I agree Ron Paul is a good spokesman, however, most of the Republicans I deal with (which is a lot of people) are much closer to Ron Paul then Hannity.

By eliminating all other races, racism will come to an end.

-Possible Republican presidential strategy in '12.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I guess you mean court Latinos like Nancy Pelosi did a few months ago?

Pelosi Tells Illegal Immigrants That Work Site Raids are Un-American - Political News - FOXNews.com


I really don't understand how Nancy Pelosi's statements meet the wishes of so many Democrats that strongly support unions?

Just because you want it to be true does not make it true. Just because Obama repeatedly warned the opposition would bring up race does not mean that they did. I understand the liberal desire to re-write history on the 2000 and 2004 elections - even though you are wrong. (They were not stolen from you.) But even after winning in 2008, some of you extreme libs are still trying to demagogue a landslide victory. The only guy playing the race card was Obama. McCain and his entire campaign were respectful, honorable, and threatened to immediately cut ties with anyone who dare bring up race - which nobody close to his campaign ever did. Meanwhile Obama was doing the, "They are going to tell you I don't look like other Presidents." tour. But don't let the facts get in the way of your arguement!

The most ignorant among us? College educated, small business owners like myself? Ignorant people who believe in the constitution of the United States? Oh, you must mean the uneducated southerners who oppose tearing the ten commandments off courthouse walls while handing condoms out to eight graders. How dare these ignorant Christians believe they can raise their kids better than the state can. Haven't these knuckle-dragging throw backs to the 1950's seen how great the government has improved public education over the past half-century? What ranking did the US have in 1960? And today?

In the past 50 years liberalism has been one endless stream of colassal failure. Until the minority groups with blind allegiance to the race-baiters and sub-group targeting machine of the Democrat leadership can see the truth things will never improve for them. Black leadership complains about the same problems every election cycle, and then elect the same people that promise to solve their problems every election cycle, and nothing changes. Hello. Wake up! Maybe you are voting in the wrong people.

Conservatives, by definition, do not seperate people into groups. Conservatism targets the smallest minority of all - the individual. Liberals have defined compassion by how many people government is helping. Conservatives define compassion by how many people are independent, and no longer need any help. Therefore, the only way the Republican party can target 'whites' is to abandon conservative values.

__________________
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."

Drive Bias

IMO, the GOP won't get more white votes than it already gets with its current directions given whites differ on policy issues. If a person is white and generally agrees with the policy issues of the GOP, then it already gets their votes. If not, then those whites vote Democrat. If the GOP moved to the centre and triangulated better, it might get more whites, but it actually might not need to do that if it appealed properly to minorities, at least insofar as many social and economic issues given many are socially and/or economically conservative. If it does triangulate with a more attractive and inviting alliance with non-native whites, it could be a powerhouse with white and minority and/or immigrant gains.

George W. Bush was absolutely correct to focus on minorities when he was POTUS. He also was succeeding. And it was inroads with minorities that helped make Bush win not only in 2000 but especially so in 2004.

However, certain very vocal portions of the base attacked Bush and even often foiled his outreach positions, the very thing that helped get him inroads and something that helped Reagan earlier with his amnesty decision, the GOP support thrown to the Cuban emigres for admission, etc. When the GOP did that, it made voters for life because the GOP invited and helped them become Americans and they agreed socially and economically overall. Blacks were loyal GOP voters for generations until the Southern Strategy was employed to court the Dixiecrats who were segregationists.

However, all those inroads have been neutralised and set back by the steady apperance that the GOP is more like the 'Know Nothing' party instead. The code words and issues get read by everyone and people can read right into them. The blacks turned away because they have caught the vibes. So have the Hispanics. So have the immigrants. So have the gays who are also generally an entreprenurish class and can share many GOP points of view on other issues that often did and would vote GOP again if not for the anti-gay vibes of late. And those categories are not mutually exclusive. Anyone with connections, interests and/or benevolence with each of those groups--including whites--likewise more likely than not gets put off by what they see in those areas. Totalling it all up, that is a huge percentage of voters that have been put off, and it's only going to get worse unless the party changes tack given the demographics.

__________________

Change tack? How? Please tell me how this can be done without trying to out-liberal the liberals? The last GOP Presidential candidate supported a bill that would have given fast-track citizenship to 15 million hispanic illegal immigrants - and Obama still creamed McCain with the hispanic vote. Your point is logical, but the current political reality is that minorities believe the Republican's are against them - and no policies, accomplishments, or 'focus' can seem to overcome the GOP stereotype etched into the brains of 3 or 4 generations of African Americans.

Conservatives do not seperate people into groups - and especially not by skin color. The only way to 'reach out' to minorities is to treat them differently than other Americans, which by definition, is not political conservatism. I am insulted by republican's who attempt to reach out by apoligizing to minority groups, claiming the republican party has not done enough. Besides, all the apologies in the world will not change the stereotype passing from generation to generation - and of coarse with help by the MSM.

Republican's do not need to target groups. They need to target conservatives. This is the winning ticket, and always has been:
Poll-Politically Conservative Number Up
40% of Americans describe themselves as Conservative, 35% Moderate, and 21% Liberal

__________________
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."

Drive Bias

IMO, McCain got undone by the hot rhetoric of some of his base against his plans on immigration reform and giving a path to the millions of undocumented people. The 'English Only' pushes and proposed amendments, the harsh comments by many against undocumented immigrants, and plain old xenophobia by many just sent all the wrong vibes. It was really apparent in the GOP primary too where McCain was more or less the lone voice with others heckling him in harsh terms, calling him a RINO, etc, on the topic of immigration. Well, in the eyes of those on the receiving end, if he is a RINO because of that, then that translates the clear message that the GOP is against the things he stood for.

He also silently tolerated divisive rhetoric from many corners against Obama regarding the natural born citizen conspiracy theory, that he was a secret Muslim, etc. Being behind in the polls and getting so much heat from within the ranks for being a so-called RINO, I assume he felt he needed that edge, even if it wasn't from a pleasant source. But, he finally got nervous himself that is was rising to a dangerous and counterproductive level when the rhetoric from many of the base got so hot that he had to tell people he was not a dangerous alien and people even booed McCain for defending Obama on that. They also noticed how he got bashed on the immigration topic throughout the election by many of his own base and that he wasn't popular as a candidate because of it and other views they called 'liberal.'

People pick up on all this stuff, and it makes them feel that it doesn't pay to join with or reward the GOP and/or that there is good reason to be wary whether McCain would follow through on his immigration ideas due to pressure from GOP circles against them. And the precedent was currently existing on that. It wasn't lost on such people that pressures and dissent from many GOP circles, politicians and the base that also undid Bush's efforts to do what McCain wanted to do. Bush had the chance once the Dems took over Congress, but he was again blocked by the GOP membership in Congress, who had blocked it beforehand when they were in charge.

So, given what people witnessed from so many GOP politicians and base members, even against Bush and McCain, the reputation has been established. And it doesn't take rocket science to add that 2+2.


It needs to target groups that have shared conservative social and economic ideals unrelated to groups--that is the winning ticket. The cleanout of the GOP shows that the current path is a way to losing, and it's going to get worse with demographic trends if it does not reconsider.

Also, in what you said also lies a problem IMO--defining conservativism. It's an amoeba right now. Conservativism IMO should have nothing to do with many issues that the GOP currently has placed focus. And it isn't about apologising to people--it's just about people.

Many of the immigrants are socially conservative. Hispanics are heavily Catholic and Pentecostal for example and come from socially and religiously conservative nations. Asians are also generally socially and societally conservative. And immigrants by nature of being immigrants tend to be industrious. They are people who take big risks and move to far away new places in search of opportunity, success and happiness. And they tend by nature to be the most likely to be individualistic and pioneering. Bush and McCain got that aspect. These are people who were prime for the picking for the GOP had the GOP been willing to make Americans out of them and offer handshakes instead of reservations and, in too many cases, spittle.

As for blacks, again, they tend to be socially conservative. But it's just no secret that they also have long picked up on the shift, starting with the Southern Strategy which was aimed directly at courting the very kinds of segregationists who had abused them. Remember, the GOP beforehand was a leader in civil rights along the lines of individualism--every person deserves a fair shot to make or break themselves. That is what the GOP used to represent under Rockefeller conservativism. But that is now gone. And it's not a moot issue. When guys like Katon Dawson of SC nearly won the RNC chairmanship after just resigning his membership in an all-whites club, the 'Good Ole Boys' reputation is there.

And the GOP has done much to help corner the 'Archie Bunker' vote, and this election was no different. Again, it had no problem courting and itching and scratching white voters with racial bigotries and ignorances, all of which were played against Obama on the 'foreigner,' 'secret Muslim,' 'terrorist' etc. And like during the 60s and 80s, it sought to acquire more of them from the Democratic side in places like the swing state of West Virginia where the state--registered 2 to 1 Democrat due to the mine unions--voted at remarkably overwhelming levels for Clinton during the Dem primary with a large number citing that their reason was that Obama was black, or that they feared Obama because of his 'funny name' or that 'he was a Muslim' and other crap that was being fanned and allowed to work its way. Given WV is a Blue Dog/Lunchpail Dem state rather than a Progressive Dem state and overwhelmingly white, that was all that was needed to make the difference. McCain easily won WV in the election. And I saw this all over the place. I'll bet that whilst Obama got an elevated number of blacks to the polls because they wanted to see the first black POTUS, Obama also lost plenty of Dem and independent white votes to McCain because he was black and/or they feared his 'dangerous and/or alien background.' I saw it happen first hand like many others. I'd also wager that Obama might have won a few more states where the races was close and WV where the white population is overwhelming that Obama might have won a bit more had he been white given the winds existing last November.

The problem is that these events also create a blowback effect--who does the GOP appeal to and/or what kinds of people find the GOP appealing in the eyes of those immigrants and minority groups.

Now, without doubt, many whites in the GOP do not harbour such sentiments with many even being embarrassed or keeping a low head by such things being witnessed, but they are not the one winning the vocality and visibility right now, and they need to do so. There is a big fish catch if they do, but the nets have been cast and need to be recast pretty quick. Because no matter how much many of these groups might agree with the GOP on other issues, people will always vote for their loved ones and kindreds first in disputes that implicate them and their welfare.

So, I think the GOP ought to reconsider and adopt the Bush/McCain view because it is right both strategically and on the merits. It would gain plenty of members that will be loyal and grateful for their support of them and also be supportive on so many issues of shared agreement of social and economic issues. If not, then the Dems are going to get them because they will be the ones that helped and supported them for admission and integration. And enough of the guys playing the race/immigrant game angles need to recognise that everyone reads code talk and innuendo. Out of wishful and short term thinking, it isn't just the Archie Bunkers they intend to read into it and everyone else is somehow clueless to it. That wishful and/or short term thinking that helped create the reputation of the GOP as the 'Good Ole Boys/Archie Bunker' club will be a long term problem if the game doesn't change as soon as possible.

__________________

Its good theory, but you're talking about the Stupid Party here you know.

Pro-abortion militants are a broken record. I swear, what the hell is wrong with you people? What did unborn kids ever do to you? Give it a damn rest already.

Hmm, is that correct? Was there a low white turnout? I didn't bother to analyze it that closely. If true that's interesting.

I'm not sure what issues the GOP could use to attract white voters specifically anymore. They have abandoned affirmative action as an issue, are beholden to big business interests so won't propose serious immigration reductions, and crime is no longer perceived as a racial issue the way it was 25 years ago (possibly because most criminals on TV fictional shows are white and the cops are often black). What other issues would motivate whites to vote (and vote GOP) without being perceived as "racist" or using so-called "wedge issues"? Would be tricky even if there was a will to do it.

What's interesting to me is to compare white voters in South Africa and in the US. In South Africa, about 90% of white voters vote for the Democratic Alliance party (similar I suppose to 95% of blacks in America voting Democrat). Most Coloureds (westernized people of mixed race) also vote for the Democratic Alliance, though a sizable minority support the ANC. Its kind of similar to how blacks in the US vote 95% for Democrats, while Hispanics vote about 2 to 1, but not as overwhelmingly as blacks for them too. For some reason minority grous all over the world tend to vote in block and put aside ideological differences while majority groups are less keen to do this (though they do to some extent but much less so). Groups sort of in the middle (Coloureds in SA and Hispanics in US) vote in block but to a lesser extent than the generally defined socially opposite groups. The parallels are quite interesting only the inverse of each other in the two countries. Maybe after 2040-50 whites will all vote 90% in block for one or the other parties.

Minority groups tend to bind in whatever quarters provide them a welcome mat for acceptance and advancement and they can achieve their way up the ladder and/or defend themselves from perceived and/or real threats to their welfare as a group. Take the Irish experience in America for example. For the longest time when anti-Irish sentiments existed and the setbacks they created existed, they were reliably in the pockets of the Democrats because that was the party that courted and supported them for upward mobility and full acceptance. That finally disintegrated once being Irish was no longer a bar to acceptance and advancement and they gradually crossed the barriers and setbacks caused by that. Now it's very common to see people of Irish extraction in the GOP because they share the platforms of it on social and/or economic issues.

The blacks were in the pockets of the GOP for the same reasons. It was the GOP that made it their platform to free them and did, and then wanted to defend and integrate them. But when the Southern Strategy happened, the whole thing inversed and it was the Dems--their long time persecutors and home of anti-black prejudice far more so than the GOP--who opened the doors to them. When other groups pass the gates, then the lines will likewise disintegrate and people will join one or the other simply on account of the regular meat and potatoes issues where each person believes their sentiments lie.

That acceptance and rising course is a half-consecutive, half-concurrent and altogether cause and effect path insofar as acceptance and the rise to regularity. As more acceptance happens, more opportunites happen, and people gradually climb up in the process as the barriers wane. Once basically completed, then the barrier disappears because both the cause and the results have disappeared.

__________________

Immigration is a real issue and it is out of control. Immigrants are brought in legally or illegally because they do work cheaper than non-immigrants, that's the long and short of it, and its not just low end jobs but high end jobs as well. The problem is that their kids or grandkids have the same attitudes as others raised in the US, they want the big bucks and not to work so hard, so every generation millions upon millions more new immigrants need to be brought in. The population explosion has been offset partly by the low native birthrates but the numbers keep adding up and it will eventually take a toll on society in terms of overpopulation, out of control growth, inability to fully assimilate the newcomers, etc.

Polls show majorities of Americans have long wanted reductions to both legal and illegal immigration levels. If parties represented the people BOTH major parties would be advocating reduced numbers, however, the GOP is beholden to business interests that want the immigrant labor and the Dems are beholded to ethnic lobbies and "diversity" fanatics so neither represents the people. The fact the media and the Dems have been able to make a party that does nothing to reduce immigration (GOP) into being perceived as "hostile to immigrants" is really shows the propaganda power of the media, that's about all. Frankly, it just doesn't make sense that the public wants immigration reductions yet at the same time doesn't like candidates who correctly or incorrectly are perceived as supporting immigration reduction.

The exact same thing tends to happen in Europe as well. I honestly can't explain the phenomena. I also can't explain the immigrants themselves not wanting to close the door behind them. I mean people used to move to California from other parts of the US and then get mad when people kept moving here after them from other parts of the US. I would think the same thing would happen with foreign immigrants but it gets tied up with issues of ethnic pride and ethnic politics so that's part of the reason, also they want to bring grandma and grandpa over and other relatives which I think is part of it too. The fact is neither party is for any sort of meaningful immigration reduction.

This is a common interpretation, but I don't think its accurate. The human tendency is to need a tribe to indentify with. I believe in general this is deeper than issues of social or economic exclusion (real or imagined). These Irish and other white ethnics you mention are generally fully assimilated with, lets be honest, the rest of "white America" today and Irish (or Italian or Polish, etc) isn't the defining factor of their self identification. Is the same kind of full assimilation possible when immediately obvious physical features are involved? For whatever reason, people do generally identify with those who share their racial features. We may not like that, but it happens from all groups. I don't think it matters if there is discrimination or exclusion, i think it would happen anyway.

Good post. What you are explaining is a long history of the issue well beyond just today.

It was no different in past generations. We can start at the first big waves of non-English immigrants during the colonial times. People wanted Irish and German Protestants for labour and other means. At the same time, they didn't want them because they weren't from Great Britain and 'were different' in ethnicity, background, language or dialect, culture, etc. And the same old complaints existed then, including the 'both ways' hypocrisy of wanting to exploit them and then resent them being here at the same time as a threat to 'their way of life,' their jobs, etc, as well as petty resentments.

Take this from Benjamin Frankin for example:

Dialog International: Ben Franklin on "Stupid, Swarthy Germans"

The Irish and German Catholics who came in droves during the 1830s-1840s from famines and wars had the same experience, even by those who experienced discrimination themselves beforehand (the Irish and Germans of the colonial period were mostly Protestant).

And it was seen again during the late 1800s and early Twentieth Century with immigrants not only from Ireland and Germany but Scandinavia, Southern and Eastern Europe and China and Japan. Heck, they were fit to be paid a nickel an hour in dangerous hard work, including their children. But they were viewed with the same kinds of classic rhetoric (they are aliens, cannot integrate, won't even learn English, are poor, uneducated and dangerous, are destroying America's fabric, etc).

And you are right--immigrants often do the kinds of work many natives don't want to do, or that there are plenty of businesses that would rather pay immigrants less than what natives believe they are entitled to do.

As another cinematic example, Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York was a classic representation of anti-immigrant sentiment and rhetoric all balled up into one character, e.g.,

"I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers, Irish harps. Do a job for a nickel what a nigger does for a dime and a white man used to get a quarter for. What have they done? Name one thing they've contributed. "

and plenty others such sentiments:

Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Character) - Quotes

It all takes time. But insofar as Europe, I'll give the US one big credit amongst all--IMO it does a better job integrating all sorts of people along the broadest scales from around the world than anywhere else I've seen and in my experience of an immigrant family here that still shares the same community and bonds with others arriving here with the hopes of realising their dreams. And it's destiny all the other minorities will continue to cross the barriers simply because of the way it works by its laws, its format, etc, e.g. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." and the protections afforded in the Constitution, which have been expanding with amendments based upon the further achievement of those goals. Eventually America catches up to its goals when it lets them down because the ideas of the nation always beckon as the conscience and direction of the nation that, when practiced, have never let it down and have always made it better in the end on a personal and national level.

European nations weren't formed and run by ideas of a pooling hodgepodge of people. They have always been established societies of kindred blood and commonalities, something that has inhibited integration of other groups that have arrived in them in recent times. They have been trying too, but the experience is much different.

But the US is, as one young aspiring and rising politician with a swarthy and omni-American ethnic background put it in a 2004 DNC speech, America is the place where "the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name has a place for him too"--and indeed it did, because he is now POTUS, something a person of his partial black background had never yet achieved in the First World.

__________________