“By 2030, the Latino share of the vote in America is likely to double,” former George W. Bush administration speechwriter Michael Gerson noted. “Some Republicans seem to be calculating that this influence can be countered by running up their percentage of support among white voters. But this is not eventually realistic, because non-college-educated whites are declining as a portion of the electorate. And it is disturbing in any case to set the goal of a whiter Republican Party. This approach would not only shrink the party, it would split it. Catholics and evangelicals, who have been central to the Republican coalition, cannot ultimately accept a message of resentment against foreigners. Their faith will not allow it.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- mrbill on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
47 Comments
Da ‘publikan party dont kare bout no furiners, cause dem furin folk dont be white, an any ‘publikan no if a ‘publikan aint white, he no ‘publikan. Jes asks dat fat boy, rush, he white an he no eberting.
I don’t usually agree with Brownlee, but he’s right. For the most part, the strident voices in political life that he could characterize as anti-Latino are in states or districts where there are relatively few such voters and it is not a risky position to take. However, it hurts the party’s image in plenty of places that matter to success nationwide and it’s not a winning strategy looking forward.
Hispanics, generally, are devout in their religion, intensely focused of family, predisposed to be against abortion, hard-working, and would just as soon have to deal with the government as little as possible. They’d surely be ripe candidates to join the Repubic Party.
But “They’s brown an’ they talk funny!” is the GOP’s response. And so, unacceptable.
As we learned during the Sotomayor brouhaha, CONs are absolutely tone-deaf about Latinos. They don’t seem to get there’s a difference between southern California Hispanics, the cultures of Juarez as opposed to Tex-Mex, Cubanos in Florida, Puerto Ricans, or Miss Venezuela (who always wins Miss Univers; why is that?).
CONs toss around “RINO” epithets so frequently at any person group or issue that doesn’t suck up to Angry White Man crankiness, they seem hellbent to throw out of their political movement anyone who comes close to making them cranky.
The religious nutjobs who do their evil in the name of god are very loud representatives for the Republican Party. They are not quite as easily identified as The Westboro Baptist Church but just as toxic and evil. People who aren’t heterosexual, who aren’t white, who don’t believe creation is science, who make difficult reproductive decisions, etc., are hated and ostracized in the name of god by these extremists.
Many of these stances don’t even belong in the body politic. But Reagan began and Rove perfected the using of these people’s prejudices. The Republican Party made promises they never intended to keep to turn out the vote. Now they’re stuck with them!
According to a recent Rasmussen Report, Democrats now enjoy a 5.4 percentage-point edge over Republicans.
Party Affiliation September 2009:
Republican 32.1%
Democratic 37.5%
Unaffiliated 30.3%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends
The biggest problem I see for the Republican Party with the above figures is that someone who would appeal to the ‘base,’ which includes these religious nutjobs, won’t appeal to Independents. Someone who may appeal to Independents won’t be nominated by the ‘base.’
Wow, that was a tremendous amount of bullsh*t in one post, Linda. Time to come up for air hon.
lindainks55
Posted October 10, 2009 at 7:49 am | Permalink
The religious nutjobs who do their evil in the name of god are very loud representatives for the Republican Party. They are not quite as easily identified as The Westboro Baptist Church but just as toxic and evil. People who aren’t heterosexual, who aren’t white, who don’t believe creation is science, who make difficult reproductive decisions, etc., are hated and ostracized in the name of god by these extremists.
—————–
The secular nutjobs who do their evil because they are evil, are very loud representatives for the Democrat Party. They are not quite as easily identified as Stalin, but just as toxic and evil. People who aren’t in total agreement of homosexual rights, who aren’t rainbowy, who don’t believe evolution is true, who don’t kill babies in utero, are hated and ostracized in the name of tolerance.
There Linda. Fixed it for you. Good morning to you too. Off to a great start aren’t we hon?
What part of my post do you disagree with, outlander, and why? Or did you just need an opportunity to criticize a fellow blogger and I was handy?
Before you start your normal accusations — I respect and revere Christians and all people of faith and belief systems of their choosing who do the work of their God.
Do you think such work as that done by Fred Phelps is the work of God? Perhaps that’s where you find disagreement me? He is well known, there are others like him with their own ’causes’ who aren’t.
I see, outlander. I was posting while you were or would have not continued the discussion. For my part, I will leave it that we each have an opinion and both are as good and as useless as the other.
We’ve been overandover the issue of abortion and overturning Roe v Wade. No opinion has changed, just as making abortions illegal again wouldn’t stop them from happening.
But good luck making that your goal and casting your vote on the issues of abortion, sexual persuasion and evolution vs creation.
lindainks55
Posted October 10, 2009 at 8:17 am | Permalink
What part of my post do you disagree with, outlander, and why?
————–
Sorry Linda, but how stupid are you? You begin with a full frontal attack on everything and everyone conservative or religious and then you ask “what part of my post do you disagree with?
Oh, I know, you were just expressing your opinion. Well, hon, I just expressed mine.
I used to think better of mr. outlander.
My mistake and I won’t make it again. He’s a little BETTER at disguising his status as a fruitcake. But a complete religious whacko none the less. I wonder how he would feel to know that it is people just like him who make me want to get as far away from their “god” as possible?
As to the Latino vote, I believe progressives make a bad bet in letting in as many invaders as possible in hopes they will eventually vote our way. They are hurting American working people NOW. There is no guarantee they will stray from their faith and vote with us and their own best interests in the future. It is very difficult to get between people and their …primitive….beliefs.
I say this with all due respect, BJ, but your digital character is a delusional lazy idiot who does nothing but complain. Sorry, but Linda set me off this morning.
Good for her getting under your oh so sanctimonious skin out of this worlder.
And you forget mr. outlander. I’ve met you.
If those hands have ever done anything but handle a bible and count money, it don’t show.
Well I originally wrote something nasty but am deleting it. Replacing with:
As a working person, I can tell you that you are full of it. And as hard as it is to say this;
God does love you and as a follower I have no choice but to as well.
Well darn, that’s the part I wanted to see! I find nothing more educational and gratifying than to find out what the faithful are REALLY made of. I can get the KG 5 phraseology outta their old book. Cracking the colorful candy shell of one of the believers? THAT’S exploration.
Well BJ, Christians are not to be prisoner to the natural man and our evil thoughts, but to be transformed through Christ’s power and renewed. We don’t always do a great job of it, especially if we have been up most of the night.
Catholics and evangelicals, who have been central to the Republican coalition, cannot ultimately accept a message of resentment against foreigners. Their faith will not allow it.”
–
What??? These are the very people who are driving the hate-filled rantings of Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Palin, Baachman and others.
The so-called Catholics and evangelicals in the GOP profess to be people of faith but by their actions – I seriously have doubts. these are the people who sit in their church pews and look down on everyone else.
Just saying beautiful prayers and singing a beautiful hymn does not make you a person of faith.
outlander
Posted October 10, 2009 at 8:48 am | Permalink
Well I originally wrote something nasty but am deleting it. Replacing with:
God does love you and as a follower I have no choice but to as well
–
Hey, outie, look up in your Bible and see what it says about evil thoughts in one’s heart.
Seems to me like your original thought of writing something nasty is how you really feel and then you decided to ‘play nice’.
But we’ll see with your next posting if you go back to being nasty. If you do, then just mouthing the words that God wants his followers to say is not your real thought – is it?
I wonder if God likes people who use His name only to make themselves look better?
Just saying beautiful prayers and singing a beautiful hymn does not make you a person of faith.
————
That’s true, Chas. And regarding evil thoughts, well, as you know, we are to take them captive. As fallible humans, we don’t always do that.
Damn, “outlander” –
What am I?
Chopped liver?
If you’re looking for a virtual hug Monkey, forget it.
“Sorry Linda, but how stupid are you? You begin with a full frontal attack on everything and everyone conservative or religious and then you ask “what part of my post do you disagree with?”
I said I would end my part of this conversation, but changed my mind. I am not stupid, that is only your opinion of me.
I never equated religious nutjobs with everyone conservative or religious — you made that leap. I know from personal experience that people of faith aren’t well represented by these religious nutjobs! They don’t reflect the kindness / goodness of people, or the love of Christ. I don’t want to understand these people who think about abortion before thinking about how they can help a woman in a difficult place, those who think creation is science, sexual persuasion that isn’t hetero is sinful, and can make any differences in people a valid reason to treat someone as less than another. I certainly don’t want to understand the people who can make those issues political goals above others where politics should play a role.
Linda,
I think your philosophy is somewhat like mine,live and let live,I’m not perfect at it but I try.
GOP shouldn’t drive off Latino vote??
Yes, they should!!!
they are ilegale kick them out of here where is America I was born and raised in. You tore it down now it is mexican and china we are not the USA any more.
1. Brownlib, let’s not forget to add to your STORY, the fact that Mel Martinez is the Big Symbol of your linked article, and that
2. Mel Martinez left the Republican Party to go lobby for the Defense Industry. Thus, no great loss, unless you think money hungry bass turds belong in Congress.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/09/mel-martinez-joins-lobbying-firm.html
Oh, and lastly…
3. Anytime YOU quote “some Republicans” then you have ZERO credibility. Name names or cite sources Phil, or Some may think You are Full of Bull.
Latinos are moving away for the racist concept of being low educated and lacking any real work knowledge.
They were of no real threat to the average American as long as they were just the beasts of the fields.
But as they have grown into other occupations that are more in the technical fields of labor.
Skill craftsmen, electrical, plumbing and carpentry, they power within the society is also growing.
But as a race they do tend to be more in line with the more conservative ideology.
Pushing them out of the Conservative agenda is another indication of the self destruction of the Conservatives.
Whites do tend to be more center and right leaning, but the race is becoming less the power brokers.
As the ascension of what has been wrongly call “Minorities” in the country continues to grow.
Whites are the minority in the case of white verses those who are not white.
This is causing real fears within the White race and as a result there are some who feel the need to fight back. Sadly if it is the Republican party then that means the end is within sight.
Whites are the minority in the case of white verses those who are not white.
————————-
Uh huh…
Time for some more weed.
Johnson after you get back from the “roll your own” trip, what is meant by that is that though Whites make up the largest of any one race in America. They are the minority when it comes to the combined numbers of non-Whites.
When the day comes that all non-Whites realize they have a common foe in the Whites.
They will combine their buying power and numbers to unseat the Whites from singular influence.
In America, the Blacks distrust the Mexicans, the Mexicans distrust the Asians and so none of them get together to stand against the White influence.
Enjoy your buzz dude!
Got any facts to back-up your racist assertions writerdog?
I love it how writerdog makes such sweeping generalizations, as if everyone of the same skin color thinks alike.
What do you call it when someone makes sweeping generalizations based on someone’s skin color?
Writerdog does sound so profound, though, in his own little racist dope-smoking world.
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 10, 2009 at 7:44 am | Permalink
Hispanics, generally, are devout in their religion, intensely focused of family, predisposed to be against abortion, hard-working, and would just as soon have to deal with the government as little as possible.
—————————-
More sweeping generalizations, lumping all Hispanics into one neat little box. Any facts to back that up?
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 10, 2009 at 7:44 am | Permalink
They don’t seem to get there’s a difference between southern California Hispanics, the cultures of Juarez as opposed to Tex-Mex, Cubanos in Florida, Puerto Ricans, or Miss Venezuela (who always wins Miss Univers; why is that?).
========================================
Gasp? Oh please Monkeyhawk, splain the differences between these folks.
You just got done lumping all Hispanics into ONE Box, now you say there a bunch of little Hispanic boxes.
Nice display of Liberal Racism on this topic. Thanks Monkey and Writer for exhibiting racisim so clearly.
BlueJay
Posted October 10, 2009 at 8:36 am | Permalink
As to the Latino vote, I believe progressives make a bad bet in letting in as many invaders as possible in hopes they will eventually vote our way.
—————————————————-
Ah, here’s One Lib who is being a little more honest in his racism, and desire to EXCLUDE some Americans from his lil party.
Democrats talk about wanting a United and Inclusive America, but their actions are racist, as described by several of their posts on this topic.
The Democrats are clearly expressing a desire for different treatment based on skin color, while calling Republicans racist, and accusing them of not wanting to include Hispanics in their party.
Admit it BJ, you don’t like Obama much either, do you?
“Ah, here’s One Lib who is being a little more honest in his racism, and desire to EXCLUDE some Americans ”
What Americans did I exclude yappy?
Hire illegal labor do you?
You don’t like immingrants and you don’t like Obama, admit it BJ.
I don’t like the exploitation of refugees that perpetuates their own suffering and hurts American workers.
Why do you like illegal labor? Saves you working for a living?
“And it is disturbing in any case to set the goal of a whiter Republican Party.”
Not as long as the South and stupid white men hold out.
Oh wait…
More than the maintaining of the Republican Party as one of old white men (they’re gonna die!), I see what Goldwater wisely warned of as being a problem threatening not only Republicans but all Americans.
———–
“I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.”
While some Americans might find Goldwater’s stand against all interaction between religion and politics too sweeping, many would agree with his strong commitment to individual freedom of conscience on issues as diverse as religion in schools, gay rights or abortion. In 1994 he told The LA Times, “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.”
Goldwater, an Episcopalian, had theological differences with greedy TV preachers. “I look at these religious television shows,” he said, “and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million – they brag about it. I don’t believe in that. It’s not a very religious thing to do.”
But Goldwater was also deeply worried about the Religious Right’s long-term impact on his beloved GOP. “If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet,” he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, “they could do us in.” In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, “When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”
But most importantly, Goldwater was deeply concerned about the Religious Right’s relentless war on the Constitution and basic American freedoms. In a Sept. 15, 1981 senate speech, Goldwater noted that Falwell’s Moral Majority, anti-abortion groups and other Religious Right outfits were sometimes referred to in the press as the “New Right” and the “New Conservatism.” Responded Goldwater, “Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.”
Insisted Goldwater, “Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . . “By maintaining the separation of church and state,” he explained, “the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?”
Goldwater concluded with a waning to the American people. “The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,” {he said,} “unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now” {he insisted}. “To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”
outlander
Posted October 10, 2009 at 9:16 am | Permalink
Just saying beautiful prayers and singing a beautiful hymn does not make you a person of faith.
————
That’s true, Chas. And regarding evil thoughts, well, as you know, we are to take them captive. As fallible humans, we don’t always do that.
==============================================
Sorry Outlander… I havent posted to this thread until now!!! Are you floundering so much, you dont know who it is you are quoting, or what???
Carry on…. I’m off of this link… just so you know I am not posting here, except for this…. bye now!!
Illegal Hispanics are not refugees. They are not fleeing for their lives from the government or another ethnic group like those in Africa. They freely chose to break the law(s).
“As to the Latino vote, I believe progressives make a bad bet in letting in as many invaders as possible in hopes they will eventually vote our way. They are hurting American working people NOW.”—BlueJay
Damn BlueJay….that is the smartest thing I have ever heard you say, even if you have some underlying wrong reasons to go along
I am not against LEGAL immigration, and I like the Hispanic culture, but we must control who comes into the country to protect our country.
Congratulations!!!
JimDumbbo, look up racism’s definition, then get back to us, okay?
I just happened to scan upthread and discovered a couple of “JimJohnson’s” noon-hour posts.
If you’re still interested in a response, “JimJohnson,” I will respond.
Otherwise, I won’t bother.
I don’t think that many people ever consider the ideal that what Latinos, Hispanics also bring into the U.S. is more political parties.
Following the general election of July, 2006, Mexico had eight nationally recognized political parties by the Federal Electoral Institute.
National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, PAN)
nstitutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI)
Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, PRD)
Labor Party (Partido del Trabajo, PT)
Ecologist Green Party of Mexico (Partido Verde Ecologista de México, PVEM)
Convergence (Convergencia, formerly Convergencia por la Democracia)
Social Democratic Party (Partido Socialdemócrata)
New Alliance (Nueva Alianza)
Regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat it is foolish to believe that they will follow your party affiliation.