under. What are your disagreements with affirmative action though? I'm against the way that the University of Michigan did it but other than that I'm a supporter.

I am mixed on Affirmative Action. I think most of it should be shifted from just race based to race+poverty. The arguement is that minorities have been hampered economically through because of discrimnation so it would make sense to just focus on poor minorities instead of all minorities.

How about making AA just based on financial status? That way, wealthy minorities can be excluded and poor white people can be included.

Thats a possibility.

That way, affirmative action will actually become fairer. Even though racial discrimination created large income gaps in the past (which still exist today), many minorities nowadays are pretty wealthy and many white people are still poor. Thus, if race has any focus in affirmative action, many poor white people with good grades/academic records could get rejected from a certain college or job just so that wealthy minorities with worse grades/academic records could take those jobs. That's called reverse discrimination. The only way I would support affirmative action is if it was based entirely on financial status and 0% on race.

What about affirmative action including the top 10% of each graduating class?

[Derek]

How the hell is that racism?

It's racist because because you said that they were voting for someone based on their race.

Some of them (let's remember about 90% of blacks vote for the democrat regardless of race) were voting just to get the first black president. If the first black nominee was Republican, I am guessing he would have got about 25-30% of the black vote.

Actually, he probably would have gotten a strong majority of the black vote if he was perceived to have a chance at victory. Remember, as soon as Obama won Iowa, at least 75% of blacks voted for him in SC, and then over 80% voted for him then on.

Which, BTW, I wouldn't look down on them for doing. The symbolism is a big deal.

Primaries are different from the general election. The black electorate would overwhelmingly disagree with whatever the black nominee for the GOP would want to do. If it was to make him the first black president, sure a lot of them would vote for him but it wouldn't be a majority. And now that Obama has become president, the chance of a black republican nominee getting a large portion of the black vote has gone down.

He would be crucified as a traitor even though the GOP would be better with putting black history into text books.